posted
Ancient DNA reveals a multistep spread of the first herders into sub-Saharan Africa Mary E.Prendergast1,2*†, MarkLipson2*†, Elizabeth A.Sawchuk3*†, IñigoOlalde2, Christine A.Ogola4, NadinRohland2, Kendra A.Sirak2, NicoleAdamski2,5, RebeccaBernardos2, NasreenBroomandkhoshbacht2,5‡, KimberlyCallan2,5, Brendan J.Culleton6, Laurie Eccles7, Thomas K.Harper7, Ann MarieLawson2,5, MatthewMah2,5,8, JonasOppenheimer2,5§Mary E.Prendergast1,2*†, MarkLipson2*†, Elizabeth A.Sawchuk3*†, IñigoOlalde2, Christine A.Ogola4, NadinRohland2, Kendra A.Sirak2, NicoleAdamski2,5, RebeccaBernardos2, NasreenBroomandkhoshbacht2,5‡, KimberlyCallan2,5, Brendan J.Culleton6, Laurie Eccles7, Thomas K.Harper7, Ann MarieLawson2,5, MatthewMah2,5,8, JonasOppenheimer2,5§
quote: Abstract How food production first entered eastern Africa ~5000 years ago and the extent to which people moved with livestock is unclear. We present genome-wide data from 41 individuals associated with Later Stone Age, Pastoral Neolithic (PN), and Iron Age contexts in what are now Kenya and Tanzania to examine the genetic impacts of the spreads of herding and farming. Our results support a multi-phase model in which admixture between northeastern African-related peoples and eastern Africanforagers formed multiple pastoralist groups, including a genetically homogeneous PN cluster. Additional admixture with northeastern and western African-related groups occurred by the Iron Age. These findings support several movements of food producers, while rejecting models of minimal admixture with foragers and of genetic differentiation between makers of distinct PN artifacts
posted
^Pretty much why 40+ ancient African samples aren't more insightful than my experimental runs with a handful of populations. But there's still a lot that can be talked about. IDK why it's crickets everywhere.... I'm trying to be diplomatic and non-controversial or whatever but... Is everyone gonna sit back and act like this study isn't highlighting some BLATANT contradictions in how folks go about viewing African substructure.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow!So many African samples taken from African museums and not a single African author! African institutions are dumb for allowing Europeans access to their precious ancient dna material, while having nothing to show for it in terms of their own scholars benefiting.
Well, at least they are sounding less dumb about assuming that related Eurasian ancestry in Africa automatically means direct ancestry or introduction from Eurasia:
quote: Guided by the PCA, we began by using three groups of individuals—present-day Dinka (28), ancient Chalcolithic-period individuals from Israel (25), and the ~4500 BP forager from Mota, southern Ethiopia (24)—to represent distinct components of ancestry plausibly found in ancient and present-day eastern Africans, with present-day western Africans among the outgroups (21).
We note that the use of these proxy groups in qpAdm modeling does not imply an assumption that they are directly ancestral to the true sources contributing to the individuals we analyzed. Instead, for a model to be properly formulated, the reference groups only need to be more closely related to the true sources than are the outgroups, without substantially different admixture (35). Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel reference individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been present in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lack genetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel reference individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been present in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lack genetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
For those incapable of correctly processing information
quote:† These authors contributed equally to this work.
means only this trio of Euros wrote the article
quote:• Mary E. Prendergast 1,2* † • Mark Lipson 2* † • Elizabeth A. Sawchuk 3* †
with conductor "Daddy" Reich as corresponding author, butt of course.
As in the new Burkinabe Fulani preprint, the Afrs are only Steppin Fetchit data providers with no mojo or say so.
I trust elMaestro's word on things somewhat because his ADMIXTURE graphs proved superior accuracy compared to certain professional ones and await his unrestrained commentary on 40+
posted
Instead of posting photos in this and another thread with no commentary somebody could just have said something like "I'm suspicious of all these articles on Africa being written by Europeans" and taken responsibility for a political position. Instead distracting picture spam informing us on nothing that we didn't already know, useless
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Instead of posting photos in this and another thread with no commentary somebody could just have said something like "I'm suspicious of all these articles on Africa being written by Europeans" and taken responsibility for a political position. Instead distracting picture spam informing us on nothing that we didn't already know, useless
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Stfu and appreciate I schooled you how to distinguish authors & leaders from data referencing team members.
I repeat the Afrs in this article role was to step and fetch data for the authors to use. Non-Afrs also play Steppin Fetchit as they too serve in the capacity of data providers. In my IT career I often acted in that capacity though not limited to it as these Afrs are.
quote:Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry, better known by the stage name Stepin Fetchit, was an American vaudevillian, comedian and film actor of Jamaican descent, considered to be the first black actor to have a successful film career.
See, it's a Black thing, so you wouldn't understand.
Moral of the story You were wrong wrong wrong to assert Blk / Afr scholars as co-authors of this article and no diversionary tactics you contrive to distract attention away from your blunder can cover over that fact. No doubt you will continue trying rather than admit you were incorrect.
posted
African governments should just put a moratarium on sharing ancient DNA unless they come up with a system that ensures African or at least African-centered archaeologists and DNA experts can be lead authors in these surveys, or do small-scale stuff one step at a time that they are capable of handling and build their capacity from that.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Is everyone gonna sit back and act like this study isn't highlighting some BLATANT contradictions in how folks go about viewing African substructure.
Africans aren't inferior. We're more than capable. Remember W Afrs exceed AngloSaxons in academics.
Maybe this journal will eventually solicit and publish population genomic research related to origins and flow. For the nonce continental Africans have other more immediate concerns (like health).
Research article Open access Facial types and morphology: A study among Sisaala and Dagaaba adult population in the Upper West Region, Ghana Raymond Saa-Eru Maalman, Chrissie Stansie Abaidoo, Nancy Darkoa Darko, Joshua Tetteh
Article e00071 Download PDF
quote:Abstract
Craniofacial measurements can be considered to be one of the important tools for determination of the inter-racial and intra-racial morphological characteristics of the head and face.
As such, facial indices serve as prominent identification tools in combination with fingerprint patterns for biometric and forensic purposes in the developed world. However in Ghana, although emphasis is placed on the face in the photographic recognition systems used in the issuance of passports, very little information is available on facial phenotypes and its prevalence with respect to ethnicity and sex. Therefore, the aim of this study was to classify the facial types among the Dagaabas and Sisaalas in the Upper West Region of Ghana.
In the study, a total of 387 healthy individuals (202 females and 185 males), between 18 and 60 years of age were recruited. The study main finding was that, the males had higher facial height and breadth than females.
Facial indices were recorded as 98% and 99% for female and male Dagaabas respectively. The Sisaala male and female participants’ facial indices recorded 102% and 104% respectively. Thus as high as 83% and 72% of the Sisaalas and Dagaabas respectively had hyperleptoprosopic facial type.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: ... Well, at least they are sounding less dumb about assuming that related Eurasian ancestry in Africa automatically means direct ancestry or introduction from Eurasia:
quote: Guided by the PCA, we began by using three groups of individuals—present-day Dinka (28), ancient Chalcolithic-period individuals from Israel (25), and the ~4500 BP forager from Mota, southern Ethiopia (24)—to represent distinct components of ancestry plausibly found in ancient and present-day eastern Africans, with present-day western Africans among the outgroups (21). ...
Zarahan's stacked deck observation at work: Excluding 8,200 year old Mt Hora insures the a priori precept western Africans as outgroup.
We note that the use of these proxy groups in qpAdm modeling does not imply an assumption that they are directly ancestral to the true sources contributing to the individuals we analyzed. Instead, for a model to be properly formulated, the reference groups only need to be more closely related to the true sources than are the outgroups, without substantially different admixture (35). Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel reference individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been present in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lack genetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel reference individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been present in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lack genetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn.[/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Africans aren't inferior. We're more than capable. Remember W Afrs exceed AngloSaxons in academics.
Maybe this journal will eventually solicit and publish population genomic research related to origins and flow. For the nonce continental Africans have other more immediate concerns (like health).
Research article Open access Facial types and morphology: A study among Sisaala and Dagaaba adult population in the Upper West Region, Ghana Raymond Saa-Eru Maalman, Chrissie Stansie Abaidoo, Nancy Darkoa Darko, Joshua Tetteh
Article e00071 Download PDF
quote:Abstract
Craniofacial measurements can be considered to be one of the important tools for determination of the inter-racial and intra-racial morphological characteristics of the head and face.
As such, facial indices serve as prominent identification tools in combination with fingerprint patterns for biometric and forensic purposes in the developed world. However in Ghana, although emphasis is placed on the face in the photographic recognition systems used in the issuance of passports, very little information is available on facial phenotypes and its prevalence with respect to ethnicity and sex. Therefore, the aim of this study was to classify the facial types among the Dagaabas and Sisaalas in the Upper West Region of Ghana.
In the study, a total of 387 healthy individuals (202 females and 185 males), between 18 and 60 years of age were recruited. The study main finding was that, the males had higher facial height and breadth than females.
Facial indices were recorded as 98% and 99% for female and male Dagaabas respectively. The Sisaala male and female participants’ facial indices recorded 102% and 104% respectively. Thus as high as 83% and 72% of the Sisaalas and Dagaabas respectively had hyperleptoprosopic facial type.
Hopefully, I will check out this journal. Considering the lack of government funding fir scientific endeavours in Africa< i suppose we should also be willing to pay for this journal's services. And I also remember an all-African modern genetic study from Botswana related to an investigation into HIV. So I think the intellectual capacity is there; what is missing is the funding, equipment and experience.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Is everyone gonna sit back and act like this study isn't highlighting some BLATANT contradictions in how folks go about viewing African substructure.
Like what?
tbh, when I posted that I had no idea how much these samples actually exposed... I just ran a few stats and ADMXTURE and I don't really know how to comprehend what I'm seeing. I have to do some more runs and revisions before I post these up... but let's just say that there is a good possibility that the early LSA and "pastoral Neolithic" populations in this study can represent a form of exclusive African possibly Afroasiatic ancestry that's been sitting in east Africa.
In comparison, horners (Oromo, Afar, etc.) Has it at lower levels than the ancient pastoralists but with additional ancestry that peaks in the Dinka and AEgyptian-like ancestry that peaks in the roman individual found in Europe (possibly a migrant from Egypt). The latter ancestry is then found at the highest levels in Copts and Nubians.
Now to put in perspective what I mean by exclusively African; The Non-African population with the highest amount of this PN ancestry are Natufians w/ only ~10% Then PPNB individuals with even less.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Is everyone gonna sit back and act like this study isn't highlighting some BLATANT contradictions in how folks go about viewing African substructure.
Like what?
tbh, when I posted that I had no idea how much these samples actually exposed... I just ran a few stats and ADMXTURE and I don't really know how to comprehend what I'm seeing. I have to do some more runs and revisions before I post these up... but let's just say that there is a good possibility that the early LSA and "pastoral Neolithic" populations in this study can represent a form of exclusive African possibly Afroasiatic ancestry that's been sitting in east Africa.
In comparison, horners (Oromo, Afar, etc.) Has it at lower levels than the ancient pastoralists but with additional ancestry that peaks in the Dinka and AEgyptian-like ancestry that peaks in the roman individual found in Europe (possibly a migrant from Egypt). The latter ancestry is then found at the highest levels in Copts and Nubians.
Now to put in perspective what I mean by exclusively African; The Non-African population with the highest amount of this PN ancestry are Natufians w/ only ~10% Then PPNB individuals with even less.
I'm having trouble understanding this. What is an example of a blatant contradiction the article is highlighting? Do you have a quote of that? I assume you mean the article is showing how previous ideas were contradictory ideas - rather than you saying the writers of the article are being contradictory themselves
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'm having trouble understanding this. What is an example of a blatant contradiction the article is highlighting? Do you have a quote of that? I assume you mean the article is showing how previous ideas were contradictory ideas - rather than you saying the writers of the article are being contradictory themselves [/QB]
Have you peeped the data? Don't you see the dates for admixture? did you not read the passage on LP? Didn't you peep the earliest PN samples were E-M75 and more shifted to Eurasians?
Did you not see all modern Cushitic speakers are more shifted to HG and or Darfurians than these early pastoralists
Who was jacking the Idea that Cushitic ancestry was absorbed and locally in the GL/Rift valley for at least 5,000 years? Eurasian ancestry was supposed to be 3500 years old administered through the horn.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Me and "Western-Eurasian-related ancestry is pervasive in eastern Africa today (Pagani et al., 2012, Tishkoff et al., 2009), and the timing of this admixture has been estimated to be ∼3,000 BP on average (Pickrell et al., 2014). 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." PR: Basal Eurasian? "While these findings show that a Levant-Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day eastern Africans (Lazaridis et al., 2016), present-day Cushitic speakers such as the Somali cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry. The best fitting model for the Somali includes Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry (p = 0.015). This suggests that ancestry related to the Iranian Neolithic appeared in eastern Africa after earlier gene flow related to Levant Neolithic populations, a scenario that is made more plausible by the genetic evidence of admixture of Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry throughout the Levant by the time of the Bronze Age (Lazaridis et al., 2016) and in ancient Egypt by the Iron Age (Schuenemann et al., 2017)."
People make a big deal about the Lemnba having southern Euro and Jewish haplogroups but thats meh. What stands out to me is how basal those haplogroups are.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Lol You guys were at least 2 thousand years short. If you don’t get it, the point is that there probably was Eurasian ancestry post dating these samples. But autosomally we might be seeing ancestry falsely attributed to non Africans for the first time.
What were the coalesced dates for the most frequent non african haplogroup in the lemba?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ Lol You guys were at least 2 thousand years short. If you don’t get it, the point is that there probably was Eurasian ancestry post dating these samples. But autosomally we might be seeing ancestry falsely attributed to non Africans for the first time.
What were the coalesced dates for the most frequent non african haplogroup in the lemba?
This. I wish i had some of my old writing about the dual Cushitic ancestry in some of these southern group:
quote: Genetically, the two individuals are most similar to those from PN sites, but they fall outside the range of sampled PN (and presentday) variation and cannot be modeled as directly related to PN. They also have an older date of admixture, and the male individual (I12533) carries a Y chromosome haplogroup (E2; E-M75) not found in any of our sampled PN individuals
Outside of ancient and modern variation yet they do very little to investigate. Some of the earliest admixture dates are probably going to be double. Think of how OLD Cushitic is as a language. Matter of fact, Euroclows that claim "Omotic is really Cushitic" shoot themselves in the foot as that would STILL make it one of the oldest forms of Cushitic languages....and if these folk have northerner ancestry....it pushes such migration WAY back. They didn't even use admixture? No treemix? No qpGraph? We get 10 pages from 41 Ancient skeletons? Naw, they dont really want to find out.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ Lol You guys were at least 2 thousand years short. If you don’t get it, the point is that there probably was Eurasian ancestry post dating these samples. But autosomally we might be seeing ancestry falsely attributed to non Africans for the first time.
What were the coalesced dates for the most frequent non african haplogroup in the lemba?
.
.
quote: Ancient DNA reveals a multistep spread of the first herders into sub-Saharan Africa
______________
I12533 Prettejohn's Gully
mtDNA Haplogroup K1a /Y E2(xE2b); E-M75
Uncalibrated years before present (BP) 3670 ± 20
Calibrated years be-fore present (cal BP), 4080-3890 ___________________________________
I13980 Gishimangeda Cave
mtDNA Haplogroup HV1b1/ YDNA E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22
Uncalibrated years before present (BP) 2530 ± 20
Calibrated years before present (cal BP),2740-2490
__________________________________
So you think the BPs are wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Who was jacking the Idea that Cushitic ancestry was absorbed and locally in the GL/Rift valley for at least 5,000 years? Eurasian ancestry was supposed to be 3500 years old administered through the horn.
This article isn't focused on Eurasian ancestry and what they do say with uncertainy >
quote:
for a model to be properly formulated, the reference groups only need to be more closely related to the true sources than are the out-groups, without substantially different admixture (35). Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel refer-ence individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been pre-sent in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lackgenetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn.....
Our results support a multi-phase model in which admixture between northeastern African-related peoples and eastern Africanforagers formed multiple pastoralist groups, including a genetically homogeneous PN cluster. Additional admixture with northeastern and western African-related groups occurred by the Iron Age.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ Lol You guys were at least 2 thousand years short. If you don’t get it, the point is that there probably was Eurasian ancestry post dating these samples. But autosomally we might be seeing ancestry falsely attributed to non Africans for the first time.
What were the coalesced dates for the most frequent non african haplogroup in the lemba?
quote: The Lemba T carriers belonged exclusively to T1b, which is rare and was not sampled in indigenous Jews of the Near East or North Africa. T1b has been observed at low frequencies in Ashkenazi Jews as well as in a few Levantine populations.[44]
T1b
Don't know when the coalescence age was. Good question.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ Lol You guys were at least 2 thousand years short. If you don’t get it, the point is that there probably was Eurasian ancestry post dating these samples. But autosomally we might be seeing ancestry falsely attributed to non Africans for the first time.
What were the coalesced dates for the most frequent non african haplogroup in the lemba?
quote: The Lemba T carriers belonged exclusively to T1b, which is rare and was not sampled in indigenous Jews of the Near East or North Africa. T1b has been observed at low frequencies in Ashkenazi Jews as well as in a few Levantine populations.[44]
T1b
Don't know when the coalescence age was. Good question.
the above reference [44], posted below
quote:
[44]F.L. Mendez et al., "Increased Resolution of Y Chromosome Haplogroup T Defines Relationships among Populations of the Near East, Europe, and Africa", BioOne Human Biology 83(1):39–53, (2011)
However, Jewish and Lemba T chromosomes tend to fall into different subclades (T1a and T1b, respectively),
First column is T
to the right the subclades of T
Note the Lemba clade T- l131* is 17%+ in Lemba but doesn't correspond many types of Jews carrying T clade. (Iranian Jews highest about 22% of T1a not T1b)
quote: and STR data show that the closest relationship of Lemba T chromosomes is with a Turk (Figure 2). Of course, it is possible that Y chromosomal lineages that became prevalent in Lemba went extinct in current Jewish populations, or are at low frequency and have not been sampled.
Turks began immigrating to South Africa during the 19th century. In 1889, the Ottoman Turks sent and maintained Honorary Consulates in Johannesburg and Durban.
As per the T haplogroup The Lemba correspond to very low percentages in other non-Jewish groups, os percentages less than one percent and not to Ashkenazi either -However as we see in this chart Sephardic Jews from Bulgaria who are recorded 4.8% of that same clade L131* that the Lemba have (17.6%)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
So you think the BPs are wrong? Why do I feel we're reading two different papers.
quote:This article isn't focused on Eurasian ancestry and what they do say with uncertainy >
quote:
for a model to be properly formulated, the reference groups only need to be more closely related to the true sources than are the out-groups, without substantially different admixture (35). Thus, for example, ancestry related to the Chalcolithic Israel refer-ence individuals could plausibly have originated anywhere in northeastern Africa or the Levant, and could have been pre-sent in northeastern Africa for many thousands of years. We use the Chalcolithic individuals in this study because we lackgenetic data from a phylogenetically adjacent reference group from Egypt, Sudan/South Sudan, or the Horn.....
Our results support a multi-phase model in which admixture between northeastern African-related peoples and eastern Africanforagers formed multiple pastoralist groups, including a genetically homogeneous PN cluster. Additional admixture with northeastern and western African-related groups occurred by the Iron Age.
Why the fuck isn't it, when they're modeling about thirty ancient Africans as a mixture of outlying foragers, Dinka and west Eurasians? You want to know a coincidence? In my Admixture run the chalcolithic samples that they've conveniently used as a proxy for the west Eurasian-like ancestry scored the highest for the parsed A.Egyptian ancestry outside of North Sudan. In-fact they outscored the Abusir mummies and bronze age jordanians and sidonians. You wan't to tell me that they didn't know this? That newly discovered PN cluster predated this psuedo A.Egyptian ancestry, the latter which mainly reflects continuous bidirectional admixture with near eastern populations (Seen by the presence of elevated CHG/Iran chl admixture). THAT's what they had an opportunity to expose or put to rest somehow.
Nonetheless my initial comment wasn't reflecting a gripe with the study when I spoke about contradictions. It was against conventional beliefs of the web and elsewhere. My problem with the study is how poor of a job they did elucidating what was actually happening in ancient Africa. The fact that some people can look at this study and just say "eh, as was expected" is crazy to me.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]This article isn't focused on Eurasian ancestry and what they do say with uncertainty >
Why the fuck isn't it,
because when we look at the introductory paragraph
quote: How food production first entered eastern Africa ~5000 years ago and the extent to which people moved with livestock is unclear. We present genome-wide data from 41 individuals associated with Later Stone Age, Pastoral Neolithic (PN), and Iron Age contexts in what are now Kenya and Tanzania to examine the genetic impacts of the spreads of herding and farming. Our results support a multi-phase model in which admixture between northeastern African-related peoples and eastern African foragers formed multiple pastoralist groups, including a genetically homogeneous PN cluster. Additional admixture with northeastern and western African-related groups occurred by the Iron Age. These findings support several movements of food producers, while rejecting models of minimal admixture with foragers and of genetic differentiation between makers of distinct PN artifacts.
and the conclusion
quote: Conclusions
Genome-wide data from 41 ancient eastern Africans show that archaeological complexity during the spreads of herding and farming is also reflected in genetic patterns, which indi-cate multiple movements of and gene flow among ancestrally distinct groups of people. We identifythree components of ancestry harbored by ancient pastoralists and propose a se-quence of admixture events to explain our observations; fu-ture archaeological and ancient DNA research in the Turkana Basin, the Horn of Africa, and other parts of northeastern Af-rica will be necessary to confirm the earliest stages of the spread of herding into the region. At the other end of our timeframe, we show that multiple admixture events impacted Iron Age groups associated with heterogeneous economic, cultural, and linguistic patterns. This complexity can be fur-ther explored through additional comparisons of genetic and archaeological diversity. Ancient DNA offers a new source of information about eastern African Holocene prehistory, and an important next direction is to integrate this information rigorously with insights provided by the longer-established disciplines of archaeology and linguistics.
They dont mention anything Eurasian in the introduction or conclusion and in the rest of the article they mention Eurasians just once and Europeans just once
And if we look at the Science Daily article about this journal article they don't mention anything about Eurasia, Europe or the Middle East. And the same article published in Sci News:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]This article isn't focused on Eurasian ancestry and what they do say with uncertainty >
Why the fuck isn't it,
because when we look at the introductory paragraph
quote: How food production first entered eastern Africa ~5000 years ago and the extent to which people moved with livestock is unclear. We present genome-wide data from 41 individuals associated with Later Stone Age, Pastoral Neolithic (PN), and Iron Age contexts in what are now Kenya and Tanzania to examine the genetic impacts of the spreads of herding and farming. Our results support a multi-phase model in which admixture between northeastern African-related peoples and eastern African foragers formed multiple pastoralist groups, including a genetically homogeneous PN cluster. Additional admixture with northeastern and western African-related groups occurred by the Iron Age. These findings support several movements of food producers, while rejecting models of minimal admixture with foragers and of genetic differentiation between makers of distinct PN artifacts.
and the conclusion
quote: Conclusions
Genome-wide data from 41 ancient eastern Africans show that archaeological complexity during the spreads of herding and farming is also reflected in genetic patterns, which indi-cate multiple movements of and gene flow among ancestrally distinct groups of people. We identifythree components of ancestry harbored by ancient pastoralists and propose a se-quence of admixture events to explain our observations; fu-ture archaeological and ancient DNA research in the Turkana Basin, the Horn of Africa, and other parts of northeastern Af-rica will be necessary to confirm the earliest stages of the spread of herding into the region. At the other end of our timeframe, we show that multiple admixture events impacted Iron Age groups associated with heterogeneous economic, cultural, and linguistic patterns. This complexity can be fur-ther explored through additional comparisons of genetic and archaeological diversity. Ancient DNA offers a new source of information about eastern African Holocene prehistory, and an important next direction is to integrate this information rigorously with insights provided by the longer-established disciplines of archaeology and linguistics.
They dont mention anything Eurasian in the introduction or conclusion and in the rest of the article they mention Eurasians just once and Europeans just once
And if we look at the Science Daily article about this journal article they don't mention anything about Eurasia, Europe or the Middle East. And the same article published in Sci News:
Ancient DNA tells the story of the first herders and farmers in east Africa
_____________________
they don't mention anything about Eurasia, Europe or the Middle East.
Either you're purposefully acting dense, or you're being disingenuous. I criticized two things: Conventional belief and the lack of effort to dispel, or support those beliefs by this study.
"How food production first entered eastern Africa ~5000 years ago and the extent to which people moved with livestock is unclear." <-- Was this inquiry made clear by this study? food production entered east Africa? from where?
They used an ancient near eastern population to model the highest proportion of the ancestry in their PN cluster. And don't atleast address the popular theory of PN culture and AfroAsiatic being brought from the near east. You don't think that it would be important to address that in some way shape or fashion now that we have nearly 3 dozen PN people of east Africa?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
"How food production first entered eastern Africa ~5000 years ago and the extent to which people moved with livestock is unclear." <-- Was this inquiry made clear by this study? food production
quote:
Iron-working first entered eastern Africa via the Lake Victoria Basin ~2500 BP and spread toward the coast by 2000 BP (14). This may have brought early IA farmers – thought to have spoken Bantu languages originating in equatorial western Africa....
Livestock ap-pear in northern Ethiopia and Djibouti relatively late, ~4500-4000 BP (3), and are poorly documented elsewhere in the Horn of Africa and in South Sudan. Instead, the earliest known domesticated animals in sub-Saharan Africa are found in Kenya at the beginning of the Pastoral Neolithic (PN; ~5000-1200 BP) era near Lake Turkana,
The young boy buried at Deloraine Farm—the site with the earliest direct evidence of farming in the Rift Valley (Kenya) (32)—shows affinity to western Africans and speakers of Bantu languages (both genome-wide and on the Y chromosome).
posted
Authors of Increased resolution of Y chromosome haplogroup T defines relationships among populations of the Near East, Europe, and Africa. Fernando L Mendez
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ WTF Cares. Comment on the data.
Whose collecting the data is very important too.
In this hobby prepare to read 1000s of pages by those authors and be familiar with them. Who they are is not as important is the data and their interpretation of it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ WTF Cares. Comment on the data.
Whose collecting the data is very important too.
In this hobby prepare to read 1000s of pages by those authors and be familiar with them. Who they are is not as important is the data and their interpretation of it.
None of us on this thread have access to the genetic samples and data. So we must put our entire trust in these authors and hope they are honest or they did not make a mistake.
posted
Lioness? Isn't the coalescence age the period of shared ancestry. Frequency doesn't tell us the coalescence age but it does suggest that the Lemba did not get T from Turks or Jews. That doesn't mean they aren't Jewish. Many among them practice Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Lioness? Isn't the coalescence age the period of shared ancestry. Frequency doesn't tell us the coalescence age but it does suggest that the Lemba did not get T from Turks or Jews. That doesn't mean they aren't Jewish. Many among them practice Judaism.
quote: The Lemba T carriers belonged exclusively to T1b, which is rare and was not sampled in indigenous Jews of the Near East or North Africa. T1b has been observed at low frequencies in Ashkenazi Jews as well as in a few Levantine populations.[44]
T1b
Don't know when the coalescence age was. Good question. [/QB]
I'm looking at this wikipedia quote and it appears to be wrong "T1b has been observed at low frequencies in Ashkenazi Jews as well as in a few Levantine populations." Like I showed in the chart I posted earlier the reference article for that [44] says " the moderately high frequency (∼18%) of T1b* chromosomes in the Lemba of southern Africa supports the hypothesis of a Near Eastern, but not necessarily a Jewish, origin for their paternal line."
^^ Here is a section of the chart you linked. At the bottom the Haplogroup LT Branching out is Haplogroup T (aka T-M184) Notice the skull there from the Varna culture of the Black Sea region of northeastern Bulgaria (4400-4100 BC) Scholars often suggest that the ultimate origins of the Bulgar is Turkic. Near to that Gonar Tepe, an ancient site in Turkmenistan also on the chart
Interestingly there was that Bulgarian Jewish sample I posted earlier, same clade of T-M184 that the Lemba are listed for T1a2 / L131
Confusingly they have both the old name T1b and the new name T1a2 / L131 on the same chart. That is the one from the chart I showed earlier for Lemba. Here it's the upper left dark red oval but not listing any group associated with it.
If you open the ISSOG file you see many more clades listed, they no longer use "B" for T groups.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Frequency doesn't tell us the coalescence age but it does suggest that the Lemba did not get T from Turks or Jews.
The founder effect is a special case of genetic drift, occurring when a small group in a population splinters off from the original population and forms a new one. This can also lead to higher frequencies Similarly the very high frequency but low diversity of mtDNA H in Libyan Tuareg
quote: S Afr Med J. 2013 Oct 11;103(12 Suppl 1):1009-13. doi: 10.7196/samj.7297.
Lemba origins revisited: tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba.
Soodyall H1. Author information Abstract BACKGROUND:
Previous historical, anthropological and genetic data provided overwhelming support for the Semitic origins of the Lemba, a Bantu-speaking people in southern Africa. OBJECTIVE:
To revisit the question concerning genetic affinities between the Lemba and Jews. METHODS:
Y-chromosome variation was examined in two Lemba groups: one from South Africa (SA) and, for the first time, a group from Zimbabwe (Remba), to re-evaluate the previously reported Jewish link. RESULTS:
A sample of 261 males (76 Lemba, 54 Remba, 43 Venda and 88 SA Jews) was initially analysed for 16 bi-allelic and 6 short tandem repeats (STRs) that resulted in the resolution of 102 STR haplotypes distributed across 13 haplogroups. The non-African component in the Lemba and Remba was estimated to be 73.7% and 79.6%, respectively. In addition, a subset of 91 individuals (35 Lemba, 24 Remba, 32 SA Jews) with haplogroup J were resolved further using 6 additional bi-allelic markers and 12 STRs to screen for the extended Cohen modal haplotype (CMH). Although 24 individuals (10 Lemba and 14 SA Jews) were identified as having the original CMH (six STRs), only one SA Jew harboured the extended CMH.CONCLUSIONS. While it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage.
This last article is discussing the Cohen Modal Haplotype and not seeing evidence of the Lemba carrying. However there is still that Bulgarian Jewish link as well as the ancient Bulgarian T carrier
But, yes, on the religious anyone could become a Jew
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
K7 has the best CV K11 Is the highest amount of clusters before drop in significance. I can upload spreadsheets for the other clusters as well if anyone wants. (per request)
NE African-like cluster appears at K9 what appears to be late-Kingdom Egyptian cluster appears at K11 East African forager cluster appears and disappears at K12
I wish some of the LSA samples had better resolution, some samples had to be dropped due to low coverage. Interestingly their's an Iberian of the copper age who has a unique autosomal signal. He resembles the Sahwari with elevated IAM/Taforalt, negligible WHG, reduced LK-Egyptian and increased Anatolia_N.
Please Lets get back on topic and gimme some thoughts.
I'll get out a QPgraph or two later this week.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Is the Israel_C_published sample the Chalcolithic one the article refers to? At K7 its more PN Tanzanian than Israeli.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ Is the Israel_C_published sample the Chalcolithic one the article refers to? At K7 its more PN Tanzanian than Israeli.
I'm honestly shocked by all the silence... Even positions I didn't subscribe to are effectively being vindicated by the presence of these samples. Yet no one has anything important to say here on ES.
Noone going to point out EEF populations and Stuttgart and even the ancient Greeks showing marked Egyptian ancestry? No ones, going to point out basal Eurasian estimates == Egyptian +/-Early "Cushitic" ancestry in near easterners and Europeans? Noone gonna point out that like the Iraqw early southern pastoralists consistently lock down the cushitic component? Adding to that^, the elevated levels of dinka-nuer related ancestry in horners might be indicative of multiwave dispersal's from North east Africa, particularly north Sudan? Noones going to point out that Mota could possibly be dragged closer to Modern population variation by V38? ...Being that he's on the most proximal end of the cline for early east African foragers?
Are we too busy trying to claim Eurasian Haplogroups and posting and complaining about white people leading African studies? Data is data...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its cuz the lily white study with the Subsahran Israelites also has Subsaharan Neolithics with Euro haplogroups
That reminded me of the Y-chromo haplogroups of the Lemba. The way I saw it was the Lemba weren't ethnically Jewish as much as Jews were ethnically Lemba so its funny to see these African Israelites. We have come full circle. Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
When you're looking at an ADMIXTURE graph (like the one you produced earlier in this thread), is there a way to discern where a component might have originated? For example, would a component be more likely to have originated in a place where it is predominant?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: @Elmaestro
When you're looking at an ADMIXTURE graph (like the one you produced earlier in this thread), is there a way to discern where a component might have originated? For example, would a component be more likely to have originated in a place where it is predominant?
It's hard to answer cuz on one hand the answer to your last question is an unequivocal yes. If a component is predominant among a group, that component itself likely originated with them. However! and more importantly, in theory, the people who carry the largest portion of a component are supposed to represent the donating populations the best. But it's not unusual we get false donors from artificial components. So for example the old cushitic cluster (PN) in the above ADMXITURE chart could be an anomaly caused by homogeneity in the region similar to how the Chenini, Kalash, fulani and new world populations can form their own clusters. In the case that happens the actual direction of geneflow can be obfuscated.
To answer the first part of your question.... Assuming that we're only analyzing an ADMIXTURE chart in an vacuum. You can discern where a component originated using logic most of the time. But in some cases admittedly it's impossible.
Looking at what I presume to be a LK Egyptian component at K11 I can tell immediately that it is composite. Possibly a mixture of NE.African and Near eastern ancestry based on distribution. But what matters is that after the A.English (said to be of Egyptian heritage.) This component peaks in NE.Africa, among copts and Nubians. What ever explanation I have for the forming of this component will have to reconcile with that fact.
However, in the previous case (using the same example; PN cluster) it doesn't really matter. IF you pay attention to the populations that carry this component when the cluster is formed, you see a split between East African foragers and modern Horners, compared to the PN cluster. One group with elevated HG-like ancestry and the other with elevated dinka related ancestry respectively. Any explanation you can come up with regarding it's distribution wont be that far from the truth.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
So Abusir/British Roman dude (believed to be AE migrant in Britain) and African PN share a component that peaks in British Roman dude.
I guess this validates the origin of the African cattle cultural complex from Nabta Playa. Supposedly, AE came into being after Nubian cattle herding populations migrated from a drying Western desert into the Nile Valley.
They must have dispersed in multiple directions into Sudan, the Horn, and the rest of East Africa.
The presence of that component in ancient Middle Eastern populations means that the old archaeology was correct: The earliest farmers of the Middle East shared some African ancestry via the Nile Valley. The presence of this component in higher proportions in Modern N. African/ Maghrebi populations as opposed to ancient Maghrebi populations (Taforalt) suggests that this component was reintroduced in N. Africa via recent Mideast migrations into N. Africa;viz, the Islamic conquest.
So if the green of Taforalt and Ifr_N_Amr represent indigenous Maghrebi or West N. African ancestry, does that mean the Arabs more or less wiped out a significant chunk of indigenous African ancestry there?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Some of the earliest admixture dates are probably going to be double. Think of how OLD Cushitic is as a language. Matter of fact, Euroclows that claim "Omotic is really Cushitic" shoot themselves in the foot as that would STILL make it one of the oldest forms of Cushitic languages....and if these folk have northerner ancestry....it pushes such migration WAY back. They didn't even use admixture? No treemix? No qpGraph? We get 10 pages from 41 Ancient skeletons? Naw, they dont really want to find out.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic