And the Henn article is talking about Maghreb popultions not Sahel populations.
When you ignore part of the population in such population structure study, it leads to erroneous conclusion.
For example, Henn doesn't see any African DNA in Ancient time!! He concludes there's no such thing in North Africa. He only sees recent African DNA in North Africa. He attribute all non recent middle eastern DNA mutations to some "native" DNA from some ancient West Asian back migration (but isolated from the rest of west Asia for many years, which he calls "likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry"). We know better. While the Frigi study shows us that there was indeed Ancient black African presence in North Africa. Which may be part of the genome of modern coastal North Africans and even explain part of the DNA erroneously attributed to some ancient autochthonous Maghrebi DNA!
Barbara Henn et. al are not talking about the whole history of North Africa. They are talking about the ancestral backgrounds of the current population. the primary components not every tiny trace detail The theme of the study is back-to-Africa migrations not every aspect of Magreb history from the start.
I clearly just pointed out to you how even part of the coastal North African ancestry (that is part of their DNA) can be erroneously attributed to some "likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry" when you ignore the ancient African ancestry in North Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course the "ancestral backgrounds of the current population" would not include native black North Africans according to lioness productions. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check!!(not mate..as yet) on ESR. MtDNA hg-H is now bicontinental. H* and H3 are Tunisian but H1 is European. Go figure.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's an abstract to a genetic study xyyman may like :
quote: Ancient local evolution of African mtDNA haplogroups in Tunisian Berber populations.
Frigi S, Cherni L, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, Benammar-Elgaaied A. Source
Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Immunology, and Human Pathology, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University El Manar, 2092 Tunis, Tunisia. Abstract
Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
Do I have to summarize? This conclusion points to an ancient African genes flow to Tunisia (a very coastal North African country) before 20,000 BP.
That ancient African genes flow to Tunisia was later diluted by many invasions, conquests, and migrations by Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Bedouins, Spanish, modern Africans, Turks, French, etc.
Notice how they used samples from Berber in Tunisia, Egypt and East African people to draw their conclusion. All samples simply ignored by Henn. You can't do that when you do a population structure study.
As I said in the other thread: That's the reason it's very important to take samples from African (and Berber) people in North Africa in any genetic studies when we want to know about ancient populations. That is it's very important to take samples from every ethnic groups in a region. Even if they now form a minority (or not) due to foreign invasions, migration and admixture. If that Frigi study (the abstract posted above) didn't took samples from those Berber groups in Tunisia, like the Henn did, we wouldn't know that new corroborating information about the African presence in North Africa dating back to 20,000 BP and it's linkage to the eastern Sahara/Sudanic/East Africa region (aka the Saharan-Sahel-Nile Belt).
If we ignore ancient ethnic minority (or not) as done by the Henn study, Native Americans would be left out of history!!!
Same as some people (*cough* Henn *cough*) want to left out ancient black Africans from the North African history!!
Here's again the very restricted samples set used by Henn:
Table S1: Details of the dataset used in the present study.
Population Sample Size Country Reference Morocco - North 18 Morocco Present study Morocco - South 16 Morocco Present study Saharawi 18 Western Sahara Present study Algerian 19 Algeria Present study Tunisian 18 Tunisia Present study Libyan 17 Libya Present study Egyptian 19 Egypt Present study Basques 20 Spain Present study Tuscans 26 Italy HapMap3 Qatari 30 Qatar Hunter-Zinck et al. 2010 Yoruba 26 Nigeria HapMap3 Hausa 12 Nigeria Bryc et al. 2010 Bulala 15 Nigeria Bryc et al. 2010 Fulani 12 Nigeria Bryc et al. 2010 Luhya 25 Kenya HapMap3 Maasai 30 Kenya HapMap3
Completely absurd for a population structure study.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize you are 0 for 4 “debating” with me? Give up while you are behind. I don’t want to run-up the score. I am reluctant to call it a debate since there is no competition. Ha!
-------------------- 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 lioness,: what is the ancestry of Tunisians when you look at the whole popualtion and average it?
xyyman thinks on average Tunisians are primarily African but I suspect that dana believes they are not
This type of thing can confuse parrots
Indeed one must look at the population as a WHOLE. Most of the folks shown here are obviously from the coastal areas and even then, they still look mixed or 'mulatto' types. Of course there are peoples in southern Tunisia that are less mixed and blacker in appearance as Doug M. has shown in his pictures of Tunisians.
Still what modern Tunisians look like has little bearing on how their prehistoric ancestors looked and I seriously doubt they were anything like the light-skinned coastal types today.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Check!!(not mate..as yet) on ESR. MtDNA hg-H is now bicontinental. H* and H3 are Tunisian but H1 is European. Go figure.
Yes and hg H's sister clade hg V is also bicontinental with hg V having a similar distribution range as H and V showing higher frequencies in North Africa than in Europe and particularly in the Tunisian region as well.
Are you aware that the ancestral mother clade hg HV is found in East Africa in Sudan and in the Horn?? The areas of Eurasia where HV is found is in Iran, the Caucasus, and Iran.
The direct ancestor of hg HV is hg R0 which has its highest frequency and diversity in Arabia, specifically southern Arabia and particularly Socotra Island. It's second greatest diversity is in the Horn and in other areas of Eurasia.
The point is even if all these clades are 'Eurasian' in the sense that they originated in Arabia. Arabia is right next to Africa and is largely tropical. Thus these clades originated in populations no different from Africans. Therefore any 'back-migration' would not overall make much difference. Yet many authors seem to give the misconception that 'Eurasian' back-migration means admixture producing a light-skinned 'mulatto' types. That is the propaganda Eurocentrics have been using.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those who still don’t get it. It doesn’t matter what a Tunisian look like. There is a thing called science and based upon CONTEMPORARY(2009/2013) scientific research here are the facts. At the risk of wrath from my Afrocentric brethren.
1. Indigenous North Africans are NOT genetically related to people from the Levant. Regardless of populist belief and eyeballing anthropology. This is based upon CODIS STR, SNPs and Haplogroup lineage. Again I am not sure who they sampled for these studies and what these people looked like. I am going by the data ONLY. Posting pics doesn’t help. I a red-headed Irishman and I will post my pic soon. 2. Their closest genetic relationship is South Saharans. Up to 40% SSA in south Tunisian groups. This is based upon SNP/STR/Haplogroups. Each corroborates the other. 3. South Arabians are an admixture of all Africans types and people from the Levant and further North. That is why South Arabians are related to BOTH Turks and Africans nut Saharans are NOT related to Turks./West Asians 4. Tunisians are supposed to be light complexioned due to the ecological niche they occupy. They should be about the same complexion as the Turks and Syrians although they are NOT Turks and Syrians. 5. The Levant was predominantly African and the population was replaced by Turks/Syrians. The many studies I cited confirm this. There are still remnants of the African presence in the Levant as attested to by Bedouins tribesmen in the Negev desert of Israel. And recent study confirming majority African lineage in indigenous people of the Dead Sea area in Jordan. High frequency of Cameroonian R-V88 and E1b1 in these tribes. 6. There is growing evidence that European woman are migrant Berbers(H1, H3) that migrated to Iberia/Tunisia to the southern shores of Europe >12,000ya.. Which means modern Europeans(especially those to the south) are an admixture of Saharans/Asians and Peoples from the Levant. Again this is confirmed genetically.
As I said. What are written in history books is my LAST source of information. Authors lie or mis-translate!!!! Sometimes deliberately. Science do NOT. But it can be manipulated.
Based upon recent research I am starting to doubt several things written in history books. Eg that Al H /Abu painting showed Yemeni’s were black like SSA purchasing Turks. The Arabic translation confirms that. That is why we should dig deeper and not eyeball. . Peter Underhill et al very much doubt the magnitude and impact on the SSA slaves to Yemeni gene pool.. Also, L Pereira and Cherni study cast doubt on the historical documented size of the Moors expulsion from Spain.
-------------------- 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 Djehuti: IIndeed one must look at the population as a WHOLE. Most of the folks shown here are obviously from the coastal areas and even then, they still look mixed or 'mulatto' types. Of course there are peoples in southern Tunisia that are less mixed and blacker in appearance as Doug M. has shown in his pictures of Tunisians.
Still what modern Tunisians look like has little bearing on how their prehistoric ancestors looked and I seriously doubt they were anything like the light-skinned coastal types today. [/QB]
No one would sat the modern nation of Egypt is somewhat Chinese in ancestry. Yet technically there are 60-100,000 Chinese living there, although a drop in the bucket.
When xyyman is talking about Tunisians he is talking about contemporary Tunisians.
He says that if you take all Tunisians in Tunisia today and average their ancestry their ancestry is primarily African
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes and...?? This would make Tunisians no different from other Maghrebis in that their ancestry is primarily African, yet that does not mean solely African hence their obvious mixed appearance of many in the coasts.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Primarily" means more than 50% at least, probably a little more. If you look at the DNATribes pie chart and tables for North Africa, the region they analyze, more precisely called "the Maghreb", results indicate Maghrebians on average are not primarily African although do also have African ancestry
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes and we know that even less than 10% ancestry from a different group can influence phenotype. So if this is some attempt to prove 'mulatto' or even white types are indigenous to Africa, it ain't working and that's not what Xyman ever claimed.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes and we know that even less than 10% ancestry from a different group can influence phenotype. So if this is some attempt to prove 'mulatto' or even white types are indigenous to Africa, it ain't working and that's not what Xyman ever claimed.
you are not really understanding xyyman. He says these types, who are very common in the Maghreb ARE primarily indigenous. No more debate, he can speak for himself and clarify. He has said it many times on recent threads. If what he is saying is true your terminolgy "white" or "mulatto" may be irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you are not really understanding xyyman. He says these types, who are very common in the Maghreb ARE primarily indigenous. No more debate, he can speak for himself and clarify. He has said it many times on recent threads. If what he is saying is true your terminolgy "white" or "mulatto" may be irrelevant.
I understand clearly what Xyyman is saying and really what he says is not news because folks have been saying the same thing for years now. YES Maghrebis are primarily of African descent but not solely hence their mixed appearance. So don't spin and twist, worm.
quote:
LOL Your comparison of modern Maghrebis with ancient Western Desert Egyptians with faded paint holds no value.
quote:everybody's African
Depends on what you mean by 'African'. All humans are biologically African but not all populations are ethnically African. And not all ethnic Africans have Eurasian ancestry the way Maghrebis do even if primarily their ancestry is African.
We know your twisted game, worm.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Since there are one or two who can follow.. let’s continue. Back to the study.
I assume they write this with the belief that there aren’t any black people or objective white people who can understand this stuff. Admittedly it took me a few years to get it. There are some gems in the study ie dead give away. Talk about a play on words. Damn these people are crafty. Let’s point them out. I hope Dienkess is reading this…..
Quote:
The Nuragic populations appear to be part of a large and geographically unstructured cluster of modern European populations, thus making it difficult to infer their evolutionary relationships. However, the low levels of genetic diversity, both within and among ancient samples, as opposed to the sharp differences among modern Sardinian samples, support the hypothesis of the expansion of a small group of maternally related individuals, a
Translation: That is an outright lie. They hinted at an evolutionary relation ship within the study. They cannot suggest northern Europe because there was no comparable civilization north of Sardinia in Europe. Thus they chose Iberia. Avoiding the geographically closest region ie North Africa, which had a similar civilization. In addition what they are saying is these people later EXPANDED into Europe.
Quote: The population of Sardinia is one of the main European genetic outliers. When compared with populations from all over the world, Sardinians are clearly part of a European genetic cluster. However, they differ sharply from their European and Italian neighbours, SO MUCH SO that they are often excluded from multivariate analyses, lest all other European samples appear identical in comparison and Y-chromosome haplotypes that are rare elsewhere in Europe occur at higher frequencies in Sardinia, and an extensive linkage disequilibrium has been described for autosomal markers. In addition, unusually strong genetic differences are observed among Sardinian communities, both for allele-frequency polymorphisms.
Translation: Sardinians sub-stratum is not European. They are North Africans. Another example of Europeans, yet again, stealing ancient African civilization as their own.
Quote: . These two sequences find no match in comparisons with 92 Africanfrican samples EITHER (data not given). Six haplotypes are shared between modern and ancient Sardinians, representing 61% of the ancient individuals
Translation: strange choice of words…”EITHER” plus, “data not shown” . Looks like they are trying to prove no connection with Africa. Although the data clearly shows a connection.
Quote: All outliers are either populations separated by large geographic distances from the other Europeans ([mainly North Africans and Central Asians), or well-known.
Translation: This is an outright lie. Did they look at a world map and calculated geographic distances? Maybe they thought we wouldn’t. Lioness I know you are mathematically challenge. See notes on Fig 3. the CIRCLE – These European regions are further from Sardinia than North Africa. Estonia, Iceland, Holland, Switzland, etc What is astonishing is they included North African Berbers as Europeans to bring the overall European group closer to the Nuragic. After initially admitting the Sardinians are outliers compared to other Europeans. Man, talk about manipulating data.
Quote: In the multidimensional scaling of Fig. 3, Nuragic Sardinians cluster with the majority of the European populations. Given the small sample size, inevitable in ancient DNA studies, it is at present impossible to infer their evolutionary relationships from mtDNA aYnities. Nevertheless, in relation with ancient samples, Nuragic Sardinians appear more related to the Iberians than to the Etruscans, whose position in the graph is eccentric. Three data points are not enough for a robust generalisation. However, one can at least conclude that Sardinians and Iberians show a greater genealogical continuity with the Bronze-Age inhabitants of the same regions than the Tuscans. To better understand the processes leading to these differences it will be necessary to genetically characterise people who lived in those areas between 2,000 years ago and the present time.
Translation: Enough said, according to the authors they were probably Iberians migrants. Although using the same yardstick …they should be classified as North Africans migrants.
There you have it….any challengers?????
Interesting post man. But I thought the Sardinians were African...
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
And can someone please explain to mw in full detail how tbe Henn study is flawed? Because many people keel saying it is. I don't really agree that it is.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flawed??? Henn study is not flawed. The title is an attention grabber....sensationalism. That's all. She concluded that NAians has no recent admixture with "Middle East" . Recent - less 500y. If there was any admixture it was over 40,000ya!!!!
-------------------- 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 xyyman: Flawed??? Henn study is not flawed. The title is an attention grabber....sensationalism. That's all. She concluded that NAians has no recent admixture with "Middle East" . Recent - less 500y. If there was any admixture it was over 40,000ya!!!!
What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
""We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period"
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
the gap between 30K and 12k is 18K
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa. [/QB]
The region they were studying is the Maghreb region including the Atlas Mountains and the coastal plains of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, over 90% of the population of these countries lives near the coast. Their DNA is different from the Sahelains who are much more West African in ancestry. Look at the two photos of groups of protesters in Tunia a few posts back. many of the average Tunisans look mulatto. From another article Amun-Ra posted you've seen before. Note each haplogroup and the percentages
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate[
E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago. This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from approximately 80% or more in some Moroccan Berber populations, including Saharawis, to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt. Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker".
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Flawed??? Henn study is not flawed. The title is an attention grabber....sensationalism. That's all. She concluded that NAians has no recent admixture with "Middle East" . Recent - less 500y. If there was any admixture it was over 40,000ya!!!!
What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
""We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period"
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
^ that study is based on lies, an accumulation of lies!
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
the gap between 30K and 12k is 18K
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
The region they were studying is the Maghreb region including the Atlas Mountains and the coastal plains of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, over 90% of the population of these countries lives near the coast. Their DNA is different from the Sahelains who are much more West African in ancestry. Look at the two photos of groups of protesters in Tunia a few posts back. many of the average Tunisans look mulatto. From another article Amun-Ra posted you've seen before. Note each haplogroup and the percentages
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate[
E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago. This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from approximately 80% or more in some Moroccan Berber populations, including Saharawis, to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt. Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker". [/QB]
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
the gap between 30K and 12k is 18K
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
The region they were studying is the Maghreb region including the Atlas Mountains and the coastal plains of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, over 90% of the population of these countries lives near the coast. Their DNA is different from the Sahelains who are much more West African in ancestry. Look at the two photos of groups of protesters in Tunia a few posts back. many of the average Tunisans look mulatto. From another article Amun-Ra posted you've seen before. Note each haplogroup and the percentages
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate[
E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago. This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from approximately 80% or more in some Moroccan Berber populations, including Saharawis, to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt. Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker". [/QB]
But still the coastal region is not all of North Africa. And back then I doubt that was the region of North Africa that was mostly populated. There wasn't always a Sahara desert.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Flawed??? Henn study is not flawed. The title is an attention grabber....sensationalism. That's all. She concluded that NAians has no recent admixture with "Middle East" . Recent - less 500y. If there was any admixture it was over 40,000ya!!!!
What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
""We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period"
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
^ that study is based on lies, an accumulation of lies!
Can you mind telling how the study is based on lies? Just asking.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Lakeside cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 years of holocene population and environmental change.
Sereno PC et al.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
quote: Approximately two hundred human burials were discovered on the edge of a paleolake in Niger that provide a uniquely preserved record of human occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene ( approximately 8000 B.C.E. to the present). Called Gobero, this suite of closely spaced sites chronicles the rapid pace of biosocial change in the southern Sahara in response to severe climatic fluctuation.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:
Two main occupational phases are identified that correspond with humid intervals in the early and mid-Holocene, based on 78 direct AMS radiocarbon dates on human remains, fauna and artifacts, as well as 9 OSL dates on paleodune sand. The older occupants have craniofacial dimensions that demonstrate similarities with mid-Holocene occupants of the southern Sahara and Late Pleistocene to early Holocene inhabitants of the Maghreb. Their hyperflexed burials compose the earliest cemetery in the Sahara dating to approximately 7500 B.C.E. These early occupants abandon the area under arid conditions and, when humid conditions return approximately 4600 B.C.E., are replaced by a more gracile people with elaborated grave goods including animal bone and ivory ornaments.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:
The principal significance of Gobero lies in its extraordinary human, faunal, and archaeological record, from which we conclude the following: The early Holocene occupants at Gobero (7700-6200 B.C.E.) were largely sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers with lakeside funerary sites that include the earliest recorded cemetery in the Sahara. Principal components analysis of craniometric variables closely allies the early Holocene occupants at Gobero with a skeletally robust, trans-Saharan assemblage of Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene human populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.Gobero was abandoned during a period of severe aridification possibly as long as one millennium (6200-5200 B.C.E).More gracile humans arrived in the mid-Holocene (5200-2500 B.C.E.) employing a diversified subsistence economy based on clams, fish, and savanna vertebrates as well as some cattle husbandry. Population replacement after a harsh arid hiatus is the most likely explanation for the occupational sequence at Gobero.We are just beginning to understand the anatomical and cultural diversity that existed within the Sahara during the Holocene.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Flawed??? Henn study is not flawed. The title is an attention grabber....sensationalism. That's all. She concluded that NAians has no recent admixture with "Middle East" . Recent - less 500y. If there was any admixture it was over 40,000ya!!!!
What about this part?
"The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya)."
""We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period"
^^^What they are saying is since before the Holocene Period, the general overall population of North Africa has remained basically unchanged. Yet we know that before the Holocene that North Africans did not look like modern day North Africans...Especially 30k years ago, with proof with Nazlet Khater Man.
What do they mean with recent Sub Saharan ancestry? The term Sub Saharan itself is a flawed term, since Africans were traveling back and forth. They seem to be trying to separate North Africa from Africa. I know that the suppose Sub Saharan Africans were enslaved in North Africa, but the most ancient MtDNA Hg in Tunisia is 'sub Saharan' African L3.
Also in the study they seem to only focus on the coastal parts of North Africa.
^ that study is based on lies, an accumulation of lies!
Can you mind telling how the study is based on lies? Just asking.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Sep;146(1):49-61. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21542.
Biogeochemical inferences of mobility of early Holocene fisher-foragers from the Southern Sahara Desert.
Stojanowski CM, Knudson KJ.
Source
Center for Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. christopher.stojanowski@asu.edu
Abstract
North Africa is increasingly seen as an important context for understanding modern human evolution and reconstructing biocultural adaptations. The Sahara, in particular, witnessed a fluorescence of hunter-gatherer settlement at the onset of the Holocene after an extended occupational hiatus. Subsequent subsistence changes through the Holocene are contrary to those documented in other areas where mobile foraging gave way to settled agricultural village life. In North Africa, extractive fishing and hunting was supplanted by cattle and caprine pastoralism under deteriorating climatic conditions. Therefore, the initial stage of food production in North Africa witnessed a likely increase in mobility. However, there are few studies of paleomobility in Early Holocene hunter-gatherer Saharan populations and the degree of mobility is generally assumed. Here, we present radiogenic strontium isotope ratios from Early Holocene fisher-forager peoples from the site of Gobero, central Niger, southern Sahara Desert. Data indicate a relatively homogeneous radiogenic strontium isotope signature for this hunter-gather population with limited variability exhibited throughout the life course or among different individuals. Although the overall signature was local, some variation in the radiogenic strontium isotope data likely reflects transhumance into the nearby Aďr Massif. Data from Gobero were significantly less variable than in other worldwide hunter-gatherer populations, including those thought to be fairly sedentary. Strontium data from Gobero were also significantly different from contemporaneous sites in southwestern Libya. These patterns are discussed with respect to archaeological models of community organization and technological evolution.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they arrived at Gobero, the Tuareg name they gave to the site, Garcea picked up one potsherd with a “pointillistic pattern” and recognized the markings to be from a nomadic herding culture known as the Tenerians.
quote:Through radiocarbon dating, they were able to roughly estimate the age of each skeleton and learned that the “tightly bundled burials” were about 9,000 years old, which is around the time archaeologists believe the Kiffian were in this area, while the smaller skeletons were about 6,000 years old, which is “well within the Tenerian period.”
quote: Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco Jörg Linstädter, Prehistoric Archaeology, Cologne University, GERMANY Josef Eiwanger, KAAK, German Archaeological Institute, GERMANY Abdessalam Mikdad, INSAP, MOROCCO Gerd-Christian Weniger, Neanderthal Museum, GERMANY
quote: North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013 Elsevier.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: But still the coastal region is not all of North Africa. And back then I doubt that was the region of North Africa that was mostly populated. There wasn't always a Sahara desert. [/QB]
They are collecting modern DNA from the Maghrebian countries and then theorizing the ancestral lineage of that DNA for an averaged person form that region. They took DNA samples from the large population centers over 90% of the Magrehbians live in. Then they compare it to DNA that has been collected in other places in Africa some old some new to try to put the modern DNA into historical context.
As an analogy the United States. The current population is mainly of Euroepan ancestry. If you look at the same territory 500 years ago the population was mainly of Ameridnian descent.
In these articles they are starting with samples that represent the average population of a given country. Then they speculate on the back history of them.
The average American today is not Amerindian. You can sample every native tribe but the native people are now a small minority 1.7 %. while African Americans for example are 13%
In North Africa however non-Africans have been recorded for about 3000 years. At the same time there have been later infuxes such as with the Islamic conquests. This article suggest earlier migrations.
The fact is that if you go down to the next region South the Sahel the genetic characteristics of most people are simlar to a small extent and different to a large extent
So in looking at these Magheb countries today ask the question is the average person from them primarily African or not?
Hypothetically imagine having every single person's DNA and then compiling an average,
Maybe Troll can help with this question. Is the avergae Maghrebian today primarily of African descent? yes or no?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ did Henn and cohorts also cover this part of Maghrib history?
quote: ..."it is important to bear in mind that over the centuries the Maghreb has been a melting-pot of many other ethnic groups and cultures"
--A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period, By Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, Cambridge University Press, 1987 - page 5.
quote: It is interesting that these “non-African”mtDNA lineages are usually predominant while being diverse
--Coudray et al. 2009; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2004; Khodjet-el-Khil et al. 2008
quote:"During historic times, Berbers experienced a long and complicated history with many invasions, conquests, and migrations by Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Bedouins, Spanish, Turks, Andalusians, sub-Saharans (communities settled in Jerba and Gabes in the 16th–19th centuries), and French (Brett and Fentress 1996). During these invasions, Berbers were forced back to the mountains and to certain villages in southern Tunisia"
--Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2004
quote: Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco Jörg Linstädter, Prehistoric Archaeology, Cologne University, GERMANY Josef Eiwanger, KAAK, German Archaeological Institute, GERMANY Abdessalam Mikdad, INSAP, MOROCCO Gerd-Christian Weniger, Neanderthal Museum, GERMANY
quote: North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013 Elsevier.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^. I first want you to answer my questions, we can move on from there.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I know the average person in the Maghreb is not African and they have mixed origins, but their origins is primary African I believe. Since Africans were the first people in the Maghreb with proof of the Aterian culture. And note this...
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
But what I really want to know in full details how the Henn study is flawed and I believe Troll Patrol showed me that.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^. I first want you to answer my questions, we can move on from there.
when you say "we can move on form there" does that mean you will answer the question:
" Is the average Maghrebian today primarily of African descent? yes or no"
First answer my questions, we can take it on from there. Further more, consult the posts prior to this one. It's helpful! LOL
quote: Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra- Saharan Africa.
--Frigi et al.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^I believe it debunks the claim of the Maghreb being Eurasian for 30k years.
put up a quote from the Henn article which states the Maghreb has been Eurasian of 30K years
In other words what claim?
I didn't say the Hen study said that.
then where is the claim coming from?
I just mentioned it. Don't you remember me making a thread on this subject? [/QB]
Yes, that is indeed what some have claimed, un-fundamentally. And I have just cited at least two sources, which dismiss all their claims.
The troll Lion'ass knows. Because the troll has cited from these studies last year. When I asked for archeological site scenes and fossil records. There was none.
"Frigi et al.(2010) suggest these possibilities as factors in their consideration of the asymmetric assimilation of females of non-African origin into Berber-speaking populations whose males currently have a predominance of lineages defined by the African M35/81 biallelic marker.
Berbers themselves actually claim to be "pure" African. Science speaks somewhat different thou, but this is what they claim. Their language is fundamentally African and so is their indigenous religion (non-Islamic / pre-Islamic).
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^I believe it debunks the claim of the Maghreb being Eurasian for 30k years.
put up a quote from the Henn article which states the Maghreb has been Eurasian of 30K years
In other words what claim?
I didn't say the Hen study said that.
then where is the claim coming from?
I just mentioned it. Don't you remember me making a thread on this subject?
Yes, that is indeed what some have claimed, un-fundamentally. And I have just cited at least two sources, which dismiss all their claims.
The troll Lion'ass knows. Because the troll has cited from these studies last year. When I asked for archeological site scenes and fossil records. There was none. [/QB]
I noticed that too. I always asked how did those suppose 'Eurasian' in the Maghreb 30k years ago look like, yet no one can post any fossil records.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: [qb] @Lioness.
I know the average person in the Maghreb is not African and they have mixed origins, but their origins is primary African I believe. Since Africans were the first people in the Maghreb with proof of the Aterian culture. And note this...
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
what is called " Northwest African" here is distinct from other African populations. It is characterized by hg M81 which is believed to be 5,600 years old.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
But what I really want to know in full details how the Henn study is flawed and I believe Troll Patrol showed me that.
How would you sum up in a couple of sentences why the study is flawed?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: [qb] @Lioness.
I know the average person in the Maghreb is not African and they have mixed origins, but their origins is primary African I believe. Since Africans were the first people in the Maghreb with proof of the Aterian culture. And note this...
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
what is called " Northwest African" here is distinct from other African populations. It is characterized by hg M81 which is believed to be 5,600 years old.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
But what I really want to know in full details how the Henn study is flawed and I believe Troll Patrol showed me that.
How would you sum up in a couple of sentences why the study is flawed?
Northwest African is still African. And that study was a Nuclear DNA study.
Also I already posted why I felt the Henn study had its flaws.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: [qb] @Lioness.
I know the average person in the Maghreb is not African and they have mixed origins, but their origins is primary African I believe. Since Africans were the first people in the Maghreb with proof of the Aterian culture. And note this...
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
what is called " Northwest African" here is distinct from other African populations. It is characterized by hg M81 which is believed to be 5,600 years old.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
But what I really want to know in full details how the Henn study is flawed and I believe Troll Patrol showed me that.
How would you sum up in a couple of sentences why the study is flawed?
Of course it is distinct, since it is predominantly and solely Northwest African. Just like Northeast Africa is distinct. I have posted this abundant info in previous posts. For some funny reason you act as if you haven't seen it.
I have shown that the "study" is flawed. It's based on assumptions and "suggestions". Hence, why you haven't shown any of the supposed fossil records and site scenes.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
BERBERS are predominately ''African'' in admixture and remain an indigenous African group.
Nuclear DNA
Note that Moroccans are the Berbers with the most ‘’Eurasian’’ admixture.
Moroccans = 62% African + 38% Eurasian (20% Asian + 18% European) 41.3% Northwest African 17.9% Mediterranean 16.2% Southwest Asian 14.6% West African 05.6% East African 03.6% Caucasus 00.4% South Asian 00.1% Far East 00.1% Siberian 00.1% Northern European 00.1% Southeast Asian
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
: 
Printer-friendly view of this topic