quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "We estimate that African populations contributed approximately 1.2% of the UK gene pool and did so approximately 400 years ago...." It is not really 400 years that would imply there was an orgy between Africans and the British 400years ago. eThat would mean most white women were having balck babies.
lmao you accidentally typed in your PornHub search in place of math there.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? The orgy took place 400years ago? He! He! He!
Of course it is NOT 400years ago. The rare African alleles in the non-Admixed British is too widespread.
Their model is wrong. They also admit that the pattern do NOT fit known models.
I assumed your read the paper and missed the fact they are using ONLY 10% of the rare alleles to make the “slave” comparison . SMH. What is up with you Capra? What about the other 90% of the African rare allele found throughout Britain? You missed that didn’t you. Man! You Europeans! They also have no REFERENCE African population. Either. Lol! That is why I own you Capra. You are too emotional. You are expending too much emotional energy. You need to look at the data and ignore your vested interest in “trying to prove me wrong”. YOU CAN”T!!!
quote:Originally posted by capra: [Q] [QUTE]Originally posted by xyyman: "We estimate that African populations contributed approximately 1.2% of the UK gene pool and did so approximately 400 years ago...." It is not really 400 years that would imply there was an orgy between Africans and the British 400years ago. eThat would mean most white women were having balck babies.
lmao you accidentally typed in your PornHub search in place of math there. [/Q][/QUOTE]
-------------------- 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
Capra. You should realize by now I know all their tricks. You missed that. Didn't you? Most readers here are novices and gullible. I am not one. I am fully aware of the trickery of Europeans. I know their game.
My money is on the purple is Iwo-Eleru and the rare African alleles found in Britain is from Iwo-Eleru.
Run the Admixture chart!! I challenged Davidski on similar issues and he was frothing at the mouth. Mad as shyte. He said he will. Came back several days later and deleted my post. saying I don't understand. lol! Crooked frauds!
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Linear and dichotomy are so biblical thinking. I mean 2nd millennium. Interconnected is 3rd millenia thinking.
Already 18k the Maghreb proper was composed of AME or Afroasian elements and Inner African ones. It wasn't an Ice Age to them. To them it was the weather, quite livable there where holed up at least. The Arid Maximum monsoon retreat made communication practically impossible except with limited other Mediterranean facing Africans.
> 38k Aterians and a Libyan transitional > 28k Aterian and Dabban and southern Ahmarian > 18k Aterian and Maurusian and Dabban > 12k Maurusian and southwest Kebaran
Indigenous littoral North Africans are local a) Aterians who received AME/Afroasia migrants or b) Aterian replacement AfricaMiddleEast migrants or c) Aterians gone before Afroasia migrants arrive and then come the other-than-Aterian Inner African migrants.
All migrants except poor old Aterian.
All boneless, tooless, hypothetical, statistics based only quasi-populations aside.
^ This? I like it, considering A00 and Jebel Irhoud and Skuhl. EDITED to include some archeaology and anthropology considered calibrates like the 82k Pan-African cultural ideology of red ochred Nassarius shells drilled to use as a charm necklace.
Knowing all the above suggests a synthesis is possible between Swenet's & eM's points other than that loggerhead. Billy Goat Gruffs, cop some chill air, a taste of iced mead, and have a dispassionate reappraisal of each others contributions.
posted
I would be careful with that Schlebusch et al graphic. I was hesitant in posting it because the dates are unrealistic. I like to think that modern-day Africans are far more distantly removed from Neanderthals and closer to each other than those dates (e.g. human-Neanderthal 545kya, human-human 336kya) are suggesting. The slit times in Schlebusch and Kamm are on two extremes, the former giving more ancient dates than the latter. I think the split times are somewhere in the middle between Schlebusch's TT-method and Kamm's results.
Kamm et al Mbuti-OOA, 96 kya OOA, 50 kya
Schlebusch et al (TT-method) Central African-OOA, ~200 kya(?) OOA, 76 kya
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I would be careful with that Schlebusch et al graphic. I was hesitant in posting it because the dates are unrealistic. I like to think that modern-day Africans are far more distantly removed from Neanderthals and closer to each other than those dates (e.g. human-Neanderthal 545kya, human-human 336kya) are suggesting.
The pattern errs in which direction?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I would be careful with that Schlebusch et al graphic. I was hesitant in posting it because the dates are unrealistic. I like to think that modern-day Africans are far more distantly removed from Neanderthals and closer to each other than those dates (e.g. human-Neanderthal 545kya, human-human 336kya) are suggesting.
The pattern errs in which direction?
Neanderthals split from Africans ~1mya, based on valid data. But when you look at autosomal split time estimates provided by most papers, they put it at around 700-600kya. Since the valid, historical split time of Neanderthals is ~1mya, there is a discrepancy of ~300-400ky that causes them to appear closer to Africans than they phylogenetically are. Recently a paper dropped the bombshell that Neanderthal autosomal split times are not historical (i.e. they describe a fake event) because they've been lowered due to very ancient African AMH admixture.
You can read the paper here:
Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
North Africa by itself has been settled numerous times by various waves of Africans going all the way back to Jebel Irhoud. That is long before the existence of "Eurasians". Understanding the model of North African DNA history does not start with "Eurasians" in North Africa. That has no validity going back 10, 20, 30 or 40 thousand years or even all the way back to OOA. If you really want to understand the movements and evolutions of DNA of Africans you start in central Africa 200,000 years ago and work your way forward.
And starting with the coast of North Africa as the basis of the population history of North Africa similarly is problematic. Over the last 100,000 years let alone 300,000 years the environment has fluctuated many times and at no point was the coast of North Africa the only habitable place for Africans. Unfortunately because most scientists are looking at North African DNA history from the perspective of Eurasia, their samples will be biased towards the coasts and populations with more Eurasian ancestry. You cannot start the story of North African populations with Eurasian migrants they don't even go back far enough to make any impact in North Africa beyond 10 thousand years ago and even then only along the extreme coasts. But African ppoulations have been inhabiting all parts of North Africa periodically for thousands of years and their movements affected by the "saharan pump" wet/dry cycle. You cannot understand what DNA may have been present in these various phases as simply a model based on "Eurasian" movements into Africa. That is absurd.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhere you know you're wrong, Doug. That's why you do hit and runs. First you demand geneticists must scour every inch of the Sahel for sources of North African ancestry. When I address that you say it isn't really what you mean, and you try to set up shop to another completely unrelated position.
The "black North Africans" have failed to deliver one by one in genome-wide studies. Their dark skin is constantly replenished from the south. That's a big part in why they're as dark and not as light-skinned as coastal North Africans. They don't look the way they do because they carriers of relict ancestral NA ancestry of their own. If I'm wrong, post specific examples of populations. Hit and runs and retreating to sermons complaining about Europeans won't do.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. The new software is coming out...Python system/coding is required. grrrrr!!!
This one is called ----READ
edit
-------------------- 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
Hold on to your Abusir BAM and FAsTQ files people. It is coming!
-------------------- 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 sudaniya: I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Which of these Tuareg samples is more authentically Berber? If you say the one with the most African lineages (and therefore, with the darkest skin) then you'll end up with the Tuareg sample with the least North African ancestry and with the most non-Tuareg and non-Berber ancestry. This is the sample from Niger with 80% L lineages.
This irony of more African ancestry not being accompanied by more Berber ancestry applies to all dark skinned Berber speakers I've seen in genetics papers. They have little that can be thought of as potentially Berber on their African side. Most of their African side is West/Central African (mtDNA) or it was already in the Maghreb way before Berbers (Y-DNA: E-L19).
There is very little Berber or Neolithic northeast African in the Maghreb. This also means that most dark skin in the region doesn't come from Berbers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman, you inexpressibly dumb shit, the Abusir genomes were never missing in the first place. you misunderstood what i said, invented a bogus conspiracy to explain why you couldn't download files using the wrong browser, and now you are looking for imaginary new software to explain events that you KNOW didn't even HAPPEN.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@ Swenet
I ask for clarity and expansion on the chart dates. I think you said its not what you expect. And that's OK by me.
I don't know but it looks like its dates are not at odds with A00, Jebel Irhoud, and Skuhl dates.
Seems you looked into this already and I 'd rather learn more and build up my perspective than dismiss offhand because I may disagree.
@ Doug
Jebel Irhoud continuity is in the basic shape of the face of all living humankind. I'm thinking of a time before the Holocene and what either remained, thinned, came to a close from the Pleistocene. Anything else is too early for tracing continuity back from now to the time of the indigenees.
Denying the oldest demonstratable continuous genetics in the Magreb proper (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia from seacoast to the tel) includes that of AME immigrants is to deny the facts and no different than those saying Inner Africans have nothing to do with over all North African genesis.
But please list a few of these 'waves' of IA penetration of the Maghreb before 28k, I need a refresher.
When I look at this I see even in a previous moister stage, • a southern Stillbay/Lupemban 'axis' including Nile Lakes • a northern Aterian/Lower Nile 'axis'
If this was a Saharan Mega-Lake era communication from the Great Lakes to Tunisia could happen because fish did it. 50,000 years earlier the idea to make one certain shell into a colored bead did it.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Which of these Tuareg samples is more authentically Berber? If you say the one with the most African lineages (and therefore, with the darkest skin) then you'll end up with the Tuareg sample with the least North African ancestry and with the most non-Tuareg and non-Berber ancestry. This is the sample from Niger with 80% L lineages.
This irony of more African ancestry not being accompanied by more Berber ancestry applies to all dark skinned Berber speakers I've seen in genetics papers. They have little that can be thought of as potentially Berber on their African side. Most of their African side is West/Central African (mtDNA) or it was already in the Maghreb way before Berbers (Y-DNA: E-L19).
There is very little Berber or Neolithic northeast African in the Maghreb. This also means that most dark skin in the region doesn't come from Berbers.
Interestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies of H in the world (but low diversity) are less similar to the Niger Tuaregs (much larger population of Tuaregs, largest in the world) who have higher L frequencies but on the paternal side they have very similar frequencies of E1b1a around 40% However E-M81 (E1b1b1) the so called berber marker was reported by Ottoni at 49% Libyan Tuaregs but in Niger Tuaregs Pereira reported 11.1%
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Somewhere you know you're wrong, Doug. That's why you do hit and runs. First you demand geneticists must scour every inch of the Sahel for sources of North African ancestry. When I address that you say it isn't really what you mean, and you try to set up shop to another completely unrelated position.
The "black North Africans" have failed to deliver one by one in genome-wide studies. Their dark skin is constantly replenished from the south. That's a big part in why they're as dark and not as light-skinned as coastal North Africans. They don't look the way they do because they carriers of relict ancestral NA ancestry of their own. If I'm wrong, post specific examples of populations. Hit and runs and retreating to sermons complaining about Europeans won't do.
Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
So I am not hitting and running anywhere. You cannot understand the genetic history of humans in Africa starting with Eurasians. Period. That is the dumbest way of looking at African history which is the oldest human history on earth.
Now the reason why I said this is because most researchers doing DNA studies are Eurasian. They mostly are looking at their own genetic ancestry and the genetic history of Eurasia. And they have a lot of very old DNA in Europe to work with.
However, that will not tell you the DNA history of Africans. We do not have any 30 thousand year old DNA from Africa. You aren't going to be able to back trace what happened in Africa over 50 thousand years ago from Eurasian DNA.
You need African DNA as old or older to get the bigger picture.
Humans didn't start in Europe they started in Africa so if you care about how humans migrated around Africa before Eurasians even existed going back 300,000 years you are going to need data that we probably will never get.
It hasn't been proven that U lineages originated in Eurasia. The only reason it seems like it is because they have 30 thousand year old DNA from Romania. That does not mean it originated there.
I understand that a lot of DNA studies being done are being done starting with Eurasia because they want to show how humans got to all parts of the earth. That makes sense. However, there were humans in Africa LONGER than humans have been outside of Africa. And therefore splitting up African DNA history which is older than any other human DNA history into "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" African is purely the result of faulty models of African DNA that START with Eurasian DNA data as opposed to African DNA which is where it should start. Yet this is how most papers are written. They are not really written to understand the scope and breadth of African DNA going back 300,000 years they are only really concerned about Eurasian DNA because that is the bulk of modern humanity. Plus they don't have the data from Africa that is old enough to model that history anyway.
I get it people like to run their DNA calculations but you only get so far with lopsided data. Most DNA papers are written with a bunch of old Eurasian DNA, a little bit of African DNA that is not as old as the Eurasian DNA and then some MODERN African DNA from different parts of Africa, often far from the populations in question. That is a theoretical model that is always going to fall flat once more data from Africa as old as that from Eurasia is found. It is a theoretical model and most times these models don't hold up going back 20,000 years as new facts are found.
This is why I called you out before on EEF because fundamentally this model was based around understanding Eurasian DNA history not African, yet folks were trying to use EEF as a "proxy" to understand African DNA history which is a contradiction in terms, because the model filtered out much of the African DNA to begin with.
Now if it is OK for Europeans to filter out African DNA as a "contaminant" in order to understand the movements of DNA and populations in Europe, then why cant we do the same to understand the movements of Africans in Africa?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haplogroup U6 has it's highest diversity in the Iberian peninsula. 10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region but not in Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Berber is a language and culture not a skin color and not a Genetic lineage. Berber languages are thought to have originated in East Africa maybe 7-12 thousand years ago with linguists like Christopher Ehret who proposed this model. They did not originate in Eurasia. Now unless Eurasians introduced Berber language and culture into Africa it originated with the indigenous black Africans of Africa. The reason why there are so many complexions among North Africans is due to historic mixture with Eurasians. But that mixture is not the basis of or origin of Berber language and culture. And today's Berber culture is a fusion of foreign elements on top of a older indigenous African substratum.
We did discuss this before and there was a paper tying the Tuareg and Beja and I don't have time right now to dig it up.
DNA wise, the Berbers are associated with U6 and E-M81. U6 is far too old to have anything to do with the origin and spread of Berber languages. Therefore the most likely canditate is E-M81 which is a branch off of E lineages in East Africa. If Berber languages did originate in East Africa 7000 years ago or so then this would be a good candidate or lineages related to it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The berbers carry several Y DNA haplogroups but E-M81 is one many berbers carry that seem to be fairly unique to them. The Siwa however are an exception to this
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is why you want more samples from within North Africa and not just the coast and not just far away places like Nigeria and Cameroon.
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
quote: North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
The title of the paper is somewhat misleading. It is following a model of Eurasia first in North Africa. But the data doesn't really support that model. The data doesn't say that the ancient Iberomaurisans were in touch with modern West Africans. What it says is there was an ancestral population somewhere between West Africa and Morocco from which the Iberomaurisans derived their genes from. And to find that ancient population you need to look in Central North Africa and the Sahara. Likewise, the relationship to the Natufians is not direct but through a population ancestral to both Natufians and Iberomaurisans. A population that was likely also African or as they call it "North African", but that is just African. So what was that population and what genes would they have carried? You need ancient genes from within all parts of North Africa to find that. You arn't going to find that population, especially during a time of Saharan desertification and impacts on human migration by looking at Eurasian DNA, Coastal North Africans and West Africans. YOU need Saharan populations.
And this is what I mean by splitting up African DNA into North African vs Sub Saharan makes no sense. Yes, using models to try and determine relationships over time between populations is important when contemporary data from the time is not found. So using modern West Africans as a proxy can help if you don't have other datasets from the Sahara to use. But the important thing that results shows us there was ANOTHER population that is ancestral to both and to find that population you can't model it based simply on Sub Saharan vs North African, because the population spanned both regions most likely. Especially when that model relies on NOrth Africa being a proxy for Eurasia which this paper shows likely WAS NOT the case.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is why I called [Swenet] out before on EEF because fundamentally this model was based around understanding Eurasian DNA history not African, yet folks were trying to use EEF as a "proxy" to understand African DNA history which is a contradiction in terms, because the model filtered out much of the African DNA to begin with.
No matter how many times repeated that's not factual.
Basal Eurasian is only a statistical entity but (EEF) Early European Farmer is real bones of * Stuttgart (f. LBK380) • Tyrolean Iceman (m. sounds like a wrestler) • southern Swedish (f. Gök4) and are genetically Mediterranean Europeans.
Lazaridis Patterson Reich used African admixture in Beduin B to figure out how much Near Eastern Farmer is in Stuttgart Swedish farm girl (and so, of the Mediterranean European cluster).
What does this mean re measure of Sardine introgression postulated all over Africa? Is it even relevant, I don't know.
But you're spot on about N Afr sampling. Why the Tuat Oases isn't sampled is beyond me but the true Sahara west of Fezzan is there like nowhere else.
Black Berber genetics? Can't speak of it until Ouargla and the Negrine are sampled. Historically these two places are where you find Berber blacks not Taureg confederacy blacks.
Ibn Butlan didn't describe Kutama (Fatamid army) and Masmuda (alMohad) "Their color is mostly black, though some pale ones can be found among them." due to any Sahel or other non-northern Sahara people. It's their natural color. Greco-Latin writers recorded black skins of the northern Sahara like the Gaetuli, Nigritae, Gymnete, etc.
The aboriginal black population of North Africa is not the southern in-migrant black population of NA.
I ask for clarity and expansion on the chart dates. I think you said its not what you expect. And that's OK by me.
I don't know but it looks like its dates are not at odds with A00, Jebel Irhoud, and Skuhl dates.
Seems you looked into this already and I 'd rather learn more and build up my perspective than dismiss offhand because I may disagree.
I haven't looked into this for a long time. I mostly go by intuition by comparing the autosomal split times with full uniparental profiles and archaeological data and looking for discrepancies. Autosomal split times should broadly follow the latter. If not then that's a red flag. For instance, the last common ancestors of West Africans with West Eurasians is >80ky paternally (Y-DNA CT) and 70ky maternally (mtDNA L3). This means that the split times of West Africans should be closer to the date implied in Kamm et al, and younger than the date implied in Schlebusch et al. However, West Africans also have autosomal ancestry linked to uniparentals like L1 and L2, which are much more distant from OOA populations. This means that the correct split time (as far as split times can be correct) of West Africans is older than implied in Kamm et al. When you look at the full uniparental profiles of West Africans the estimated split time should be somewhere in between Kamm et al and Schlebusch et al.
Other than this intuitive way of evaluating Schlebusch et al's dates, there is also a more direct way. Schlebusch et al use de novo mutation rates. This method of calculating mutation rates is new and completely untested. However, like other things that produce dubious results, de novo mutation rates enjoy support in the blogs and from Eurocentrics in general. These people often want OOA to be as far removed from modern Africans as possible. So, for instance, they don't want OOA 50-40ky ago, but 120ky ago, to cope with their anxieties towards OOA theory now that MRT is dead. De novo mutation rates allow them to revel in that fantasy.
Dating work that uses de novo mutation rates always come out looking suspect with extremely old dates (as seen in Schlebusch). They have old dates because they assume the molecular clock ticks relatively slow, which it doesn't. Ancient DNA calibration (where you reverse engineer the correct mutation rate by using firmly dated fossils) shows that de novo mutation rates don't work.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
Prove this is not another one of your trademark sermons. Who here is beginning NA history with Eurasians? Name names and give examples.
Not that this is not another attempt at running away from your original claim that that the Sahel must be turned upside down to find the legendary "real North Africans". Genetics is not an RPG mission quest in search of mythical things. You have no reason for assuming these mythical North Africans exist today in the Sahel. So why are you issuing demands to geneticists that they must find them "or else". You're basically starting your hypothesis with wishful thinking, not with any evidence that these people exist today.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin. [/qb]
Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Which of these Tuareg samples is more authentically Berber? If you say the one with the most African lineages (and therefore, with the darkest skin) then you'll end up with the Tuareg sample with the least North African ancestry and with the most non-Tuareg and non-Berber ancestry. This is the sample from Niger with 80% L lineages.
This irony of more African ancestry not being accompanied by more Berber ancestry applies to all dark skinned Berber speakers I've seen in genetics papers. They have little that can be thought of as potentially Berber on their African side. Most of their African side is West/Central African (mtDNA) or it was already in the Maghreb way before Berbers (Y-DNA: E-L19).
There is very little Berber or Neolithic northeast African in the Maghreb. This also means that most dark skin in the region doesn't come from Berbers.
Interestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies of H in the world (but low diversity) are less similar to the Niger Tuaregs (much larger population of Tuaregs, largest in the world) who have higher L frequencies but on the paternal side they have very similar frequencies of E1b1a around 40% However E-M81 (E1b1b1) the so called berber marker was reported by Ottoni at 49% Libyan Tuaregs but in Niger Tuaregs Pereira reported 11.1%
I forgot about the Y-DNA situation of the Tuareg from Niger. Thanks for reminding me. But E-M81 is a derived form of E-L19. E-L19 is likely pre-Berber in the Maghreb.
The branch on which E-M81 would later form is 14ky old, so it's unlikely to be Berber if Berber is understood as Neolithic northeast African.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: nterestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies of H in the world (but low diversity) are less similar to the Niger Tuaregs (much larger population of Tuaregs, largest in the world) who have higher L frequencies but on the paternal side they have very similar frequencies of E1b1a around 40% However E-M81 (E1b1b1) the so called berber marker was reported by Ottoni at 49% Libyan Tuaregs but in Niger Tuaregs Pereira reported 11.1%
I forgot about the Y-DNA situation of the Tuareg from Niger. Thanks for reminding me. But E-M81 is a derived form of E-L19. E-L19 is likely pre-Berber in the Maghreb.
The branch on which E-M81 would later form is 14ky old, so it's unlikely to be Berber if Berber is understood as Neolithic northeast African.
There will be a parent clade of M81 that will be older than the berbers. That seems like an obvious point
That doesn't change the fact that M81 is fairly unique to the berbers
wiki
Ifri Amr U Mussa is an archaeological site located on Zemmour Plateau in the rural commune of Ait Siberne (province of Khemisset), along the national road number 6 which leads to Meknes.[1]
Human fossils excavated in the area have been radiocarbon-dated to the Early Neolithic, around 5,000 BCE. Ancient DNA analysis of these specimens indicates that they carried paternal haplotypes related to the E1b1b1b1a (E-M81) subclade and the maternal haplogroups U6a and M1, all of which are frequent among present-day communities in the Tamazgha. These ancient individuals also bore an autochthonous North African genomic component that peaks among modern Berbers, indicating that they were ancestral to populations in the area. Of the old samples that the Early Neolithic Ifri n'Amr or Moussa skeletons were compared with, they were most closely related to fossils from the Late Neolithic Kelif el Boroud site near Rabat. They likewise showed ties with ancient specimens from the Mesolithic Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the Levant. These affinities had already been gleaned from the similarity in mortuary practices between Ifri n'Amr or Moussa and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in Cyprus
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
East Mediterranean connections could go back to Aterian era. Maghreb and Levant had those reddened Nassarius beads at roughly the same time. Blombos makes them a bit later. The concepts travelled south.
Aterians can't be ruled out as OoA contributors, as Taforalt founders (82k), or as migrants to the south (Inner Africa) and east (Nile Basin) when their Sahara dried up.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There will be a parent clade of M81 that will be older than the berbers. That seems like an obvious point
That doesn't change the fact that M81 is fairly unique to the berbers
wiki
Ifri Amr U Mussa is an archaeological site located on Zemmour Plateau in the rural commune of Ait Siberne (province of Khemisset), along the national road number 6 which leads to Meknes.[1]
Human fossils excavated in the area have been radiocarbon-dated to the Early Neolithic, around 5,000 BCE. Ancient DNA analysis of these specimens indicates that they carried paternal haplotypes related to the E1b1b1b1a (E-M81) subclade and the maternal haplogroups U6a and M1, all of which are frequent among present-day communities in the Tamazgha. These ancient individuals also bore an autochthonous North African genomic component that peaks among modern Berbers, indicating that they were ancestral to populations in the area. Of the old samples that the Early Neolithic Ifri n'Amr or Moussa skeletons were compared with, they were most closely related to fossils from the Late Neolithic Kelif el Boroud site near Rabat. They likewise showed ties with ancient specimens from the Mesolithic Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the Levant. These affinities had already been gleaned from the similarity in mortuary practices between Ifri n'Amr or Moussa and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in Cyprus [/qb]
I think you're missing the point. At some point people from the east introduced cattle to the Capsians and areas further south.
quote: There is good evidence for the ‘Capsian Neolithic’ expanding from N. Africa from 6000 bp onwards, reaching Dhraina, near Nouakchott in Mauritania at 3980 bp (Vernet 1993:214, 217, 232) and it seems reasonable to identify this as the Berber expansion.
There are some possible genetic traces of these herders, but E-M81 shows no evidence of being among them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Berber is a language and culture not a skin color and not a Genetic lineage. Berber languages are thought to have originated in East Africa maybe 7-12 thousand years ago with linguists like Christopher Ehret who proposed this model. They did not originate in Eurasia. Now unless Eurasians introduced Berber language and culture into Africa it originated with the indigenous black Africans of Africa. The reason why there are so many complexions among North Africans is due to historic mixture with Eurasians. But that mixture is not the basis of or origin of Berber language and culture. And today's Berber culture is a fusion of foreign elements on top of a older indigenous African substratum.
We did discuss this before and there was a paper tying the Tuareg and Beja and I don't have time right now to dig it up.
DNA wise, the Berbers are associated with U6 and E-M81. U6 is far too old to have anything to do with the origin and spread of Berber languages. Therefore the most likely canditate is E-M81 which is a branch off of E lineages in East Africa. If Berber languages did originate in East Africa 7000 years ago or so then this would be a good candidate or lineages related to it.
Berbers originated in West Africa--not East Africa. The contemporary Berbers or Amazigh are all in the West. The Berbers in Siwa are not native to the area. These Berbers are Amazigh and came to Siwa to settle the region due to a drought. Once they found the Siwa Oasis they returned to Algeria and Morocco to invite other Amazigh to settle the area. (See: http://www.siwaoasis.com/ ).The Berbers did not originate in the Sudan and Egypt. Berbers came from NorthWest Africa.
Tuareg and Berbers were not Northeast African people The Tuareg did not come from the Fezzan, they originated in the West. According to Tuareg tradition they originated in the Tafilalt or Tafilet (Arabic: تافيلالت) a important oasis of the Morocco )
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
Prove this is not another one of your trademark sermons. Who here is beginning NA history with Eurasians? Name names and give examples.
Not that this is not another attempt at running away from your original claim that that the Sahel must be turned upside down to find the legendary "real North Africans". Genetics is not an RPG mission quest in search of mythical things. You have no reason for assuming these mythical North Africans exist today in the Sahel. So why are you issuing demands to geneticists that they must find them "or else". You're basically starting your hypothesis with wishful thinking, not with any evidence that these people exist today.
Swenet, I am talking about the folks writing the papers. I said they are Eurasians studying Eurasian DNA with the benefit of better preserved ancient DNA from Eurasia. As a result, most African DNA papers are written relative to Eurasian DNA. EEF is not about understanding African DNA history. However, it does provide some possible glimpses to some aspects of African DNA history but that is about it.
So what am I backing away from? You aren't going to find any ancient African population in any part of Africa by looking at Eurasian DNA. Yet this is where most of these papers are starting from.
In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe.
Trying to find out what African populations were doing in the Sahara over the last 80 thousand years is not looking for mythology. It is about understanding DNA just like EEF is. You aren't going to find the facts about that history by focusing on or starting with Eurasian DNA. Like I said, Eurasia is not the basis of North African DNA history going back to OOA and prior to OOA, yet folks keep starting with Europe as if humans started there. Eurasian mixture is only limited to a relatively small window of time in North Africa and isn't helpful going back more than 10 to 15 thousand years.
But when it comes to Africa you won't see Eurasian DNA filtered out to focus on purely African movements. This is about methodology and results following from that methodology. Other than being someone who is into DNA, it really isn't about you in the slightest. My only disagreement with you is that you have in the past defended such models even with their flaws. Or tried to make Eurasian centered models relevant when studying ancient African DNA.
It is like that paper that came out talking about African DNA history and conveniently completely left out North Africa. This is a result of exclusively modeling African DNA based a model of recent Eurasian admixture. Almost every paper on African DNA is talking about some sort of Eurasian mixture which means most of these papers are talking about a relatively small part of overall African DNA history.
Again this picture below represents the model most of these papers and most European scientists are working under. It is a model of Africa starting with Eurasians LONG AFTER OOA. It is not a model of what was happening before or during OOA. A model of Africa starting before and during OOA (and even after) would have that yellow arrow at the top going the other way. As it stands that yellow arrow is your "mythical" ancient North African population.
Again, finding out what population was ancestral to the Iberomausans and Natufians is not chasing mythology. Using MODERN West Africans and West Africans as proxies for populations across the Sahara 20kya is A FLAWED MODEL. The fact that populations existed in and around the Sahara at that time is not a myth or chasing mythology. The problem is most of the models of North African history as being separate from African history at large is the mythology and folks defending that are role players when it comes to true ancient African genetic and population history.
quote: North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
As this paper shows such a population is not mythology, the question is whether that population came from Eurasia or whether it came from within Africa. The only way to answer that question is to get ancient DNA from around the Sahara and Sahel along with ancient DNA from coastal North Africa and the Levant. And this paper also shows that you cant calculate and model the past with any degree of accuracy in a vacuum. You can't. It is not going to be accurate. You need data from the regions and populations involved. Without the ancient DNA from Tarofalt, you wouldn't have this paper. And that DNA contradicts the Eurasian first model of North African history. Point blank this paper disproves the model of ancient North Africa as separate from the rest of Africa as implied by a "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" false dichotomy.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why would they need African DNA to find EEF when EEF data is direct from dead folks bones?
You keep ignoring this but EEF is not mythical. EEF is Stuttgart, the Tyrolean Iceman, and a southern Swedish farmer.
The African component of Beduin B was used to determine the amount of Near Eastern farmer in the Stuttgart and it applies to all EEF and Mediterranean Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M. In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] How do they get Capsians in Mauritania? I though they were in Tunisia and Algeria
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1
____________________________
I don't think you will be able to name a Capsian site in Mauritania that is acknowledged by researchers in the past 20 years. The first map clear delineates the Capsian sites Above the second map's line are Magreb sites and none located in Mauritania. The Western most site is Tarentule III, Algeria Although Cambridge 82 mentions it I don't see it mentioned elsewhere as Capsian
Here is one Romanian sourcer you might find interesting, it's pretty good
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1
Looks like you missed a spot. From the same book:
quote:In any event the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition, even in the Sahara, appears to be more recent than the Saharan-Sudanese Neolithic to the south or the Mediterranean Neolithic to the north. To the east and west, other cultures with different origins border on the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition and have undoubtedly influenced it. These are the Mauritania Neolithic in which are combined traits of varying origins (Mediterranean- Atlantic, Saharan—Sudanese and, perhaps, Guinean as well as some Neolithic of Capsian Tradition) and, to the east the Te'ne'rean, one of the most beautiful lithic industries of the Old World which, while it may not be Egyptian in origin, is at least very closely related to the Egyptian Neolithic.
This old book is not a substitute for Blench's source, though. You should start there.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^It (the 2nd pic) is from that book Lioness posted (The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1) if you want to read more on it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
It will probably do you no good to try discussing scientific falsifiability and burdens of proof. It hasn't worked yet and I'd rather not see discourse move in a similar direction for three pages when you probably won't get anything out of it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
I wasn't talking about you unless you are the Europeans who created these models and write the papers. What part of that do you not get?
And again, the ancient ancestors of Tarofalt and the Natufians aren't Unicorns. To find that ancestral population is relevant to understanding the precise nature of the relationship between Taforalt the Natufians and other Africans. And seeing that this ancestral populations spanned the Sahara and connected West Africa, the Sahara, North Africa and the Levant, where else would you presume to look for them?
You aren't making any sense. Models and calculations and sims are not better than raw data.
I know you know that but you make a lot of noise about nothing.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why would they need African DNA to find EEF when EEF data is direct from dead folks bones?
You keep ignoring this but EEF is not mythical. EEF is Stuttgart, the Tyrolean Iceman, and a southern Swedish farmer.
The African component of Beduin B was used to determine the amount of Near Eastern farmer in the Stuttgart and it applies to all EEF and Mediterranean Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M. In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe.
The point of EEF was to identify the geographic origin of some DNA components in ancient Europe. It wasn't simply based on just raw ancient DNA. In order to uncover the ancestry of the DNA in ancient Europe associated with the Neolithic they ran a very complex set of filters to remove any modern contamination from populations like some Africans.
quote: For each allele-matching analysis (A) and (B), we performed the following four mixture model analyses (though here “modern” groups exclude ALT,DEN , who are not used as surrogates for reasons described above): (I) “all moderns” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern groups as surrogates (II) “all moderns + ancients” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern+ancient groups as surrogates (III) “ancients + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern genome using all other ancient genomes, plus the modern Yoruba, as surrogates (IV) “ancients (excluding BR ) + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern group using the modern Yoruba and all other ancient genomes except BR2 as surrogates
In each case, a group cannot use itself as a surrogate or else it would match itself exactly. Under allele-matching analysis (B), the same groups we disallow as donors are also disallowed as surrogates for mixture model analyses (I) and (II). For analyses (III) and (IV), we were interested in how modern and ancient groups relate ancestrally to different sets of ancient genomes. We also included the Yoruba as a surrogate in (III) and (IV), since our ancient samples contain no proxies for sub- Saharan Africa and e.g. several West Eurasian groups we use here have been shown to have recent African admixture [121].
r analyses (I) and (II), if the final inferrence included more than ten surrogate groups with β r s > 0, we did an altered procedure to mitigate effects of over-fitting. In particular we sequentially included surrogates that improved the total variation distance (TVD) measure (e.g. used in [148]) between f r, the inferred allele matching profile of recipient group r based on the inferred best fit to equation(5), and f r, the actual allele matching profile of recipient group r. To do so, we measure TVD comparing two profiles x,y using
Meaning the purpose of the paper on EEF was to understand where certain Genomes originated that were found in the DNA of the early Neolithic in Europe focusing exclusively on other populations in Eurasia. It isn't a single targeted population. It is a model of mixture based on inference and filtering to define the origin of specific Eurasian genomes. And they used that filtering to remove recent African mixture from their analysis of the ancient populations.
Literally Early European farmers are all populations of Europeans who practiced farming at an early date. It is not a single population, as opposed to multiple different populations across Europe. But the EEF population they are referring to GENETICALLY is the percentage of Anatolian ancestry found among the various European groups at the earliest stages of farming in Europe. It is not a "single population" with a single DNA profile as opposed to a model of mixture between multiple DNA profiles which was filtered to determine how much of that profile came from Anatolia and other communities where farming originated.
quote:To better characterize this inferred migration, we modeled ancient and modern genomes as mixtures of DNA from other ancient and/or modern genomes, a flexible approach that characterizes the amount of ancestry sharing among multiple groups simultaneously
SO my point was why don't they do the same thing to filter out recent Eurasian mixture from ancient African DNA models?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
It will probably do you no good to try discussing scientific falsifiability and burdens of proof. It hasn't worked yet and I'd rather not see discourse move in a similar direction for three pages when you probably won't get anything out of it.
Yeah I'm going to stop here. Thanks for helping me conserve another 15m of my life trying to understand the mysterious inner workings of Doug's mind.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1
Looks like you missed a spot. From the same book:
quote:In any event the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition, even in the Sahara, appears to be more recent than the Saharan-Sudanese Neolithic to the south or the Mediterranean Neolithic to the north. To the east and west, other cultures with different origins border on the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition and have undoubtedly influenced it. These are the Mauritania Neolithic in which are combined traits of varying origins (Mediterranean- Atlantic, Saharan—Sudanese and, perhaps, Guinean as well as some Neolithic of Capsian Tradition) and, to the east the Te'ne'rean, one of the most beautiful lithic industries of the Old World which, while it may not be Egyptian in origin, is at least very closely related to the Egyptian Neolithic.
This old book is not a substitute for Blench's source, though. You should start there.
That doesn't change the fact that M81 is fairly unique to the berbers
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Maghrebi E-M2* clades that were dated by the most recent paper are older in the Maghreb than the estimates of E-M81.
Also see the updated estimate on yfull, which is presumably entirely driven by the Portuguese samples. (We know for awhile now that E-M81 is ironically more diverse in Iberia than in Maghrebi samples today.)
So who would you say these E-M2 carriers mixed with once in the Maghreb? Because I like to think the people already present there spoke Berber languages. I hope you're not saying that these people didn't speak Berber languages, simply because extant E-M81 clades didn't exist yet 4500 years ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Direct word of the inventors mean nothing to ideologues' rhetoric.
I gotta believe Lazaridis Patterson Reich meant it when they said a Roman era N & SSA represents a possible 4th wave of modern Euro ancestry.
And more importantly actual EEF Stuttgart tooth aDNA was tested against YRI to prove the Swedish Farmer girl had Near Eastern Farmer ancestry.
Yet these two facts still go denied masqued by incredible contortion.
The point was if they had ancient DNA from Anatolia and other populations in Europe all they had to do was directly do analysis on those ancient samples to determine a relationship.
YRI is a MODERN population and therefore any analysis with YRI is more to filter out recent African mixture in Europe since the neolithic. Obviously this does not rule out ANCIENT African mixture from prior to and during the Neolithic. If they have ancient African DNA they would just do a direct comparison. Yet they also did substantial analysis and comparisons with modern populations along with the ancient ones.
The point I am making is you don't see them doing the same kinds of deep filtering and analysis with ancient African DNA to filter out recent Eurasian mixture and determine what movements were taking place within Africa solely involving African populations. Obviously humans have been in Africa longer than Europe and the Sahara is a key part of OOA. The question is do you really CARE about what Africans were doing before or without any Eurasian mixture or do you only care about what happened after Eurasians came on the scene. Meaning wanting to understand that deep history of Africans prior to any substantial Eurasian admixture is just as important and relevant as any other part of human history. There is more human history IN AFRICA than there is outside of Africa. Unfortunately, most of these papers are written by Europeans who are trying to understand their own history AS Europeans with much better preserved DNA because of the environment in Europe. So I understand why the the data is skewed in that regard. But it doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile to want to know more about Africa separate from what was happening in Europe.
It isn't like we didn't already know that the Neolithic started in Anatolia. They just wanted to narrow down and find the specific genetic components that contributed to those early European neolithic communities that originated in Anatolia and how much evidence for direct movements of populations were taking place associated with farming entering Europe.
Title of the article I referenced: Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans
quote:One of the most enduring and widely debated questions in prehistoric archaeology concerns the origins of Europe’s earliest farmers: Were they the descendants of local hunter-gatherers, or did they migrate from southwestern Asia, where farming began? We recover genome-wide DNA sequences from early farmers on both the European and Asian sides of the Aegean to reveal an unbroken chain of ancestry leading from central and southwestern Europe back to Greece and northwestern Anatolia. Our study provides the coup de grâce to the notion that farming spread into and across Europe via the dissemination of ideas but without, or with only a limited, migration of people.
Also, note that even with all that filtering and processing of the data they still don't have the whole picture of Neolithic DNA transmission and there are other notable finds as well. That is why the title says European farmers descend from the Northern Aegean and Anatolia not from the fertile crescent. So in that sense this is like a "unicorn" as it doesn't represent direct contributions of DNA from populations who started the Neolithic tradition.
quote: A key remaining question is whether this unbroken trail of ancestry and migration extends all the way back to southeastern Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent, where the earliest Neolithic sites in the world are found. Regardless of whether the Aegean early farmers ultimately descended from western or central Anatolian, or even Levantine hunter-gatherers, the differences between the ancient genomes presented here and those from the Caucasus (20) indicate that there was considerable structuring of forager populations in southwestern Asia before the transition to farming. The dissimilarity and lack of continuity of the Early Neolithic Aegean genomes to most modern Turkish and Levantine populations, in contrast to those of early central and southwestern European farmers and modern Mediterraneans, is best explained by subsequent gene flow into Anatolia from still unknown sources.
But none of this has anything to do with understanding African DNA history. So when it comes to ancient North Africa the point is you would need similar amounts of ancient DNA from across Northern Africa and similar filters and forms of analysis to narrow down and identify specific population movements within Africa in the time frames leading up to and after OOA, removing Eurasian genes as "recent mixture". The question being how much ancient migration from Eurasia took place in North Africa or was it primarily African during various time periods before, during and after OOA, including the Neolithic.
As I have posted before the problem is the lack of ancient DNA from Africa. So unfortunately most of these papers start with Eurasian DNA since those samples are more ancient and can help but aren't a replacement for actual ancient data from Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
didn't they say a 4th wave from SSA to Europe. With Iberia receiving the most.
"I gotta believe Lazaridis Patterson Reich meant it when they said a Roman era N & SSA represents a possible 4th wave of modern Euro ancestry. "
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic