An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor
David Reich, Svante Pääbo et al
Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558 2015 _________________________________
If basal Eurasian remains were found -How would they know they were basal Eurasian?
However I'm not going to pursue it further because basal Eurasian is off topic. The topic is
•Genome-wide analysis of 16 African individuals who lived up to 8,100 years ago
But "Basal Eurasian" is tens of thousands of years later
quote: Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.
The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations
--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East Iosif Lazaridis
I don't know why the basal eurasian hypothetic keeps getting brought up in Neolithic studies, it's Lazaridis fault
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?
Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya? .....
European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.
An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor
David Reich, Svante Pääbo et al
Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558 2015 _________________________________
If basal Eurasian remains were found -How would they know they were basal Eurasian?
However I'm not going to pursue it further because basal Eurasian is off topic. The topic is
•Genome-wide analysis of 16 African individuals who lived up to 8,100 years ago
But "Basal Eurasian" is tens of thousands of years earlier
quote: Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.
The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations
--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East Iosif Lazaridis
I don't know why the basal eurasian hypothetic keeps getting brought up in Neolithic studies, it's Lazaridis fault
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Swenet
Again very good point. When we always discuss genetic history of a region of the world we always forget to add the context of the environment/climate of that time. Sure we bring up the Sahara(desert vs fertile) but we never talk about the other climate events.
Even when the ice sheets were retreating Southern Europe and Northern Southwest Asia would have still been quite cold for a large population. Africa would have easily been able to support a large population that would have been ancestral to basel Eurasian.
I mean not to go off-topic but I feel this is a good example. Look at the population of Canada. Only 30,000,000 million people. The African-American population is larger than that. But why is that?
Sure Southern Canada is densely populated and not in the arctic.
But the majority of Canada IS in the arctic. And while Canada is much bigger than the USA. The USA can more easily support a larger and diverse population. To me this would have been the same with Africa vs Western Eurasia.
People do this all the time. They make elaborate narratives with no regard for things that hamper or promote growth and migration. One of the reasons I saw through that claim on ABF about Malawian-mediated Neolithization of South Africa is because Malawi is in the middle of Tsetse-infested zone.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Swenet, I've read a few studies indicating ANE influence in prehistoric SW Asia and such influence would seem to correlate with hg R lineages in that region. If so, do you identify ANE as being a possible component in EEF and thus its arrival in Africa?
I can't prove it as I've never looked for admixture analyses, but I think so, yes. The R-V88(?)-carrying farmer in Spain (el Trocs [see Haak et al 2015]) seems indistinguishable from non-R1b-carrying EEF. But ANE-related ancestry is probably still in his genome. Just like L3b-related African ancestry in the Russian below is still present at low levels that most tools used by hobbyists probably wouldn't pick up on.
quote: Table 4 shows the comparison of the frequencies of alleles of the autosomal microsatellite loci found in Russians with mitochondrial haplotypes of African origin in European, African, and Russian populations. We found that the autosomal haplotypes of the Rus- sians carrying African mtDNA haplotypes were mainly characterized by alleles common to European and African populations. However, Russians had alle- les that are characteristic of Europeans but are extremely rare in Africans (e.g., D13S317*8, D13S17*9, D81179*10, and D19S433*15 in an L1b subject and D18S51*17 in an L3b subject), which indicates their European origin. Only two alleles found in an L3b Russian subject (D2S1338*22 and TPOX*7) were frequent in Africans but extremely rare or absent in Russians. Apparently, these alleles are a genetic trace of a past mixing of races.
Other R1b carrying European farmers might have much more ANE than Troc3, though. I just mentioned him because I'm more familiar with him than with other European R carrying farmers that have been found more recently.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow... lol. I see "lol_race" didn't read this study. Him and others still pushing the idea that this women wasnpurely South Cushite.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: People do this all the time. They make elaborate narratives with no regard for things that hamper or promote growth and migration. One of the reasons I saw through that claim on ABF about Malawian-mediated Neolithization of South Africa is because Malawi is in the middle of Tsetse-infested zone.
lol. I remember that Malawian discussion. But yeah people usually forget the context of certain environmental issues.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol at the results posted in that thread in light of my comments on EEF-related ancestry in Luxmanda. Good to know my aDNA radar is on point.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The non African signatures were probably partially allocated to "East African pastoralists" and the less "med farmer" is shared with Europeans the higher luxmanda should score for it, I expect higher proportion of North African*. ..But then again, it's just GEDmatch
posted
Was in a fairly decent mood, decided to killed some free time, inspired by Capra and BBH, I decided to Run Some DStats. It is very telling as it pretty much clears up most if not all of the questions surrounding Luxmandas Non-SubSaharan Ancestry... so maybe my time wasn't all that wasted. Blue text denotes best fit and Z-score, Red text is worst Stat, blue bg is the best Z-Score.
Quick breakdown: It appears that Luxmandas NonSSA might be an intermediate between Natufians and PPNB (more shifted towards PPNB), EEF-Anatolian like ancestry in Luxmanda is amplified by relatively non-Admixed Africans. However, when looking at Modern admixed populations; Cushitic, Nubian, we see signs of Anatolian Admixture dropping due to these newer population having more recent Anatolian-like ancestry (Nubians, Beja) or similar ancestry being wide spread in the source populations for non African Admixture (Somali). ..thoughts, anyone?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
A little tricky with these indirect comparisons but I think I see what you are saying. The Beni Amer and Halfawieen have a little more affinity to Anatolian than to Levant_N while the opposite is the case with Luxmanda, so the former have not only more but slightly different composition of the MENA portion of their ancestry.
With Luxmanda, Somali; WA, Mbuti the difference between the ancient West Asian references is negligible, so Somalis seem to have much the same amount and composition of MENA as Luxmanda.
But in the paper Somalis were modelled as 16% Iran_N, 22% Dinka, 62% Luxmanda - that would make 40% of their MENA ancestry Iran_N. No way that should work! Are these different Somali populations being tested?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luxmanda was modelled as about 38% PPNB (36-39% range). By Elmaestro's stats Somalis should be about the same as Luxmanda.
Or, Somalis modelled in this study as 62% Luxmanda, 16% Iran_N, 22% Dinka. So 62% x 38% (of MENA in Luxmanda) = 24%, plus 16% for Iran_N comes to 40% MENA in total. All give or take a few percent.
Pickrell et al estimated Somalis at 38% MENA back in 2013, so this actually matches the previously accepted numbers very well.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
To my knowledge the Somali samples are all uniform. They have a lil more MENA than Luxmanda, however they also have low amount of Mbuti-like ancestry possibly from bantu influences. I ran the same results with the chimp earlier and got negative Z-scores for Lux,Som;WA,Mbuti... So I can believe that their amounts of MENA is very close maybe a lil less than 40% as you say. However I don't think the differences among WAsian influences should be taken lightly, and the shared ancestry between those guys should also be respected.
for instance: Somalis are simultaneously more Modern SSAn(dinka-WAfr) and West-Eurasian than Luxmanda, the biggest differences in their non African ancestry is that of Iran_N, so if you fit Somali between Luxmanda,Dinka,Iran_N in qpAdm the Iranian component will have to compensate for the added SSan(dinka) ancestry. It's a bit convoluted but what's thought provoking is the possibility that Luxmanda might harbor shared ancestry between these West Asian groups, whether it is BE, N.African or whatever.. if that is true, how would we go about distinguishing which population mixed with Luxmanda and to what magnitude??
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
IMO this is where all roads have been leading for while. I think the community at large is reluctant to make that jump due to long held biases....BUT it’s exactly what we would expect.
Speaking of “taking things more seriously”.....I think we are going to have to start taking some of those splits times and divergences a bit more literal a la XYYMAN style. When it comes to all his bio-anthro many of us have a different research styles and come from a different backgrounds. For better or for worse I think the newer group of folks looking into this have come to totally different conclusions than some of us “old guard” folks. There are plenty of scenarios I wouldn’t have even considered until someone with younger eyes took a look at the data and evaluated it. Ma’alta boy at 25kya has Amerindian affinities. The new skeleton out of East Asia at 40 kya has Amerindian affinities.
It’s pretty much “game over man”.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
yeah, I wonder if they were just being logically complete, or do they have some hunch or new model?
I don't like pure Basal Eurasian for it, not as worked out by Laziridis et al at least; didn't fit for East Africans before and doesn't fit for Luxmanda now. Some earlier population shared between West Asia and North Africa yes, the question is always why does Anatolia Neolithic work relatively well and why isn't Natufian the best fit?
But maybe there is a widely shared base Paleo-MENA population here, and there is not only the recognizable additional ancestry in Anatolians (WHG etc) pulling them away from it, but some unrecognized ghost contributing to Natufians which is pulling them away in a different direction?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing more needs to be added --- Quotes: “of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage MORE deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.”
“(Cann et al., 1987; Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of that within it (Tishkoff et al.,”
“We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000- year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that ****lived thousands of years earlier in Africa*** or the Near East. We fit the remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as most closely related to the Ethiopia_4500BP (p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”
-------------------- 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
SMH – comedians? The forest for the trees. Luxmandra is not the issue. The bigger problem is Malawi_hora-8100BP also carry “European” ancestry and virtually zero East Asian. That will take the presence of “European” ancestry in Africa BEFORE PPNB!!! Therefore Skoglund had no other choices but “back into” a possibly African origin. He was cornered!!!! Do you get that? That is what European do when they are caught in a lie..
I told Cass-Dead BEFORE the paper was released what was coming based upon the abstract and tone of the writeup Malawi_Hora. I asked him to dig up the anthropological history of Malawi_hora because the author hinted on what was coming. Malawi was described as Mediterranean(whatever that is) . A Mediterranean deep in sub-saharan Africa in the late stone age. "Cacausoid" Hofmeyer was how old. lol!
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe.
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
yeah, I wonder if they were just being logically complete, or do they have some hunch or new model?
I don't like pure Basal Eurasian for it, not as worked out by Laziridis et al at least; didn't fit for East Africans before and doesn't fit for Luxmanda now. Some earlier population shared between West Asia and North Africa yes, the question is always why does Anatolia Neolithic work relatively well and why isn't Natufian the best fit?
But maybe there is a widely shared base Paleo-MENA population here, and there is not only the recognizable additional ancestry in Anatolians (WHG etc) pulling them away from it, but some unrecognized ghost contributing to Natufians which is pulling them away in a different direction?
-------------------- 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
I just want to add. I pointed out this before I was "kicked out"...no E-M2 is found in these ancient Africans(except 2000bc Mota East Africa). It is surprising that so much of the mtDNA is L0* and not L2*. Where am I going with this? Two things. First - The molecular clock may be all screwed up based upon 30yrs/generation. Or the mutation rate is messed up. Second- There was massive population change over not only in Europe but Africa as well. Is it cultural?
-------------------- 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 |
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
IMO this is where all roads have been leading for while. I think the community at large is reluctant to make that jump due to long held biases....BUT it’s exactly what we would expect.
Speaking of “taking things more seriously”.....I think we are going to have to start taking some of those splits times and divergences a bit more literal a la XYYMAN style. When it comes to all his bio-anthro many of us have a different research styles and come from a different backgrounds. For better or for worse I think the newer group of folks looking into this have come to totally different conclusions than some of us “old guard” folks. There are plenty of scenarios I wouldn’t have even considered until someone with younger eyes took a look at the data and evaluated it. Ma’alta boy at 25kya has Amerindian affinities. The new skeleton out of East Asia at 40 kya has Amerindian affinities.
It’s pretty much “game over man”.
Beyoku, you smashed the nail on the head all the way hard! The implications you point out is what I've been trying to get at! If you have pre-Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians. And in East Africa crania that don't look like typical 'Sub-Saharans' but rather like certain early West Asians. Yet in the latter case many scholars assume back-migration instead of the other way around. As another example, you have experts who use autosomal DNA data as proof of the difference between Natufians and 'Sub-Saharans' as proof that they are not of African origin, yet the Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese. The implications are clear as it pertains to Asian diversity visavi African diversity.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Beyoku, you smashed the nail on the head all the way hard! The implications you point out is what I've been trying to get at! If you have pre- Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians. And in East Africa crania that don't look like typical 'Sub-Saharans' but rather like certain early West Asians. Yet in the latter case many scholars assume back-migration instead of the other way around. As another example, you have experts who use autosomal DNA data as proof of the difference between Natufians and 'Sub-Saharans' as proof that they are not of African origin, yet the Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese. The implications are clear as it pertains to Asian diversity visavi African diversity.
quote: Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians
If you don't buy the idea of back migration of Eurasians into East Africa that can't be used as an analogy with Amerindians and modern Chinese. If the traits or DNA called Eurasian were actually African and went from Africa to Asia, an analogous theory seems not work with Amerindians and modern Chinese because geographically and sequentially in time the Americas were populated after China. Amerindians can't be the ancestors of modern Chinese so please explain how this works.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese.
Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.
Here is the summary-
quote:We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
Thoughts?
^^ this is the first post in the thread
I made a new thread recently called
Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure Pontus Skoglund 2017
I forgot about this thread we are in now because except for a URL link neither the title of the thread or the initial post states the name of the article or it's author.
I hope in the future that when people will make threads that are about a particular article that either title of the thread will be the same title as the article or have a different title but list the author's name and date
and that the initial post should have both article title and author in addition to the URL
There are so many articles to keep track of that it is not so easy to tell in a search that a particular article has already been discussed and this is coming from me who has been on this site for a while. Imagine new people doing a search looking at search results trying to see if a particular article is or has already been discussed.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If you don't buy the idea of back migration of Eurasians into East Africa that can't be used as an analogy with Amerindians and modern Chinese.
What do you mean? Eurasian back-migration to East Africa is a fact! At least such dating to historical times as shown by archaeology in the Horn as well as linguistics (Semitic languages) and confirmed by genetic findings in Horn populations showing the timing of the admixture to be ∼3,000 YBP. What I don't buy is that such admixture had anything to do with pastoral traditions in Africa such as the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic of Tanzania farther south since pastoralism in the continent predates the back-migration event by millennia. Nor do I buy the notion of any previous Eurasian back-migrations from prehistoric times either from the start of the Holocene or prior, unless you can show conclusive evidence otherwise.
Even Lazaridis states this possibility in regards to the findings on Luxmanda woman: These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East.
quote:If the traits or DNA called Eurasian were actually African and went from Africa to Asia, an analogous theory seems not work with Amerindians and modern Chinese because geographically and sequentially in time the Americas were populated after China. Amerindians can't be the ancestors of modern Chinese so please explain how this works.
I would recommend that you go back and read what I posted on Doug's thread about Tianyuan Man, but I'm just going to assume you have and still don't understand so I'll break it down myself.
^Findings show that Amerindians derive from two main lines of ancestry--one predominant line that came from Siberia and splintered off from another line that is ancestral to many modern Central Asians and Europeans which is known as 'Ancient North Eurasian', while the other peculiar line comes from Eastern Asia from a ghost population whose line also spread to Southeast Asia and Australasia and Oceania.
So you have Western Asians whose OOA ancestry is not much different from other Eurasians, probably descending from an 'Ancient North African' or rather 'Ancestral Out-of-African' line while there are other West Asians who descend from a ghost population called 'Basal Eurasian' which may very well be in fact a more recent African population compared to the Ancestral OOA.
Tianyuan Man by the way is geographically Chinese although he may very well look more Amerindian. (btw, I base this on crania from nearby sites like Shandingdong since all that remains of Tianyuan Man's skull is part of his mandible) The findings show Tianyuan Man to carry the 'Population Y' or 'Basal East Asian' ancestry.
Finally we have both linguistic and genetic evidence for American back-migrations into Asia!
So I hope the analogy is clear to you now.
quote:why?
Because there is genetic diversity in East Asians with autosomal differences of the Ainu/Jomon showing that but that doesn't make the Ainu any less 'Asian'. The same can be said for Africans. Just because you have African populations especially in ancient times who genetically differ from today's 'typical' "Sub-Saharans" doesn't make them any less African or as you would have it "Eurasian".
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@BBH What do you think about the Sudanese (nubians-Arabs) "Non-Eurasian" signatures being more similar to Great-Lakes than to Horners and or even Nilotes? ...More specifically, Which ancient or extant population do you think the unadmixed sudanese will resemble? being intermediate or a mixture of "cushitic" and Nilotic..?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic