I do believe the people we think of as ancient Egyptians would have possessed a mixture of "sub-Saharan" and native Saharan ancestry.
(correct!!)
But I wouldn't say the former component necessarily resembled that of Bantu-speaking people in Central or Southern Africa today.
(wrong!! The DNA Says otherwise)
The ancestors of Mota and other East Africans would be a better fit in my opinion, for obvious geographic reasons.
(for obvious geographic reason , yes! Unless there was extensive population change over within the last 2000years)
In fact I'm surprised there wasn't a special tie between the population represented by Mota and the African component in Natufian ancestry, especially given Mota apparently was more OOA-like than some other Africans IIRC.(huh!. There is a 6000year difference. Mota is E-M2 and Natufians are E-M35, big brother leaves home first).
[/Q]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don’t need to say anything to me speak to the data and Henn et al!! Nuff said. That is why we have to look beyond selective picture spamming. The story is in the DNA. Lol! Quote: “What does that even mean? Being ancestral means there is an ancestor-descendant relationship (e.g. Mota and/or his ancestors are ancestral to Omotic speakers). If you think the Luhya and North Africans have an ancestor-descendant relationship (as opposed to geneflow) I don't know what to say to you. “
-------------------- 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: You don’t need to say anything to me speak to the data and Henn et al!! Nuff said. That is why we have to look beyond selective picture spamming. The story is in the DNA.
^Couldn't agree more.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all make mistakes. I thought you were trying to pull a fast one.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: On the E-M2 branch of E.
But, you know what's interesting, gramps? You just admitted that you're fully aware that there is such a thing as pre-E-M2. You know what that means, right?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Pre E-M2? you mean a parent Haplogroup? L222#? I am pretty sure SNP's work that way lol
Thanks for the links btw!
But for the sake of simplicity the results so far in relationship to the Mota and Natufian sample should be testament to the east African genetic diversity >5-3.5kya, if you ask me. If a ~4000y old mummy sits on a "parent" group of E-M2 like you guys suggest and the Natufians which are on a sibling group, E-M35, finds their way OOA over 6000 years prior there's more than enough time and space for E1b1a to develop in and radiate from the nile.
I'm guessing that the point here is that The nile inhabitants should be descendants of lets say E-M215 or something which puts them close to the natufians primarily, but a different story can be told if we had genetic drift from the south starting @5000bc into Egypt or lower Sudan. The Mota is the perfect template for such an explanation.... But of-course Y-dna is only half the story.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Gramps knows what that means. He has withdrawn for the moment. He's at the drawing board frantically typing out a comeback:
I told gramps weeks before what it means. It means that his hypothesis of the young age of what he calls "negroids" and that this explains why the ancient E carriers north of Egypt are mostly E-M35, has no basis in reality:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Moreover, even IF E1b1a didn't exist yet by the time of the Natufians, the branch that carries the V38 mutation is just as old as the branch that carries the M35 mutation.
quote:Originally posted by D.Maestro: If a ~4000y old mummy sits on a "parent" group of E-M2 like you guys suggest and the Natufians which are on a sibling group, E-M35, finds their way OOA over 6000 years prior there's more than enough time and space for E1b1a to develop in and radiate from the nile.
Mota's Y chromosome just hasn't been refined yet so all they could give is what they've been able to confirm, which is P2. There is some talk that he's E-M329 but I'm not sure what that's based on. It could be that there is a memo floating around from the authors talking about this but the last time I checked the paper it still said E1b1. Maybe others can pitch in.
But whatever he's going to turn out to be, he's going to be something derived from E1b1. He will never be E1b1 itself because at 4500 years ago Mota is way too recent to be resolved at this level.
quote:Originally posted by D.Maestro: The Mota is the perfect template for such an explanation
Let's entertain that this is correct for a second. There is still the overall autosomal rift between majority E-M2 and majority E-M215 populations. The same applies to Mota. Even with his strong dose of Pygmy-like ancestry, Mota doesn't prefer Central Africans over Maghrebis in terms of affinity and he barely prefers West Africans over Maghrebis. Khoisan populations are more distant to Mota than Eurasians are. Mota doesn't have the autosomal signature of a modern majority E-M2 population.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I've been alerted to the fact that there is a possible E-M2 carrier among the Natufians. If this is what he turns out to be, he will be the oldest confirmed E-M2 carrier.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I ignored the "pre-M2". But that is Swenet!!!
Like "pre-epi-Neolithic"
Whatever that means. SMH
-------------------- 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
Finally a poster with a decent level of intelligence.
Keeping in mind E-P2-M2 is 1000’s of years younger than M-35(Natufians)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
“He has withdrawn for the moment. He's at the drawing board frantically typing out a comeback:”
-------------------- 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
Notice xyyman's glaring non-reply to the fact that pre-M2 is old enough to be among the Natufians, even if E-M2 isn't. Gramps thinks his red herrings are going unnoticed.
xyyman knows better than to debate me head on, so he starts having imaginary issues with words.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet! Swenet! Swenet! Don’t even try it! “ Alerted?” lol! E-M2 in the Natufians?! Very unlikely. SMH.
When will you stop?!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are absolutely right. We have to rethink which yDNA matches up with which mtDNA. And we cannot use extant “spouses –YDNA/MtDNA” and project to the past. Eg we know that R1b-L11 is NOT the mate to mtDNA H1 and H3 although in todays modern European population it may seem that way. mtDNA H1/H3 did not enter Europe with yDNA R1b-M269-L11. Similarly E-M2 may NOT be the mate of mtDNA L2a1*. mtDNA L2a* is what >40,000yo?
Quote: “But YDNA is half the story”
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Keeping in mind E-M215-M2 is 1000’s of years younger than M-35(Natufians)
Lol. That Mota=E-M2 blunder wasn't an accident, was it? You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, do you? What is "E-M215-M2", as you put it, supposed to mean? How is it younger than E-M35? Not that I expect a coherent response.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW. We know Sandewe and Hadza carry MORE “Eurasian” labelled ancestry than AFRAMS. Why?
---- S7. Principal component analysis shows that Ari and Sandawe are the closest contemporary populations to Mota To explore our Ethiopian ancient genome in the context of modern variation in Africa and the Middle East, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) with a panel of contemporary populations (see S6 for details). The analysis was carried out using SmartPCA (61); the components were loaded on the contemporary populations, and Mota was projected onto these dimensions. Mota was placed close to the Ethiopian samples (Fig. 1, A), next to the clusters formed by the Ari and the Sandawe. The Ari can be split into two castes, Ari Cultivator and Ari Blacksmith, which share a common origin within the last 4,500 years (62). Since data on a larger number of SNPs are available for Ethiopian populations (4), we repeated the PCA using this higher quality dataset (processed as in SM S6), which gave us 484,161 usable SNPs that could be called in Mota. Once again, Mota fell close to the Ari and the Sandawe cluster (Fig. S5).
-------------------- 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
Too early in the mornign for me. Bad habit of not having the chart with mutations in front me when I post.
correction E-P2-M2
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Keeping in mind E-M215-M2 is 1000’s of years younger than M-35(Natufians)
Lol. That Mota=E-M2 blunder wasn't an accident, was it? You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, do you? What is "E-M215-M2", as you put it, supposed to mean? How is it younger than E-M35? Not that I expect a coherent response.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are only so many things you can chalk up to excusable error. Take some responsibility. Look what you just co-signed. You've been a member since 2007 and you still think it's remotely possible that a 4500 year old P2 carrier can be the missing link between >10kya Natufians and the first E-M2 carriers. Your posts are full of weird anachronisms like this. Just days ago you said that the Luhya are ancestral to Maghrebis. Really? How can two contemporaries have an ancestor-descendant relationship?
Now you're running from the fact that a young age for E-M2 doesn't mean that the people associated with this lineage still would have existed pre-E-M2 and that "negroids" as you put it therefore can't be "too recent" to be among the Natufians. What's up with all these bizarre lapses in your chronology?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You got me on the E-M215-M2 which should be E-P2-M2. no big deal. See! I admit when I mispoke without checking the chart. At my age(wink) I can't rely on memory. lol!
Nevertheless. Luyha is ancestral to Maghrebi while Massai are ancestral to Egyptians. Sources on ESR. I will quote it.
-------------------- 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
Natufians ARE “negroids”, Most North Africans are Negroids, “Negroids” are found all over the planet. So?! Putting the visuals aside. We are talking genetic relatedness here. Setting aside the mis-direction by the authors where they labelled Sandawe/Hadzaas “Ethiopians” lol!. See, you missed that. The closest genetic match to Mota are NOT Ethiopians but Tanzanians. Point? Migration of Sandawe/Hadza people North into Ethiopia?
See why I am way ahead of the class? ()wink). Mota was not really related to modern day Ethiopians but he was Hadza/Sandawe although his body was located IN Ethiopia. That is why you need to read the Supplemental and don’t let the authors feed you the BS.
-------------------- 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
My issue isn't with minor errors as we all make them. But this, below, for example, is not a minor error as you're clearly saying it because of ideological reasons. What is this based on?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The closest genetic match to Mota are NOT Ethiopians but Tanzanians. Point?
What is your beef with Ethiopians gramps?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman: "Natufians ARE “negroids”, Most North Africans are Negroids,"
My view: "Natufians WERE “negroids”, Most North Africans WERE Negroids,"
They WERE negroids, but those that stayed around the lowland region of Dead Sea had natural selection for less melanin (very low UV, white salt crust environment), and gradually lost much of it, and also evolved facial features more in tune with a more varied (hot-cold-arid-windy) climate.
posted
My beef with Ethiopians is that irregardless of the visuals we now know AEians were NOT closer related to Ethiopians over South Africans, Great lake Africans and West Africans. Odd but these are the facts. This is what the data shows.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That is why "Caucasoids" and "Negroids" features are indigenous to Africa. No admixture needed. there is no pure "Race"
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: xyyman: "Natufians ARE “negroids”, Most North Africans are Negroids,"
My view: "Natufians WERE “negroids”, Most North Africans WERE Negroids,"
They WERE negroids, but those that stayed around the lowland region of Dead Sea had natural selection for less melanin (very low UV, white salt crust environment), and gradually lost much of it, and also evolved facial features more in tune with a more varied (hot-cold-arid-windy) climate.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So then you admit that you're biased against Ethiopians?
Most, if not all Ethiopian samples (including Ethio-Semitic speakers with lots of Eurasian ancestry) are closer to Mota than the latter is to any non-Ethiopian population in Africa. This is curious, because it means that Mota's genome prefers thoroughly admixed Africans over 'pure' West, Central and South Africans. This, in turn, shows that Mota has shitloads of shared drift with OOA populations.
As for your comments on ancient Egyptians, you are delusional.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
" you are delusional.". Yes. I know. ...the data is an illusion...SMH
Again. For the record. In case some of you missed it. Mota is Sandawe/Hadza. NOT a Horner.
I am not saying Horners aren't Africans. They are! Just as indigenous North Africans are. Excluding Ottoman Turks who are probably the ruling class in North Africa. Never been so I don't know.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Again. For the record. In case some of you missed it. Mota is Sandawe/Hadza. NOT a Horner.
You can keep fabricating stuff but the data is going to be staring you in the face every time:
quote:Ari (which can be split into two castes, AriCultivator and AriBlacksmith), have by far the greatest genetic affinity to Mota (Fig. 1, B and C). The Ari speak a language classified as Omotic, which is the most differentiated branch of the Afro-Asiatic languages. Gumuz, a population member of the Nilo-Saharan family (also an Afro-Asiatic language), also shows a high level of shared drift with Mota, but significantly less than the Ari. Sandawe, which are closer to Mota in the PCAs, do not show high shared drift with Mota in the f3, possibly because they are closer to the Khoisan populations than the other Eastern African populations.
posted
I give you props making me revisit the Mota DNA Material. I got tricked by the authors into believing Mota was a Horner(modern). His closest living relative are HG Sandawe and Hadza.
-------------------- 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: I got tricked by the authors into believing Mota was a Horner(modern). His closest living relative are HG Sandawe and Hadza.
His closest living relatives aren't the Ethiopian Ari? Based on what data? Please clarify.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I got tricked by the authors into believing Mota was a Horner(modern). His closest living relative are HG Sandawe and Hadza.
His closest living relatives aren't the Ethiopian Ari? Based on what data? Please clarify.
Every clarification will include additional new wrong assertions
Therefore it's endless
xy has a dogma and everything must fit into it
1) all haplogroups originate in Africa, evolution stopped after people left Africa
2) Europeans are depigmented Africans. Their ancestors lived in Africa under 10,000 years ago
3) Back Migration is impossible. People left Africa, how could they possibly return? It defies the laws of physics
4) Modern South, Central and West Africans more closely resemble the ancient Egyptians than do modern or ancient Horn Africans
feel free to add
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mota CloseSt living relatives are first Tanzanian hunter gatherers Sandawe then Ari hunter gathers.
-------------------- 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
@Lioness. Stop misdirecting! I never said AEIANS resemble West Africans.
Quote "visuals aside"
We also know now regardless of the resemblance they are not closely related to Horners compared to West Africans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marion Barry. Lol! You are not as young as I thought.
-------------------- 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
^ keep in mind what Nodnarb said, that if you sample specific Horners you might find they have greater genetic affinity to the AEs. It is because more Arabs migrated into the region than those other places that are throwing the figures off.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I got tricked by the authors into believing Mota was a Horner(modern). His closest living relative are HG Sandawe and Hadza.
His closest living relatives aren't the Ethiopian Ari? Based on what data? Please clarify.
Every clarification will include additional new wrong assertions
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From - Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations
Abstract
We present dense, genomewide SNP genotyping array data (730,000 sites) from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa;
Prior genetic studies, largely from uniparentally inherited markers, 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 and uniparental markers have shown that the genetic landscape follow an east-west pattern with little to no difference between Berber- and Arab-speaking populations [6,7].
, all North African populations except for Tunisians have sub-Saharan ancestry, present in most individuals, though this ancestry varies between 1%–55%. Interestingly, eastern populations (i.e. Libya and Egypt) share ancestry assigned to both the Bantu-speaking Luhya and the Nilotic-speaking Maasai, whereas western populations share ancestry mainly with the Luhya.
According to our ADMIXTURE results, two distinct sub-Saharan ancestries are present in Egyptian individuals at k =6:10; these two ancestry components are highest in the Kenyan Luhya and Maasai populations. However, the ‘‘Luhya’’ ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k= 6 and below 5% at k= 8 and there is also ‘‘Luhya’’ ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians.
We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa, as evidenced by clear geographic structure and non-zero Fst estimates. Fst estimates between the inferred Maghrebi cluster and sub-Saharan Africans are two to three-times greater than Fst between the Maghrebi and Europeans/Near Easterners ancestral clusters (Table S3).
we first showed that all North African populations are estimated to have diverged from OOA groups more than 12,000 ya (Figure 3). 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/ARABIA. 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.
***
Substantially elevated linkage disequilibrium in all of these North African population samples, compared to sub-Saharan populations [32], is consistent with a population bottleneck. Hellenthal et al. [30] also observed that the reduction in the number of haplotype founders required to reconstruct the Mozabite population, as compared to other African populations, could be explained by a population bottleneck. If North African ancestral populations persisted in situ, then we need to invoke two population bottlenecks, one in the ancestors of North Africans (including the Berbers) and one for OOA groups. Alternatively, the ‘‘OOA’’ bottleneck would need to occur in North Africa, rather than when groups moved out of the continent [33]. The second possibility appears at odds with MOST PUBLISHED models of the movement of modern humans outside of Africa.
***
XYYMAN-COMMENT. This her justification for her premise on the backmigration theory. She observed bottleneck in North Africans compared to SSA. Now since SOME OOA models from other researchers do show bottleneck she concluded that North Africans migrated from Qater about 38,000ya. Ie the bottleneck came from the ancestors in QATAR. Now really??!!!, this is bordering on ludicrous and comical. She is proposing the ridiculous idea that the bottleneck is very unlikely to have occurred in two different population!. She did not perform the simple logical analysis of comparing Qatari and North African sequences to resolve the issue. Instead she relied on what is written in the literature/journals. Are they/she for real? She then the politically correct thing by CYA, in the next paragraph. “I may be wrong so to be sure perform genomic sequence data testing “.. Why didn’t she do it to be sure? She didn’t.
(Continuing….)
These models should be further tested with genomic sequence data, which have better power to detect magnitude and timing of bottlenecks, and to estimate the true joint allele frequency spectrum. More recently, the substantial, east-to-west decline of Near Eastern ancestry (Figure 1A) could represent a defined migration associated with Arab conquest 1,400 ya or merely gene flow occurring gradually among neighboring populations along a North African | Arabian Peninsula transect. Although [/b]we observe a declining amount of Maghrebi ancestry from northwest-to northeast,[/b] it is possible that other geographically North African samples (e.g. Egyptians further south than the sampled Siwa Oasis) do not conform to this geographic cline. Finally, we also observe European ancestry that is not clearly accounted for by the inclusion of a Near Eastern sample. Additional migration coming from Europe might be plausible, though the origin and the period where it took place cannot be determined with the present data. 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). Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming
-------------------- 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
Henn in some ways is using a "true negro" stereotypical strawman to compare against reputed "North African populations." Says the first line of her study: "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes;"
But right off the bat this is suspect. For one thing, some "North African" populations are themselves located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" as any look at a credible map of North Africa shows. Her "North African" samples are mostly COASTAL samples from near the Mediterranean, excluding vast swathes of "North Africa." Even the Western Saharan- Saharawi sample is on the Medit coast. She also doubles upon Moroccan samples, again over-representing the Medit coast while actually the bulk of "North Africa" is not sampled. Her study fails to represent a true picture of diversity in the region.
^Now where have we seen this befo chillun?- the oh so common "stacked deck" beloved of Eurocentrics?
^^Again, the stacked deck...
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all know they are bias. But What she is discussing here is North Africans and Arabians separated about >30,000ya!!! They may LOOK the same but they are very different genetically. She is basing her 'back-migration" theory solely on observed bottle-neck in Qataris. She 'assumes' it the same bottle neck from the initial OOA observed by OTHER researchers.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind modern Egyptians although heavily admixed with Ottoman Turks still carry a high frequency of SSA lineage.
Remember also DNAtribes/JAMA comparison is based upon STR's. NOT lineage.
quote:"Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians. "
-------------------- 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
Even in your quotes the authors never dumbed things down to anachonisms like the Luhya sample is 'ancestral' to Maghrebis or that the Masai are 'ancestral' to Egyptians.
Also, what xyyman 'forgot' to mention in his attempt to label all inconvenient ancestry "recent Ottoman Turk" and all convenient ancestry "ancient SSA lineage":
quote:We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago (approximately 1,200 ya); a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago (approximately 750 ya).
—Henn et al
As opposed to Turk this and that and "ancestral Luhya" (which doesn't make sense to take literally because the SSA mtDNAs in the Maghreb generally aren't southeast Bantu-like, but West/Central African-like) a far better approach is to use pre-contact Canary Island 'aDNA' as a proxy for what coastal Maghrebis generally could have looked like genetically, close to the common era. Makes it much easier to disregard recent gene flow from both north and south when you just want to look at long term SSA presence in coastal North Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Henn in some ways is using a "true negro" stereotypical strawman to compare against reputed "North African populations." Says the first line of her study: "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes;"
But right off the bat this is suspect. For one thing, some "North African" populations are themselves located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" as any look at a credible map of North Africa shows.
"North Africa" in anthropology usually means the Maghreb. It does not correspond to geographic definitions. One of the common denominators of much of the region are high frequencies of Y haplogroup E-M81 and mtDNA H. For this reason and berber languages/cultures they are grouped together anthropologically when they speak of "North Africa". "Northern Africa" points more toward geography.
So in the anthropological context whenever you see the word "North Africa" just replace it in your mind as "Maghreb" it is intended to mean mainly the berbers of the Maghreb. Even looking at the Tuareg populations that are not only in the Maghreb but also further south in the Sahel you find in Mali the Tuaregs are 81.8% E-M81 and in Burkina Faso 77.8% E-M81. ( Pereira, 2010) while E1a is more common to non-Tuareg Malians
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Reading Henns study for the first time gave me a headache. I couldn't logically wrap my mind around what their hypothesis implied at the time. Here we go again with the "invisible African barriers," this one, blocking "certain" regions of North Africa[NA] from SSA. No way is a bottleneck which occurred over 15Kya responsible for the relative contemporary genetic homogeneity of >100 million people occupying 2 million square miles of Area. This should be a staple representation of how ridiculous African studies have been in western academia.
Speaking the Mota, As it appears when looking at the raw data, whatever ancient group this mummy belonged to [MG] shared close ancestry with the referenced south/east African samples like the Sandwe. The modern Ari populations could have had ancestry belonging directly to this 'MG' group... Once again testament to East African diversity.
If Mota is Indeed something along the lines of EV38 we'd have way more insight on the position of E-M2, not because Mota "clusters with these populations" but because he doesn't Autosomally. I would like to see more Autosomal microsatellite analysis on these ancient specimens regardless.
PLoS Genet. 2012 Jan;8(1):e1002397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397. Epub 2012 Jan 12. Genomic ancestry of North Africans supports back-to-Africa migrations. Henn BM1, Botigué LR, Gravel S, Wang W, Brisbin A, Byrnes JK, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, Zalloua PA, Moreno-Estrada A, Bertranpetit J, Bustamante CD, Comas D.
________________
^^ keep in mind that when they say "North Africans" they mean Maghrebis. That means primarily Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. They also add in Egyptians who some regard as North Africans but others see as part of a separate river population ( and there are significant genetic differences between Maghrebi berbers and Egyptian Siwa berbers-notably nearly no E-M81)
Now if you prefer a different definition for "North Africa" that is a separate issue. The article is about people of the Maghreb, "Maghrebis" + Egyptians so the first thing we have to look at is what they are saying about Maghrebis etc. true or not. If "North Africa" as an anthropological term should include more than just Maghrebis that can't be criticized on a separate basis because the topic of the article was not "How we think the term "North African people should be defined"
So here's what they were saying about Maghrebis:
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations 2012
Brenna M. Henn,
North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes; however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood. Here, we interrogate the multilayered history of North Africa by characterizing the effect of hypothesized migrations from the Near East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa on current genetic diversity. We present dense, genome-wide SNP genotyping array data (730,000 sites) from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. To estimate the time of migration from sub-Saharan populations into North Africa, we implement a maximum likelihood dating method based on the distribution of migrant tracts. In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago (approximately 1,200 ya); a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago (approximately 750 ya). Our genomic data reveal an extraordinarily complex history of migrations, involving at least five ancestral populations, into North Africa. Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic