posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
blah blah blah …

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

---

"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.

However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].

---

quote:

---

Among other groups, the Negroes and Baluch mulattoes of Baluchistan, which now forms part of West Pakistan, are of great interest to students of race and ethnic relations.
Negroes in West Pakistan are called Makranis.

[...]

Professor S. K. Chatterji, the Indian linguist, discussing the basic unity underlying the diversity of culture in India, also supports this view. According to him, "the first people to arrive in India were a Negrito or Negroid race from Africa, coming at a very early period by way of Arabia and the coastline of Iran. They spread over western and southern India, and even passed on to the northeastern part of the country . . .

---

quote:

---

However, as for M1, minor N North-African influences have been detected by the presence of an U6 lineage in our Saudi sample. It has been suggested that the rare U9 clade might be another interesting exception because it has been detected only in Pakistan [26], Ethiopia, and Yemen [19], and now in our Saudi sample. U9 occurs frequently only among the Makrani population in Pakistan, which is characterized by a large component of sub-Saharan African lineages, suggesting that U9 lineages in Pakistan might also have an African origin [19]. Makrani sub-Saharan Africa lineages have exact matches in Africa, which is compatible with a recent conection as the result of the East African slave trade [26]. However, the entire sequenced Ethiopian and Pakistani U9 lineages [37] are separated by a mean of 4.5 coding mutations from the common root, placing the split at Paleolithic times. Most probably, Ethiopia received its U9 lineages from the Arabian Peninsula that, in turn, received them from northern areas. The southern geographic distribution of U9 contrasts with the west-northern distribution U4, of its sister clade [52], but this is a pattern shared with other Paleolithic U radiations such as U2, U7 [32], or U8 [53] that have eastern and western branches. [54].

---

quote:

---

"A potential issue that could in theory influence our findings is that the exact population contributing to African ancestry in West Eurasians is unknown. To gain insight into the African source populations, we carried out PCA analyses, which suggested that the African ancestry in West Eurasians is at least as closely related to East Africans (e.g. Hapmap3 Luhya (LWK)) as to West Africans (e.g. Nigerian Yoruba (YRI)) (the same analyses show that there is no evidence of relatedness to Chadic populations like Bulala) (Text S5 and Figure S12).

We also used the 4 Population Test to assess whether the tree ((LWK, YRI),(West Eurasian, CEU)) is consistent with the data, and found no evidence for a violation,

which is consistent with a mixture of either West African or East African ancestors or both contributing to the African ancestry in West Eurasians (Table S14; Figure S13). Historically, a mixture of West and East African ancestry is plausible, since African gene flow into West Eurasia is documented from both West Africa during Roman times [34] and from East Africa during migrations from Egypt [7]. It is important to point out, however, that the difficulty of pinpointing the exact African source population is not expected to bias our inferences about the total proportion and date of mixture. The f4 Ancestry Estimation method is unbiased even when we use a poor surrogates for the true ancestral African population (as long as the phylogeny is correct), as we confirmed by repeating analyses replacing YRI with LWK, and obtaining similar results (Table S15).Our ROLLOFF admixture date estimates are also similar whether we use LWK or YRI to represent ancestral African population (Table S15), as predicted by the theory.

---

quote:

---

HAPLOGROUP L2A1

Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]

---

quote:

---

"These results indicate that the ancestor of all Semitic languages in our dataset was being spoken in the Near East no earlier than approximately 7400 YBP, after having after having diverged from Afroasiatic in Africa"

(i) Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant, followed by an expansion of Akkadian into Mesopotamia;

(ii) Central and South Semitic diverged earlier than previously thought throughout the Levant during the Early to Middle Bronze Age transition; and

(iii) Ethiosemitic arose as the result of a single, possibly pre-Aksumite, introduction of a lineage from southern Arabia to the Horn of Africa approximately 2800 YBP.

---

-- (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004; Blench 2006).






--Surinder Singh Papiha, Ranjan Deka, Ranajit Chakraborty

Genomic Diversity: Applications in Human Population Genetics (1999, 2012)

Posts: 22245 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged |