quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: For what it's worth, I don't think any modern population looks exactly like the original "Basal Eurasian" population. All the populations in northern Africa seem to have acquired too much admixture from all directions in the millennia since. This would be true even for the populations people on ES would have cited as the best models for AE phenotype, like the Beja or certain modern Upper Egyptians. It's like how you don't see people who look precisely like Cheddar Man walking around Europe anymore.
"Basal Eurasian" is at minimum 50kya , Cheddar Man 10kya
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Interesting turn of events. Seems some of the folks involved in the reconstruction are doubting if it is possible to determine skin color from ancient DNA. Obviously this has implications across the board when trying to understand when and how major phenotype changes, such as skin color took place.
quote: There's no way to know that the first Briton had ‘dark to black skin’ says scientist who helped reconstruct his 10,000-year-old face
The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain Experts tested DNA taken from bone powder by drilling a hole through the skull It showed there was a 76 per cent chance that Cheddar Man was ‘dark to black’ Scientist behind the test used says it is impossible to be certain of this fact
Cheddar man may not have been 'dark to black skinned' after all.
Last month, researchers claimed that they had been able to accurately reconstruct the face of the 'first Brit' based on his DNA - and sensationally revealed he had black skin and blue eyes.
But now, one of the main scientists who helped create the reconstruction of his 10,000-year-old face says he may not have been black at all.
Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, says we simply don't know his skin colour.
While her computer model shows being black is his 'probable profile', DNA testing is not advanced enough to say for certain.
.... A team of experts, including Professor Walsh, recently created a computer model that tries to predict a person's skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, purely from their genes.
The test focused on 36 points of comparison in 16 genes, which are all linked to skin colour.
Dr Walsh and her colleagues analysed genetic data taken from more than 1,400 people.
They were mainly from Europe and the US, but also included people from Africa and Papua New Guinea.
....
The rest of the data was used to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone.
The model came up with 'black' or 'dark black' skin for Cheddar Man based on his DNA.
Some, particularly on the far-right, have questioned whether there was a political agenda behind the claims.
Dr Walsh believes that the tests can't prove Cheddar Man's skin colour and that his DNA may have degraded over the past 10,000 years.
Speaking to New Scientist, she said: 'It’s not a simple statement of "this person was dark-skinned".
'It is his most probable profile, based on current research.'
The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Prediction noted.
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
And then we’ll discover a group of Africans between Afr_A and Afr_B with ancestry from Afr_C called the “Bantu”
Too literal an interpretation of what I meant to express by Afr A B & C. Thx 4/t chance to expand.
Maybe I shoulda used Afr_A Afr_K & Afr_S to better express the over 1000 different ethnies. Impossible to list 'em all in a whole page much less a schema in a post. Murdock (1959:425-56) takes 31 pages of 4 columns each, to do it.
I just assumed nobody'd take there are only 3 stocks of Africans. At minimum Indigenous African substructure is a 5 way affair, no?
But am I missing something more that you're only hinting at?
Anyways... Because of extensive periods of arid near total isolation alleviated by lush interludes inviting to Inner African north bound 'migrants', the Maghreb developed a local type and attracted foreigners of a similar type because of the somewhat shared Pleistocene biome.
During all periods, arid or lush, Inner Africans did what they then knew best to do, follow fertile grasslands.
Nature is responsible for this coastal vs inner 'dichotomy' which is a reality and noted so since people began leaving records like the Saharan art, AE art, and the ancient world's writings.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Will somebody please help me with this. For years now nobody has clarified what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?
Help
If I understand the pre-OOA argument correctly, Africans are naturally going OOA vary in their relative closeness to Eurasians depending on how early their ancestors "got off the bus". The proto-Afrasan Northeast Africans whom we assume were the foundational ancestors of AE etc. would have gotten off the bus after the ancestors of West Africans, who in turn got off the bus long after Khoisan, and so on. So yeah, when you consider Northeast Africa would have been the last bus stop before OOA proper, the first option you listed would be more accurate.
Obviously, the implications of that aren't attractive to those in the "Afrocentric" community who want population genetics to mirror pan-Africanist sociopolitical views. But if it's any consolation, it's not likely that Homo sapiens turned pale the moment they passed the Sinai into the Middle East ~50 kya. That depigmentation would have probably happened in somewhere in West Eurasia long after OOA. So it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.
Will edit and expand later, maybe.
Quickly I want remind total human population size and location for time of OoA represented let's say by L3(M,N) and F-M89 being able to hook up.
Also, a bottle neck lessens diversity. The initial OoA bottle neck product 'Eurasians' couldn't possibly have had something thing that still wasn't in the bottle.
In fact they had less.
Or were a targetted community rounded up and driven out. Don't know a genetic term for it but that's the only way to eliminate 'genes' from a bottle. Deliberate non-natural selection.
posted
I can’t beleive WHG as an ancestral component is being directly compared to that of Basal Eurasian... because there’s no “100% WHG.”
Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.
@tukuler What’s often dismissed is the effect admixture has on diversity; Which cases increases or lessens it... there is more to my post. The advent that Africans didn’t simply progressively become Europeans and deposited on a Cline towards the near east.
For example... both of your schematics are equivalent in the grand scheme. If you continued to list off african groups until you get to Eurasian ... Afr_z will be closer to Eurasians than they are to Afr_A. I don’t beleive it’s that linear. Though it should go without saying that some Africans will be closer to non Africans than another group of Africans for a multitude of reasons. Including admixture and diversity.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the presence of NE African ancestry doesn't contribute to the lower proportion of Neanderthal in ancient Maghrebis. Is this what you mean? And, if so, what is your evidence?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the presence of NE African ancestry doesn't contribute to the lower proportion of Neanderthal in ancient Maghrebis. Is this what you mean? And, if so, what is your evidence?
look at the proportion of African ancestry, and roughly do the math. for instance Taf. when the SSA African portion of their dna is accounted for the neanderthal ratio is greater than that of Natufians... It is hard to say/see whats going on with the IAM for sure (due to lazy study) but it doesn't help that when neanderthal ancestry is detected (significantly) their predecessors with more Eurasian ancestry has less of it.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just evidence that there is a discrepancy between Taforalt's African ancestry (compared to Natufians) and what seems to be Taforalt's disproportionate Neanderthal (compared to Natufian). How are you specifically making the link that it's Taforalt's NE African ancestry that comes with Neanderthal? There are multiple streams of ancestry in Taforalt, including U6 (which is much more likely to inflate Neanderthal than E-M78). How do you know it's E-M78 that's the culprit, and not U6 and/or something else entirely?
And are you saying E-M78 and other NE African uniparentals come with heightened Neanderthal?
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the presence of NE African ancestry doesn't contribute to the lower proportion of Neanderthal in ancient Maghrebis. Is this what you mean? --Swenet
I'm asking again because I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your position.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
are you legitimately saying that Neanderthal ancestry came with the SSA ancestry in Taf?
And are you saying E-M78 and other NE African uniparentals come with heightened Neanderthal? -swenet
No, What I'm saying is that the portion of ancestry shared with other Africans should directly correlate negatively with neanderthal. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
you're saying the presence of NE African ancestry doesn't contribute to the lower proportion of Neanderthal in ancient Maghrebis. Is this what you mean? -swenet
Contribute? probably, I guess... but we're talking about Basal Eurasian, this isn't about minor contributions to reduction in neanderthal admixture... these are the "people" who were responsible for ~30% ancestry in caucus and Iranians yet brought down their neanderthal proportions to numbers comparable and even less than these Maghrebis and modern north Africans
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: are you legitimately saying that Neanderthal ancestry came with the SSA ancestry in Taf?
Why can't SSA-related ancestry pick up Neanderthal? There is absolutely no reason why it can't. I'm not saying that this is what happened. I'm saying that if you're going to pinpoint NE African ancestry as the culprit, I want to see how you narrowed it down to that.
quote:No, What I'm saying is that the portion of ancestry shared with other Africans should directly correlate negatively with neanderthal. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
In order to make that argument, you have to prove that African ancestry is involved in that disproportionate Neanderthal to begin with. That's your argument and you should flesh it out properly. You can't make a leap from disproportionate Neanderthal, to saying NE African failed to lower it. The evidence you've posted is not sufficient to make that claim. For instance, you have not ruled out that U6-linked ancestry is responsible.
quote:Contribute? probably, I guess... but we're talking about Basal Eurasian, this isn't about minor contributions to reduction in neanderthal admixture... these are the "people" who were responsible for ~30% ancestry in caucus and Iranians yet brought down their neanderthal proportions to numbers comparable and even less than these Maghrebis and modern north Africans
So, how do you know Basal Eurasian didn't bring down Taforalt Neanderthal? You don't know that it didn't, and the evidence you posted is not saying that it didn't. All you've done is post evidence of a disproportionate Neanderthal in Taforalt. We don't have a pre-E-M78 Taforalt sample, so you can't prove E-M78 people didn't lower Neanderthal when they arrived in the Maghreb.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the discrepancy you posted. But if you're making the argument that E-M78 didn't come with Basal Eurasian simply because Taforalt have heightened Neanderthal, and if you're saying that components other than NE African can't be responsible for that, you'd have to be willing to stand by a weird prediction. Which is that the NE Africans that moved to the Maghreb had more Neanderthal than even Natufians and PPN.
Let's say that's true, for a moment. In that case you'd only be able to extrapolate that locally (i.e. only to some E-M78 carriers, at most). In other words, that still wouldn't prove that other E-M35 carriers elsewhere in Africa and Eurasia didn't cause the drop in Neanderthal that is attributed to Basal Eurasian. I don't see how you can use this to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry, unless you're willing to argue that E-M35 carriers in general have/had among the most Neanderthal in the modern and ancient MENA region. This is an even weirder prediction.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we talk about modern mixture we have to be aware that this mixture can be a hindrance to uncovering ancient population structure. Using modern North Africans with substantial mixture from Eurasia as proxies for ancient indigenous African genetic and biological diversity is the problem.
And that is the "flawed model" most scientists are clinging to . Their view is that Northern Africa has always been "more mixed" with Eurasians almost since OOA. Hence the division of between North African and SSA.
I don't agree with this and the latest Taforalt paper doesn't support it either. The Taforalt population was closer to other Africans and therefore does NOT show any split in populations in ancient Africa.
And on top of that some folks here are hoping beyond hope to find some ancient split of internal African DNA somewhere in this and we have yet to find it.
The best hope we have is that we can get some 50kya DNA from Africa to see if any of those remains carry ancestral clades of some of the DNA lineages currently labeled as Eurasian.
The question being does indigenous African MTDNA stop with L and maybe M1 or did some of the other major lineages also arise in Africa at an ancient time. Some of the lineages that could fall into that category are U5,U6 and Y-DNA J1. Haplogroup U represents the primary lineage carried into Europe after the Ice Age and the question becomes geographically did it arise in Eurasia or did it arise somewhere in Africa.
quote: After the dispersal of modern humans (Homo sapiens) Out of Africa, hominins with a similar morphology to that of present-day humans initiated the gradual demographic expansion into Eurasia. The mitogenome (33-fold coverage) of the Peştera Muierii 1 individual (PM1) from Romania (35 ky cal BP) we present in this article corresponds fully to Homo sapiens, whilst exhibiting a mosaic of morphological features related to both modern humans and Neandertals. We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage. Consequently, we propose that the PM1 lineage is an offshoot to South East Europe that can be traced to the Early Upper Paleolithic back migration from Western Asia to North Africa, during which the U6 lineage diversified, until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages.
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation (Neandertals) to modern human (Homo sapiens) expansion on to the continent1. The first insights of the genetics of early Eurasian modern humans were recently provided by four ancient human genomes: Ust’-Ishim (Western Siberia, 45 ky cal BP)6, Kostenki (Russia, 39–36 ky cal BP)7, Fumane 2 (Italy, 41–39 ky cal BP)8 and Peştera cu Oase (Romania, 37–42 ky cal BP)9. Population genetic analyses of modern-day human mitochondrial haplogroup distributions suggest that in conjunction with the Eurasian expansion, some populations initiated a back-migration to North Africa10,11,12,13. Although the first genome of an ancient African individual (Ethiopia, 4.5 ky cal BP) identified a back-migration from Eurasia to Africa within the last 4.500 years14, the scarcity of older human remains in North Africa has prevented researchers from obtaining direct evidence of such a migratory phenomenon during the Paleolithic period. We present the mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) of the Peştera Muierii 1 (PM1) remains from Romania, directly dated to 35 ky cal BP15, which sheds new light on the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) migrations in Eurasia and North Africa.
posted
Even if every African in North Africa wasn't genetically closer to Eurasians than SSA, why does that mean the Egyptians would be the same? Whether by mixture or just the fact that some types of Africans would have to be ancestral to Eurasians, I find it difficult to believe that NO Africans would be closer to Eurasians with respect to north Africa. On the first page we see that the TAF don't cluster with the AE or Nubians at all. And before anyone mentions my earlier problems with Irish, my problem was his pooling modern SAF with groups far away from Egypt and the horn. I'm not saying I know to be false the TAF.
So if TAF and Egyptians aren't clustering together it could imply that Northern Africans weren't uniform. While perhaps ALL northern Africans weren't closer genetically to Eurasians, it's probably also not true that all northern Africans were closer to SSA. The direct ancestors of AE were likely mixed with Eurasian and SSA at the very least.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: On the first page we see that the TAF don't cluster with the AE or Nubians at all. And before anyone mentions my earlier problems with Irish, my problem was his pooling modern SAF with groups far away from Egypt and the horn. I'm not saying I know to be false the TAF.
Keep in mind that the skeletal Taf sample on the 1st page is younger than the Taf genomes. The younger TAF sample has more skeletal affinities to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, which is supported by the largely Eurasian mtDNA pool of this sample. The older TAF genomes have little direct genetic input from Upper Palaeolithic Europeans according to Loosdrecht. This is why the younger TAF sample on the first page looks completely different from AE and Nubians. They have Upper Palaeolithic European ancestry that can still be found in modern Maghrebis (see, for instance, the red mtDNA H in the pie charts below):
But one thing that is interesting is that some physical anthropologists who have studied the younger TAF sample (the one used by Irish in the Gebel Ramlah paper), is that they found some phenotypes reminiscent of later AE and Nubians in this population. But this component was only the minority. This is consistent with these individuals being survivors of the older TAF population (which has 5 E-M78 Y-chromosomes which represent common ancestry with Nubians, AE and Ethiopians). The younger Taforalt population is likely more or less the same as the older TAF population, except with much more Upper Palaeolithic European ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't lump all ancient populations in North Africa together. There are too many variations in populations based on time and location to support such a lumping. The Sahara pump pushed different populations around in Africa post OOA at various intervals. Similarly, various populations from around the Mediterranean would have come into the picture in small pockets in certain locations at various times but they don't represent all populations outside those localized areas of impact. Then you have the populations in North Africa pre-OOA who may or may not have any relationship to more recent Africans in the same areas let alone the mixed populations that came along much later.
It is this over simplification and lumping of all North Africans in prehistory to a single population group spanning all time periods up to the modern day as the "flawed model" of African bio-history.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marieke van de Loosdrecht et al., Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations. Science 2018
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Keep in mind that the skeletal Taf sample on the 1st page is younger than the Taf genomes. The younger TAF sample has more skeletal affinities to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, which is supported by the largely Eurasian mtDNA pool of this sample. The older TAF genomes have little direct genetic input from Upper Palaeolithic Europeans according to Loosdrecht.
.
.
quote:
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY* Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
Irish (2000, 2005) found that late Pleistocene Nubians (and especially the Jebel Sahaba sample) are wholly dissimilar to Iberomaurusian populations from the Maghreb. He pointed out that despite the typological similarities in their cultural traditions (Iberomaurusian vs. Qadan), that dentally the two populations are easily distinguished. In fact, late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) were the extreme outlier in a comparison of Pleistocene and Holocene North African groups (Irish, 2000, 2005). Irish (2000) also discovered discontinuity among the Mechtoid groups, whom others (Anderson, 1968; Greene & Armelagos, 1972; Dutour, 1995; Lahr & Arensburg, 1995) had previously argued were largely homogeneous. Specifically, whereas Afalou specimens could serve as an outgroup to a North African cluster of all but the late Pleistocene Nubians, the Taforalt specimens shared closest phenetic affinities to a sample of Punic and/or Roman era Carthaginians, a presumed immigrant population from Western Asia.
Because body proportions are being investigated, ossuary samples, where bodies have been disarticulated prior to burial (such as Taforalt or Grotte des Pigeons), are not included in the analyses.
.
.
quote:
Rym Kefi et al., On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations
.
. Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
Swenet, the Taforalt Morocco remains were E-M78. I don't know if Afalou Algerians, also considered "Iberomaurusian" were also E-M78 but if the Taforalts were also of the very cold adapted limb ratios that the Afalou were this suggest that cold adapted limb ratios might be related to U6. On top of this the dental data of Irish leans that way to an extent
and even if U6 is a North African clade it is a descendant of haplogroup U Possible time of origin 46,500 ± 3,300 years Possible place of origin Western Asia.
However Haplogroup U6 is dated to between 31,000 and 43,000 years ago by Behar et al. (2012). This is consistent with the discovery of basal U6* in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago. Hervella et al. (2016) take this find as evidence for Paleolithic back-migration of Homo sapiens from Eurasia into Africa.
I wonder what the limb ratios of modern U6 carriers is or if the limb ratios could vary. And if the Taforalt were maternally E-M78 then potentially the U6 Maternal side dominated ?
Anyway
wikipedia
quote:
Haplogroup U is found in 15% of Indian caste and 8% of Indian tribal populations.[9] Haplogroup U is found in approximately 11% of native Europeans and is held as the oldest maternal haplogroup found in that region.[9][10][11] In a 2013 study, all but one of the ancient modern human sequences from Europe belonged to maternal haplogroup U, thus confirming previous findings that haplogroup U was the dominant type of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in Europe before the spread of agriculture into Europe and the presence and the spread of the Indo-Europeans in Western Europe.[12][13]
Haplogroup U has various subclades numbered U1 to U9. Haplogroup K is a subclade of U8.[14] The old age has led to a wide distribution of the descendant subgroups across Western Eurasia, North Africa, and South Asia. Some subclades of haplogroup U have a more specific geographic range.
Haplogroup U6 is dated to between 31,000 and 43,000 years ago by Behar et al. (2012). This is consistent with the discovery of basal U6* in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago.[46] Hervella et al. (2016) take this find as evidence for Paleolithic back-migration of Homo sapiens from Eurasia into Africa. The discovery of basal U6* in ancient DNA contributed to setting back the estimated age of U6 to around 46,000 years ago.[47]
Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%)[27] in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites[48]) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[49] Northeast Africa and occasionally in other locations. U6 is also found at low frequencies in the Chad Basin, including the rare Canarian branch. This suggests that the ancient U6 clade bearers may have inhabited or passed through the Chad Basin on their way westward toward the Canary Islands.[50]
U6 is thought to have entered North Africa from the Near East around 30,000 years ago. It has been found among Iberomaurusian specimens dating from the Epipaleolithic at the Taforalt prehistoric site.[51] In spite of the highest diversity of Iberian U6, Maca-Meyer argues for a Near East origin of this clade based on the highest diversity of subclade U6a in that region,
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The best hope we have is that we can get some 50kya DNA from Africa to see if any of those remains carry ancestral clades of some of the DNA lineages currently labeled as Eurasian.
The question being does indigenous African MTDNA stop with L and maybe M1 or did some of the other major lineages also arise in Africa at an ancient time. Some of the lineages that could fall into that category are U5,U6 and Y-DNA J1. Haplogroup U represents the primary lineage carried into Europe after the Ice Age and the question becomes geographically did it arise in Eurasia or did it arise somewhere in Africa.
Swenet, looking at Egypt many people are quick to say that modern Egyptians are highly "diluted" by various invaders, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks
Yet when looking at "North Africans" the same people's "best hope" is that ancestry in North African now labeled "Eurasian" is in actuality African.
Swenet suppose the whole haplogroup U was discovered to be African what would the political relevance of that be?
Suppose articles came out in the news saying the oldest maternal DNA in Europe is African
what would the impact of that be?
If that was the case, Doug keeps talking about it's racist to Africa into NA and SSA but regarding U6 it is prevalent in some regions of Africa and not others.
This thing is like a semantic political game between these huge land masses "Africa" and "Eurasia" but when you get into the genetics it breaks down into particular region and U6 is not equally distributed throughout Africa.
It's as if "Africa" and "Eurasian" are being talked about as if they were separate races
It's like we have this more precise data as per haplogroup regions but people still have to attempt to process it in an old simplistic two part type paradigm similar to black vs white , "African" vs "Eurasian" and then throw in Neanderthal ancestry to try to enhance the dualism
quote:
wikipedia
U6
Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%)[27] in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites[48]) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[49] Northeast Africa and occasionally in other locations. U6 is also found at low frequencies in the Chad Basin, including the rare Canarian branch. This suggests that the ancient U6 clade bearers may have inhabited or passed through the Chad Basin on their way westward toward the Canary Islands
U6a: subclade is the most widespread, stretching from the Canary Islands and Iberian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa and Near East. The subhaplogroup has its highest diversity in Northeast Africa.
U6a1: similar distribution to U6a parent clade; found particularly among Copts (27.6%) and Beja (10.4%).[55] Estimated age: 15-20,000 BP. U6b: shows a more patched and western distribution. In the Iberian peninsula, U6b is more frequent in the north, whereas U6a is more common in the south. It has also been found at low frequencies in Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria. Estimated age: 8,500-24,500 BP. It has one subclade: U6b1: found only in the Canary Islands and in the Iberian peninsula. Estimated age: c. 6000 BP. U6c: only found in Morocco and Canary Islands. Estimated age: 6,000-17,500 BP. U6d: most closely related to U6b. Localized in the Tamazgha, with a presence in Europe. It arose between 10,000 and 13,000 BP.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You can't lump all ancient populations in North Africa together. There are too many variations in populations based on time and location to support such a lumping. The Sahara pump pushed different populations around in Africa post OOA at various intervals. Similarly, various populations from around the Mediterranean would have come into the picture in small pockets in certain locations at various times but they don't represent all populations outside those localized areas of impact. Then you have the populations in North Africa pre-OOA who may or may not have any relationship to more recent Africans in the same areas let alone the mixed populations that came along much later.
It is this over simplification and lumping of all North Africans in prehistory to a single population group spanning all time periods up to the modern day as the "flawed model" of African bio-history.
Haplogroup U is not evenly distributed in Africa it is prominent in the North as is E-M81
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If you think they're the same please forget about my schemata. Indigenous modified by foreigners can in no way be foreigners absorbing some of the local stock.
Reservation Indians with some Euro blood are not the same as non-reservation Euros with Indian blood who used 1/16th to take over tribal rule of indigenees.
Any 'Africans' significantly closer to 'Eurasians' than they are to any and every indigenous African people are not indigenous African. They are foreigners living in Africa absorbing to limited levels some indigenous stock.
If say 5000 years passes since a peoples' inception to nearly complete abandon of their place of birth, and they thrive and expand for say 25000 years someplace elsewhere thoroughly infusing with who may be there then, or if no one else is there, they can be considered indigenous.
Let me remove the alpha suffixes.
Do not take the dots or one dimensional plane referencing literally. nor is there any significance in the quantity of AFR's, nor does position suggest root or age. Imagine the AFR's in a circle if you must. imagine Eura a circle of various Eura's. Imagine the _ some kind of fuzzy border (genetic and whatever) between AFR's and Eura's.
AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR _ afr . Eura (afr looks like a Eura in Africa mating with Africans
AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR . afr _ Eura (afr looks like a African who may a Eura relationship more intense than any other AFR
Maybe I should give up trying to illustrate the different ways I interpret the statement 'african closer to eurasian than african' since everybody other than me knows what it means without confusion.
Whatever that statement means to whoever; For me, a people in Africa significantly closer by genetic criteria to non-Africans is simply a non- African people residing in Africa. Such folk are not African. No prehistoric one drop can make them anymore African than the Afrikaaners who went to the USA to claim legal benefits as African Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I can’t beleive WHG as an ancestral component is being directly compared to that of Basal Eurasian... because there’s no “100% WHG.”
Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.
@tukuler What’s often dismissed is the effect admixture has on diversity; Which cases increases or lessens it... there is more to my post. The advent that Africans didn’t simply progressively become Europeans and deposited on a Cline towards the near east.
For example... both of your schematics are equivalent in the grand scheme. If you continued to list off african groups until you get to Eurasian ... Afr_z will be closer to Eurasians than they are to Afr_A. I don’t beleive it’s that linear. Though it should go without saying that some Africans will be closer to non Africans than another group of Africans for a multitude of reasons. Including admixture and diversity.
posted
Whether or Not Haplogroup U originated in Africa, it is was not always present and was not dominant in all of North Africa. It is present in some remains but does not represent all lineages present over time in the past. This is just one part of a larger puzzle not all of it.
The significance of Haplogroup U is it represents the expansions of people into Europe after the last ice age. Determining where it originated helps understand how long ago U existed and where it spread and how it spread. But other than that there were other haplogroups already present in Africa and populations there who predate the Ice Age and were present after the ice age with different DNA lineages.
Likewise, the U6 found in ancient Romania matches no known population of modern Eurasians.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet suppose the whole haplogroup U was discovered to be African what would the political relevance of that be?
Not a lot. U6-linked autosomal ancestry doesn’t seem to have that much representation in the ancestry of ancient North Africans. It just looks that way because it survived better in North Africa than, say, L3k. Just like R-V88 survived better in some Chadic speakers than Y-DNA A, even though Chadic speakers are mostly closer to Y-DNA A people (not to R1b people).
If U6-linked ancestry had a large autosomal impact on the recently sampled Taforalt genomes then ancient Maghrebi U6 carriers would have lots of direct affinity with mtDNA U carrying Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. They don’t have this direct affinity with such samples. Also, the Neanderthal % of Taforalt is simply too low compared to relatively "pure" Eurasians like Ust-Ishim. So whether U6 is African or Eurasian isn’t a question that has many implications.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You cannot exclude U6 from what's hi-lited in your post.
U6b is 28000 years old. That corresponds to near the end of a lush monsoon period. U6b was in the Maghreb proper 10000 years before the last Ice Age. It was part of the inception of Maurusians as much as any local Aterian female haplogroups. It had to be a Maghrebi Upper Paleolithic later Aterian female component. Maybe in eastern parts since the middle Dabban too.
U6a is even older, 35000 years, contemporaneous with the mid-Upper Paleolithic Aterians and the earlier Dabban. The climate was hyper arid. The vast majority of people followed the retreating monsoon grasslands southward movement toward equatorial Africa, eg., Panga ya Saidi, Kenya (no Saharan pump but Monsoon fluctuation effected mid-Holocene and all earlier major population movements over all the continent. The Sahara is nobody's pump, it's a sponge saturated then wrung dry by the West African Monsoon rainpump cyclic advance and retreat).
The momma of U6a and U6b is 42000 years old, in an earlier stage of the Arid Maximum above. It's the tail end of the early Upper Paleolithic Aterian and the very beginning of the Dabban.
U6c is much younger, 12000 years old. Immediately after the last LGAM. It's Holocene not Pleistocene like U6 and U6a&b are.
The parent of U6a&b and U6c is 47000 years old, just 3000 years after the rise of U6. It's a lush Monsoon Optimum period. Aterian's been going on since the preceeding Middle Palaeolithic but the Dabban won't even exist for another 5000 years.
3000 years after coalescing then further splitting for 47000 years thereafter, all in Africa, NW Africa more but not exclusively in particular, is indigenous for me.
At least that's my opinion. I'm sure there are more.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Whether or Not Haplogroup U originated in Africa, it is was not always present and was not dominant in all of North Africa. It is present in some remains but does not represent all lineages present over time in the past. This is just one part of a larger puzzle not all of it.
I don't agree with this and the latest Taforalt paper doesn't support it either. The Taforalt population was closer to other Africans and therefore does NOT show any split in populations in ancient Africa.
And on top of that some folks here are hoping beyond hope to find some ancient split of internal African DNA somewhere in this and we have yet to find it.
The best hope we have is that we can get some 50kya DNA from Africa to see if any of those remains carry ancestral clades of some of the DNA lineages currently labeled as Eurasian.
The question being does indigenous African MTDNA stop with L and maybe M1 or did some of the other major lineages also arise in Africa at an ancient time. Some of the lineages that could fall into that category are U5,U6 and Y-DNA J1. Haplogroup U represents the primary lineage carried into Europe after the Ice Age and the question becomes geographically did it arise in Eurasia or did it arise somewhere in Africa.
^^ There is a hope here that Haplogroup U and J be African
Yet at the same time people want to point to modern Egyptians being highly diluted by Eurasian DNA
I would like to know how that can work at the same time
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if U and J formed in Africa, I don't understand how they weren't the result of back migrantion. Aren't the ancestral haplogroups from U and J from OOA somewhere along the line? The only thing that'd be established is that the back migration happened earlier before U and J occurred, right?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Even if U and J formed in Africa, I don't understand how they weren't the result of back migrantion. Aren't the ancestral haplogroups from U and J from OOA somewhere along the line? The only thing that'd be established is that the back migration happened earlier before U and J occurred, right?
U arI would say it represents a more complex scenario of migrations both ways. U arose somewhere between Africa and Arabia. Some of those early populations went both into Europe and Africa. Then subsequently along the Mediterranean there was movements in both directions at different times. So in the context of say Maghgrebis moving into Europe in more recent ages, it becomes and African lineage, but in more ancient times if Eurasians migrated into parts of North Africa with it, those particular lineages become Eurasians. The problem is that we are using terminology like "Eurasian" to refer to genes from 50,000 years ago even after populations carrying those genes have become part of populations in other places where unique mutations have arisen.....
Treating ancient genes like monoliths in regards to terminology is the issue and this is what Tukuler is saying.... By that logic all human genes are African then since all human genes originated there no matter how many new lineages came up after OOA.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: U arose somewhere between Africa and Arabia.
that is an unsubstantiated statement It's haplogroup M that is sometimes debated about if it's Asian or African but Africa or Arabia but U is not typically considered as possibly having originated in these places even in alternate theories.
the origin of a haplogroup is strongly suggested by
a) region of highest diversity b) site of oldest remains found c) regions of high frequency
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree with the discrepancy you posted. But if you're making the argument that E-M78 didn't come with Basal Eurasian simply because Taforalt have heightened Neanderthal, and if you're saying that components other than NE African can't be responsible for that, you'd have to be willing to stand by a weird prediction. Which is that the NE Africans that moved to the Maghreb had more Neanderthal than even Natufians and PPN.
Let's say that's true, for a moment. In that case you'd only be able to extrapolate that locally (i.e. only to some E-M78 carriers, at most). In other words, that still wouldn't prove that other E-M35 carriers elsewhere in Africa and Eurasia didn't cause the drop in Neanderthal that is attributed to Basal Eurasian. I don't see how you can use this to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry, unless you're willing to argue that E-M35 carriers in general have/had among the most Neanderthal in the modern and ancient MENA region. This is an even weirder prediction.
[...]
Why can't SSA-related ancestry pick up Neanderthal? There is absolutely no reason why it can't. I'm not saying that this is what happened. I'm saying that if you're going to pinpoint NE African ancestry as the culprit, I want to see how you narrowed it down to that.
It's actually quite simple. My position isn't that NE ancestry or m78 came with all the Neanderthal. I don't have to make that leap if I beleive that NE admixture might have came with some neanderthal (most likely less) but also more importantly Some SSA as well. Two attributes directly sorted as being the antithesis to Basal Eurasian.
Both these attributes are also seen in the populations who are still in NE Africa said to be direct descendants of AEgyptians... granted we can assume the elevated Neanderthal in the copts and even the Hadereb is due to influx of Eurasian migrants but even the Abusir mummies have a stubborn pervasive SSA component carried down to the coptic samples.
quote:In order to make that argument, you have to prove that African ancestry is involved in that disproportionate Neanderthal to begin with. That's your argument and you should flesh it out properly. You can't make a leap from disproportionate Neanderthal, to saying NE African failed to lower it. The evidence you've posted is not sufficient to make that claim. For instance, you have not ruled out that U6-linked ancestry is responsible.
So, how do you know Basal Eurasian didn't bring down Taforalt Neanderthal? You don't know that it didn't, and the evidence you posted is not saying that it didn't. All you've done is post evidence of a disproportionate Neanderthal in Taforalt. We don't have a pre-E-M78 Taforalt sample, so you can't prove E-M78 people didn't lower Neanderthal when they arrived in the Maghreb.
Theirs nothing novel that can be said about SSA signals and neanderthal ancestry, as of now it appears that we have a direct negative correlation between SSA (YRI) and neanderthal. this is seen in every study with the exception of the Mota paper which was called back. a good chunk of taf is most similar to YRI, whether or not these signals couldn't have coexisted in ancient samples without effecting one another statistically is up in the air.
Now assuming that NE african admixture solely lowered neanderthal signatures in taf need just as much fleshing out, if not more. For one, that'll only seem obvious if you're of the assumption that NE Africa = Basal Eurasian. which isn't the status quo. We see a correlation with African Affinity whether it be haplogroups (m35, L), minor SSA signals (seen in Hotu, and Natufians via ADMIXTURE) or genetic distance (highlighted by the relatively consistently lower distance between Africans and ancient Iranians despite there being no distinct signals for geneflow.) and Neanderthal.... What we have yet to see is a consistent geographic pattern hinting to a population specifically spreading from North East Africa to lower neanderthal elsewhere.
There's still the discrepancy between the caucus Hunter gatherers and the near eastern farmers harboring Basal eurasian. Even moreso now since we have gotten North African genomes. East African nor North African signals almost never appear in CHG Iran_N and Hotu... though they glow in ancient near easterners ppnb and Natufians. You made a claim that Hotu Exhibits more North East African traits than laz's Natufian sample, which also need to be elaborated ...but other than that I really can't see how such a huge portion of their ancestry can be shared NEAfrican but not cluster ...ever.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you think they're the same please forget about my schemata. Indigenous modified by foreigners can in no way be foreigners absorbing some of the local stock.
Reservation Indians with some Euro blood are not the same as non-reservation Euros with Indian blood who used 1/16th to take over tribal rule of indigenees.
Any 'Africans' significantly closer to 'Eurasians' than they are to any and every indigenous African people are not indigenous African. They are foreigners living in Africa absorbing to limited levels some indigenous stock.
If say 5000 years passes since a peoples' inception to nearly complete abandon of their place of birth, and they thrive and expand for say 25000 years someplace elsewhere thoroughly infusing with who may be there then, or if no one else is there, they can be considered indigenous.
Let me remove the alpha suffixes.
Do not take the dots or one dimensional plane referencing literally. nor is there any significance in the quantity of AFR's, nor does position suggest root or age. Imagine the AFR's in a circle if you must. imagine Eura a circle of various Eura's. Imagine the _ some kind of fuzzy border (genetic and whatever) between AFR's and Eura's.
AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR _ afr . Eura (afr looks like a Eura in Africa mating with Africans
AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR . afr _ Eura (afr looks like a African who may a Eura relationship more intense than any other AFR
Maybe I should give up trying to illustrate the different ways I interpret the statement 'african closer to eurasian than african' since everybody other than me knows what it means without confusion.
Whatever that statement means to whoever; For me, a people in Africa significantly closer by genetic criteria to non-Africans is simply a non- African people residing in Africa. Such folk are not African. No prehistoric one drop can make them anymore African than the Afrikaaners who went to the USA to claim legal benefits as African Americans.
Imagine an African version of this guy residing in North Africa. Surely He isn't a Native American residing in china. So the possibility that significant Eurasian can be represented in a resident African is there... but to which extent are they truly Eurasian?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It's actually quite simple. My position isn't that NE ancestry or m78 came with all the Neanderthal. I don't have to make that leap if I beleive that NE admixture might have came with some neanderthal (most likely less) but also more importantly Some SSA as well. Two attributes directly sorted as being the antithesis to Basal Eurasian.
As far as the first attribute, if you decrease the amount of Neanderthal that came with E-M78, you're undermining your position that these NE Africans are incapable of lowering TAF's Neanderthal. If they only brought some of the Neanderthal present in TAF by 14ky, then there is nothing stopping them from also lowering the Neanderthal that may have been present at the TAF site prior to the arrival of E-M78. To make your argument effectively, TAF's elevated Neanderthal has to come from NE Africans. It doesn't work when you say NE Africans only brought some of it. Unless I'm overlooking something.
quote:Theirs nothing novel that can be said about SSA signals and neanderthal ancestry, as of now it appears that we have a direct negative correlation between SSA (YRI) and neanderthal. this is seen in every study with the exception of the Mota paper which was called back. a good chunk of taf is most similar to YRI, whether or not these signals couldn't have coexisted in ancient samples without effecting one another statistically is up in the air.
How can the TAF population have no problems picking up all the components it has independently of YRI, but when it comes to Neanderthal, it's a problem? Elevated Neanderthal is not the only thing TAF has, that YRI doesn't have. Do these other TAF components have to be called into question too, just because YRI doesn't have them?
quote:Now assuming that NE african admixture solely lowered neanderthal signatures in taf need just as much fleshing out, if not more.
Not really. There are no Pn2 populations with Neanderthal, unless they picked it up somewhere independently of other Pn2 populations. This is also why the argument that E-M78 migrants failed to lower TAF Neanderthal is a sterile argument. It's a dead end logically. Because even if that's true, it'll only be true locally (at the TAF site). That is, it won't be something you can extrapolate to E-M35 carriers in general. Why not? Because as you've just admitted, YRI don't have Neanderthal. And YRI and E-M35 carriers are both PN2. If you can't extrapolate it to E-M35 carriers as a whole, then you can't say TAF's Neanderthal proves that all ancient NE Africans were incapable of lowering Neanderthal.
quote:What we have yet to see is a consistent geographic pattern hinting to a population specifically spreading from North East Africa to lower neanderthal elsewhere.
Your positions seem very self-defeating. You seem to be making all sorts of concessions just to be able to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry. But you're undermining your positions elsewhere. For instance, arguing that NE Africans had so much Neanderthal that they couldn't even lower Neanderthal in Eurasia undermines your position that AE were African. It would necessarily make NE Africa a hotbed of Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry already by 15000 years ago. Other than being self-defeating, this argument has no multidisciplinary support and leads to all sorts of quagmires.
There is no correlation between E-M35 and elevated Neanderthal. I think you know very well this is not a defensible position. No paper has posted data even remotely suggesting that's true. To the contrary: all papers have suggested that Neanderthal in NE Africa is purely a function of non-African hgs and has nothing to do with E-M35. And the Neanderthal admixture was discovered a decade ago. That's 8 years worth of constant tests that include E-M35 carriers. I know you want Basal Eurasian out of NE Africa, but you don't have to do that at the expense of everything you believe in or at the expense of accumulated scientific knowledge.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.
Which Eurasian population? Do you believe it’s appropriate to call M and U6 Eurasian?
Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.
I don't think there would've been any one particular Eurasian population. groups such as a proto Natufian or a Soqotri like people that may even predate the development and spread Near Eastern agriculture. Mixing someone like this:
This:
mix some East Africans and you'd probably get a Southern Egyptian. However one thing that'd likely offer distinction is that I would expect back migration to have been more irregular and (generally) earlier than northern Egypt which would have multiple pulses of gradual Near Eastern flow, some very ancient some a lot younger.
You've put the theory in a way that implies that the base population was Eurasian and that they then mixed with East Africans to produce the southern Egyptians.
I don't think we'll ever get a true picture of ancient Egypt's biological affinities; the authorities in modern Egypt forbid genetic testing of Mummies in their keep and the West will continue to pass off relatively late dynasty (Northern) Mummies as representative of all of AE in all periods.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.
Genetic information or not, if most of ES expresses the opinions you have (that Torres Strait Islanders/Aboriginals are black), genetics will have little meaning for people trying to prove race under the radar. it'll be back to craniometrics, collecting hair samples and watching white internet anthropology boards promise each other that their society couldn't possibly treat anyone with those features as black. But back to the main point: The mixture could've been in either direction. East Africa is where Eurasians left Africa and AE features were generally not outside the realm of possibility for indigenous adaptations. There's to be expected some overlap in features. The southern base population could've been an Ethiopian/Somali type that mixed with (older) Eurasians or it could've been mostly Eurasians that mixed with East Africans. One thing that I'm always wondering is if the majority or the Upper Egyptian elite were mostly Eurasian why didn't they speak Semetic? This is the one hangup I have. Of course if the origin of all Afro Asiatic languages WAS in Eurasia that could potentially explain it. But that is resting on a very old back migration.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't think we'll ever get a true picture of ancient Egypt's biological affinities; the authorities in modern Egypt forbid genetic testing of Mummies in their keep and the West will continue to pass off relatively late dynasty (Northern) Mummies as representative of all of AE in all periods.
That's where regional samples come into play. The population ancestral to ancient Egypt was not confined to Egypt.
quote:Therefore, in answer to the question posed above it appears that, based on this preliminary analysis of the al Khiday sample, ancestors of post-Pleistocene Nubians were likely present in the region – although clearly not at Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Halfa. It is not necessary to posit an immigration of outsiders during the early Holocene. Of course, it cannot be conclusively stated that the people of al Khiday were directly related, but assuming the dental affinities are indicators of genetic variation, then they are a good representative of what the common ancestor to later Nubians might have been.
The truth is going to come out, either with or without cooperation from the Egyptian authorities. Iberomaurusian or certain Sudanese aDNA (e.g. pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) is good enough. The problem with Iberomaurusian DNA though is parsing out Maghrebi-specific (e.g. Aterian) and European influences. Then you'll likely have something very close to the population ancestral to AE.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your positions seem very self-defeating. You seem to be making all sorts of concessions just to be able to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry. But you're undermining your positions elsewhere. For instance, arguing that NE Africans had so much Neanderthal that they couldn't even lower Neanderthal in Eurasia undermines your position that AE were African. It would necessarily make NE Africa a hotbed of Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry already by 15000 years ago. Other than being self-defeating, this argument has no multidisciplinary support and leads to all sorts of quagmires.
There is no correlation between E-M35 and elevated Neanderthal. I think you know very well this is not a defensible position. No paper has posted data even remotely suggesting that's true. To the contrary: all papers have suggested that Neanderthal in NE Africa is purely a function of non-African hgs and has nothing to do with E-M35. And the Neanderthal admixture was discovered a decade ago. That's 8 years worth of constant tests that include E-M35 carriers. I know you want Basal Eurasian out of NE Africa, but you don't have to do that at the expense of everything you believe in or at the expense of accumulated scientific knowledge. [/qb]
You spent 4 paragraphs debating against a position I did not take. Saying that NE african admixture doesn’t have the signifiant effect in Neanderthal admixture BE should have isn’t the same as saying they’re the source of Neanderthal admixture. Saying that YRI like admixture generally correlated with the lower Neanderthal doesn’t mean both components can’t exist in an individual.
I have just as much if not more of a reason to beleive that the proportion of african admixture taf has directly had an effect on Neanderthal admixture... because as we see in like EVERY study involving the two, there is a negative correlation. Such high neantherthal coupled with high SSA is novel. What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.
Once again this is not saying all of taf Neanderthal came with NE Africans... That’s a straw man. Which was addressed two posts ago. However what you conviently side step though is the discrepancy between east and west Africans... the fact that East Africans consistently score higher Neanderthal.
Like I’ve been saying for months... African ancestry (period) seems to have an effect of reducing Neanderthal in general. But the discussion revolves around NE Africans being Basal Eurasian; absent of typical African ancestry and has no Neanderthal. There is no consistent pattern of these signals coming specifically from NE african admixture.
We have enough ancient individuals to pin point shared ancestry among all BE populations. Why hasn’t NE African admixture cluster in the ways Basal Eurasian should? We’ve seen plenty of Pseudo NEafrican components... and shared North African components in the near east.. but it never follows the pattern BE should? Why is that.? How can a population go undetected but brings down Neanderthal in iranians(at 30%) lower to that of Natufians, taforalt, Iam, PPNB all populations we know have shared african ancestry?
To once again reiterate this is not saying NE african ancestry increases neanderthal. I’m saying it doesn’t have the consistent effect BE should... which is why everyone and their mothers are assigning Basal Eurasian to the Middle East in light of the taforalt genomes.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Let me get out the way completely and let you explain in your own words. Which of the components do you see as carrying the elevated Neanderthal? Because, the way I see it, there aren't a lot of options. You've already argued against it being linked to any of the SSA-related components.
quote: the fact that East Africans consistently score higher Neanderthal.
This is my thing with some of the things you say. This is simply not true. Where do you get this information? The samples with the least Neanderthal are Dinka and Mota.
These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12886
These are East African populations. Many other East Africans have Eurasian admixture, so of course they have more Neanderthal. If their Neanderthal tracks closely with their non-African ancestry, what relevance do you see in bringing this up? If you want to argue that ancient NE Africans can't cause a BE-like drop in Neanderthal, you can't use this data for obvious reasons. It's highly misleading. ALL Africans are just as capable of causing Neanderthal-like drops in relation to their African ancestry. A 50% African Afram will cause (proportionally to their African ancestry) the same drop in Neanderthal as a 100% West African population. The amount of Neanderthal an African population has does not affect their ability to cause drops in Neanderthal in relation to their African ancestry.
quote:What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.
Genetic information or not, if most of ES expresses the opinions you have (that Torres Strait Islanders/Aboriginals are black), genetics will have little meaning for people trying to prove race under the radar. it'll be back to craniometrics, collecting hair samples and watching white internet anthropology boards promise each other that their society couldn't possibly treat anyone with those features as black. But back to the main point: The mixture could've been in either direction. East Africa is where Eurasians left Africa and AE features were generally not outside the realm of possibility for indigenous adaptations. There's to be expected some overlap in features. The southern base population could've been an Ethiopian/Somali type that mixed with (older) Eurasians or it could've been mostly Eurasians that mixed with East Africans. One thing that I'm always wondering is if the majority or the Upper Egyptian elite were mostly Eurasian why didn't they speak Semetic? This is the one hangup I have. Of course if the origin of all Afro Asiatic languages WAS in Eurasia that could potentially explain it. But that is resting on a very old back migration.
It is not about proving race. This is the part where people really don't understand the history of anthropology. Skin color is simply one part of human biological diversity. It is not a political or social attribute. The development of race science as the precursor to biological anthropology is what created this association between race and skin color and along with it the concept of superiority based on skin color. Ancient Africans having black skin is not even something that should be seen as political, just as ancient Eurasians having white skin isn't political either. All humans have skin color and of course you are going to use terms of color to describe those characteristics. And to study the history of how skin color has changed as part of the overall evolution of human physiology is not studying race. What makes it political are groups who take their cues from the racist models of the past to promote a certain set of skin colors for ancient populations based on those racist models.
The game they play today is to push the same old models of African biological history while posing as objective and "different". Or at worst, trying to pretend that skin color isn't a metric that is part of the study of biological anthropology.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is not about proving race. This is the part where people really don't understand the history of anthropology. Skin color is simply one part of human biological diversity.
I didn't say a thing about skin color. Many people trying to end the race debate have been looking at cranial data because determining race takes in a multitude of features.
quote: It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.
Skin color is a sociopolitical feature. So we're supposed to just ignore the millions buying skin lightening products throughout Africa, the Caribbean and Asia (at the detriment to their health) each year, because they FEEL the discrimination for having dark skin? We'll just handwave all their stories of discrimination because you can't handle the truth of their suffering because it's over something so stupid? Yes it's stupid, but the discrimination is also real. Even in the west colorism is a problem.
quote: The development of race science as the precursor to biological anthropology is what created this association between race and skin color and along with it the concept of superiority based on skin color. Ancient Africans having black skin is not even something that should be seen as political, just as ancient Eurasians having white skin isn't political either.
If biological features weren't politicized to any degree, the problem of racism would not exist. No one asked you what the world should be like right now. We're talking about what the world is.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Supplementary Materials for Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
Marieke van de Loosdrecht,
Considering the dual ancestry of the Taforalt individuals, we can explain the Altai affinity in Taforalt as a dilution of its Natufian-related ancestry with its significant proportion (~36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry. Interestingly, the Neanderthal ancestry in Taforalt is higher than in early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, f4 = 0.000628, Z = 1.934). We can therefore deduce that the Taforalt individuals are not genetically closer to the hypothetical Basal Eurasian population than the early Holocene populations from Iran.
We did not include any African group nor any archaic hominin in our outgroup set, specifically to keep the program blind to the difference between various sub-Saharan African 519 ancestries. In doing so we could get a reliable estimate of sub-Saharan African ancestry proportion in Taforalt. Iran_N was included among the outgroups because it shares the ‘basal 521 Eurasian’ ancestry with Natufians and therefore differentiates it from its sub-Saharan African ancestry. Without Iran_N, the model becomes blind to the difference between sub-Saharan African and basal Eurasian ancestries because both of them are basal to Eurasian ancestries to which the rest of outgroups belong.
Given that our Taforalt individuals outdate even the most ancient Holocene African individual, the 4,500 yBP Mota, by over 10,000 years, this result is not surprising; a long- term gene flow between the various sub-Saharan African groups during the Holocene period is very likely to have generated a pattern that is not easily modeled as a rather simple admixture graph.
Finally, we exclude any ancestry more basal than the deepest known modern human ancestry represented by ‘aSouthAfrica’ and present-day Khoe-San speakers in South Africa as an additional source for the Taforalt gene pool.
Of note, TAF011 and TAF012 do not carry five of the expected eight variants that define U6a7a, which means that this lineage falls basal to the currently reported lineages within branch U6a7a.
Given the occurrence of both U6a and M1b haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals, here we can directly demonstrate a pre-Holocene presence of these autochthonous North African lineages in the Maghreb. Interestingly, basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at Muierii cave in Romania (22, 23). We are therefore interested to know how the mtDNA genomes in our 15,000 cal. yBP North African individuals relate phylogenetically to the U6 and M mtDNA sequences found in Ice Age Europeans (22, 23, 27) and present-day humans (7).
Two derived allele variants in the SLC24A5 gene associated with predicting light-skin color in individuals with European and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) ancestry are rs1426654 (derived state A, ancestral state G (94)) and rs16891982 (derived state G, ancestral state C (95)). Individuals with a homozygous derived state for both these SNPs have been found in early Neolithic populations (Anatolia, Europe) (16)). Our results show that these derived alleles are absent in the Taforalt individuals analyzed; all of them have a homozygous ancestral genotype for both SNPs.
In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to belong to E1b1b1b (16).
posted
Here is some additional material on the wide spanning ages of the various clades of U6
basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at Muierii cave in Romania. Of note, TAF011 and TAF012 do not carry five of the expected eight variants that define U6a7a, which means that this lineage falls basal to the currently reported lineages within branch U6a7a.
Possibly a Eurasian population of males and females from somewhere in Eurasia were pressured by the ice age to migrate into North Africa. They were invaders or settlers. Assuming that there were indigenous Africans already there in North Africa bearing E-M78 , these Africans, perhaps in a war, killed the males and took the females and then interbred with these females
quote:
The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents
Bernard Secher1, 2013
There are two clusters, U6a3a (9.6 kya) and U6a7a (7.6 kya), with mostly European sequences, that expanded in Neolithic times. Other European groups: U6a3a1, U6a7a1, U6a7a2, and U6c1 spread within the Chalcolithic period. Finally, at least 14 European lineages have coalescence ages in historic times. Some may be associated with the Roman conquest of Britain (U6d1a), the diaspora of Sephardic Jews (U6a7a1b), or the European colonization of the Americas (U6a1a1a2, U6a7a1a, U6a7a2a1, U6b1a). Roughly, 35 European lineages have prehistoric spreads and 50 sequences historic spreads. In all cases they are involved with clear North African counterparts.
There are 15 complete U6 sequences in our tree that are recognized to belong to the Jewish community. Six of them are grouped into a Sephardic cluster U6a7a1b of diverse geographic sources with another five sequences of possible Jewish maternal descent. This wide spread testifies to the extent of the forced exile of this community of Hispanic origin. As a rule, the rest of the sequences are included in haplogroups that match their geographic origins. Thus, 2 Moroccans and 1 Tunisian respectively belong to Maghreb haplogroups U6a1b and U6a7a1, 2 Bulgarians and 1 Turk are included in different branches of the mainly Mediterranean haplogroup U6a3 and 1 Ethiopian merges into the East African U6a2a1b clade.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is not about proving race. This is the part where people really don't understand the history of anthropology. Skin color is simply one part of human biological diversity.
I didn't say a thing about skin color. Many people trying to end the race debate have been looking at cranial data because determining race takes in a multitude of features.
quote: It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.
]Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.
No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else. I don't understand why you feel the need to state this blatant falsehood.
Can you show me where science has said such a thing?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So we're supposed to just ignore the millions buying skin lightening products throughout Africa, the Caribbean and Asia (at the detriment to their health) each year, because they FEEL the discrimination for having dark skin? We'll just handwave all their stories of discrimination because you can't handle the truth of their suffering because it's over something so stupid? Yes it's stupid, but the discrimination is also real. Even in the west colorism is a problem.
Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QUOTE] The development of race science as the precursor to biological anthropology is what created this association between race and skin color and along with it the concept of superiority based on skin color. Ancient Africans having black skin is not even something that should be seen as political, just as ancient Eurasians having white skin isn't political either.
If biological features weren't politicized to any degree, the problem of racism would not exist. No one asked you what the world should be like right now. We're talking about what the world is.
right. Politicization of biological features does not make those features less biological. And like you just said, searching for another set of biological features to focus on as a substitute for others does not change the overall existence of racism and will not stop other features from being politicized like any other.
That was my point.
You cant blame skin color or any other feature for the existence of racism or other politicized aspects of human sociology. That makes no sense.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Like I’ve been saying for months... African ancestry (period) seems to have an effect of reducing Neanderthal in general. But the discussion revolves around NE Africans being Basal Eurasian; absent of typical African ancestry and has no Neanderthal. There is no consistent pattern of these signals coming specifically from NE african admixture.
We have enough ancient individuals to pin point shared ancestry among all BE populations. Why hasn’t NE African admixture cluster in the ways Basal Eurasian should? We’ve seen plenty of Pseudo NEafrican components... and shared North African components in the near east.. but it never follows the pattern BE should? Why is that.? How can a population go undetected but brings down Neanderthal in iranians(at 30%) lower to that of Natufians, taforalt, Iam, PPNB all populations we know have shared african ancestry?
To once again reiterate this is not saying NE african ancestry increases neanderthal. I’m saying it doesn’t have the consistent effect BE should... which is why everyone and their mothers are assigning Basal Eurasian to the Middle East in light of the taforalt genomes.
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Let me get out the way completely and let you explain in your own words. Which of the components do you see as carrying the elevated Neanderthal? Because, the way I see it, there aren't a lot of options. You've already argued against it being linked to any of the SSA-related components.
I’m not gonna lie this is a stupid way to look at this but I’ll entertain it.. everything but the purple and burgundy...
Now if you are telling me that the green 100% represent NE african admixture you’ll have to start explaining.
quote:This is my thing with some of the things you say. This is simply not true. Where do you get this information? The samples with the least Neanderthal are Dinka and Mota.
These are East African populations. Many other East Africans have Eurasian admixture, so of course they have more Neanderthal. If their Neanderthal tracks closely with their non-African ancestry, what relevance do you see in bringing this up? If you want to argue that ancient NE Africans can't cause a BE-like drop in Neanderthal, you can't use this data for obvious reasons. It's highly misleading. ALL Africans are just as capable of causing Neanderthal-like drops in relation to their African ancestry. A 50% African Afram will cause (proportionally to their African ancestry) the same drop in Neanderthal as a 100% West African population. The amount of Neanderthal an African population has does not affect their ability to cause drops in Neanderthal in relation to their African ancestry.
Given that we don’t have any good reps of a pure african group with Ancient Nile valley ancestry, I’ll concede this point. However recently it has been shown that mota’s Neanderthal estimates exceeded YRI since the call back... Also you should check loosdrecht 2018 table S7. Stay updated fam. Everything I haven’t addressed above I obviously agree with. It just failed to register to you that I beleive that NE Africans were probably one of the weakest group of (“unadmixted”) Africans at reducing Neanderthal cuz they probably carried low amounts. And that some of the SSA caried in taforalt, Natufians etc. Came from them also. This shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
quote:What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.
Examples? [/qb]
Taforalt, Natufians, PPNB, and some Early European farmer groups.
Now I’ve been speaking as if I have the burden of proof for saying BE=/= NE african. You haven’t came up with an answer for the discrepancy not only in Neanderthal admixture among these sources but the lack of signals/clustering of BE in Eurasian populations in light of North African genomes. ...why hasn’t the component revealed itself yet?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Arabian Peninsular 'Zanj' probably had no idea who was beyond Indonesia to the east and south but going by 21st century 3rd Millennia values • Black fella must be stripped from the Abos • New Guinea? No more. Forget their looks. • Melanesia must be a big lie unless the name means the black soil.
Black has been reduced in meaning to negro because in the USA the people who called themselves Negroe changed their label to Black and now deny there are any other blacks but the Blacks, ie., them and enslaved West African ethnic groups they came from.
Sheeit, I mean who can't say African when they mean an African black? Neither negro nor black are regional identifiers like Caucasus caucasian caucasoid Mongolia mongol mongoloid buy negroes don't catch what happened with ????? negro negroid
There is a Caucasus place language culture There is a Mongolia place with language and culture Where is any negro place language culture. Likewise where is the national piece of geography called black that has a language Blackese spoken by blackesians;?
Wow a people adopting a name of their condition and rejecting that of their geographic origin. Is there any other peoples who've ever done so on a national scale.
quote: It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.
Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.
No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else.
Sometimes you say the most out of touch stuff for someone whose supposedly black. Do you enjoy ruining threads to derail and argue over the dumbest sh!t? I'm not saying human features are not a fact of biology. But that doesn't mean that humans don't assign ideas and prejudices to those features which have real sociopolitical repercussions. In that sense human features and DNA have become politicized by humans even if though they are natural.
quote:Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.
It is a procedure done because people are being discriminated against for their features. Calling it "cosmetic" is not changing the REASON behind why millions of people across the planet are doing it. YOU stop "lying." And stop saying that nobody was talking about humans politicizing body parts to create this idea of race. I was talking about it! And I was NOT even talking to you.
quote: Politicization of biological features does not make those features less biological.
False dichotomies as usual. No one was denying these features biologically exist because they're politicized.
quote:You cant blame skin color or any other feature for the existence of racism or other politicized aspects of human sociology. That makes no sense.
Who said I was saying racism is justified? All I was arguing was that biological features are politicized which is fundamental to understanding the SOCIAL reality of race. Do you still want to argue over stupid sh!t or are you don-- you know what don't answer that. I'm not entertaining anymore of this fvckery from you. Sometimes I have to wonder if you've been planted here because you will singlehandedly nosedive important threads into the ground derailing on things that are ridiculous. You will carry on with this for pages if I let you, which I will not. So bark all you want I'll be ignoring you until you have something meaningful to say.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I’m not gonna lie this is a stupid way to look at this but I’ll entertain it.. everything but the purple and burgundy...
So then what part of it was I misrepresenting? I really want to know and pls be clear in your explanation, because it sounds to me like you want to have all the benefits of your theory, but when I sum up what's dubious about it you want to distance yourself from it, saying I'm misrepresenting you. How is it a strawman when I say that your position necessitates that NE African came with all or most of the Neanderthal in the TAF sample? You've just confirmed it's not in the SSA components. If it's not in the NE African component either, then why are we even having this conversation? Because if it's not in the NE African component, then it's in the Eurasian component. If it's in the Eurasian component, then you can't say elevated Neanderthal in TAF means BE isn't NE African.
You spent 4 paragraphs debating against a position I did not take. Saying that NE african admixture doesn’t have the signifiant effect in Neanderthal admixture BE should have isn’t the same as saying they’re the source of Neanderthal admixture. --elMaestro
quote:However recently it has been shown that mota’s Neanderthal estimates exceeded YRI since the call back...
Based on what data?
quote:Taforalt, Natufians, PPNB, and some Early European farmer groups.
Notice again that you are, in fact, saying that NE African is a big source of Neanderthal in the MENA populations they mixed with. Yet when I start addressing that you say I'm misrepresenting your position. You are shooting yourself in the foot by turning ancient Egypt into a hotbed of Neanderthal already by 15kya. But to respond to your argument, what is your evidence that the Neanderthal-admixed NE Africans donated more African ancestry to circum-Mediterranean groups than to Iranians?
quote:Now I’ve been speaking as if I have the burden of proof for saying BE=/= NE african. You haven’t came up with an answer for the discrepancy not only in Neanderthal admixture among these sources but the lack of signals/clustering of BE in Eurasian populations in light of North African genomes. ...why hasn’t the component revealed itself yet?
As stated in my previous post, my position is that all African migration reduces Neanderthal ancestry. Even if the migrating Africans are 90% Eurasian. Barring some unusual scenarios, that 10% African ancestry would reduce Neanderthal in Eurasians by 10%. This is basic math. So, unless you're saying the E-M78 migrants to TAF were 100% Eurasian, they would have lowered TAF Neanderthal affinity. The fact that the Neanderthal affinity is still elevated in the TAF sample doesn't mean that it wasn't lowered. It just means that it's still relatively high despite being lowered.
quote:but the lack of signals/clustering of BE in Eurasian populations in light of North African genomes. ...why hasn’t the component revealed itself yet?
It didn't show itself? What is it supposed to look like when it shows itself? Pls explain in detail. They're all supposed to group in a big cozy cluster? I don't think that is how it works.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say? [/QB]
What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Could I get the rest of that graph please? I need it to complete my redux. Thank you.
quote: For a visual representation... The Sky-Blue component comes to mind... which isn't precisely Berber-North African.
Zooming out hi-lites the color patterns and make it easier for intuitive observations.
Realigned for color significance and fade in the redux for Sky-Blue immediately seen are an ancient peak for Bronze Age Levant and a modern peak in Bataheen.
No modern Lebantines or Libyans and Northwest Africans have as much as the modern Northeast Africans down to East African Luxmanda, an ancient.
The Olive-Green peaks in Tunisia and holds its own against Sky-Blue and Grey-Steel -- really peaking in Neolithic Anatolian but high in modern Sardines.
After leaving the Lower Nile, Sky-Blue melds with Dinka peaking Green. And that's as far as I can go without including the missing peoples into the color weighted and balanced redux.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?
Printer-friendly view of this topic