posted
On G25, once Yemen is used as a source of ancestry for Horners they score practically little to no Neolithic Levantine(PPNB/PPNC), Chalcolithic Israeli, Neolithic/Chalcolithic Iranian or EEF/ANF ancestry.
Here are some examples: In this model where I don't use Yemen, the Eurasian side is Natufian + Isr_C + IBM + Iranian (any Iranian independent of Isr_C is likely from Yemen)... https://imgur.com/a/WbnNA4N https://imgur.com/z0ThHzQ
In this model, the only difference in the source populations is that I include a bunch of Yemenis(Al Jawf, Mahra, Yemeni Jews etc...), and this pretty much completely removes the need for Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine and direct Iranian input. https://imgur.com/a/kXlMVzY https://imgur.com/a/1LGEL9W (These Somalis may be Ethiopian shifted, most ethnic Somalis score a little less Mota and Yemen but the point still stands).
Here I use the late Period Egyptian samples and it takes away from some of the Yemeni ancestry which makes sense considering they're both rich in Neolithic/Post Neolithic Levantine ancestry, and the Hunter Gather populations of the respective regions(Egypt and Yemen) were probably both rich in Natufian-like ancestry seeing as Arabians need a Natufian source independent of EEF, implying direct Natufian-like input, so on multiple levels Arabians and ancient Egyptians will have an appreciable genetic connection that will be largely indirect. https://imgur.com/a/D9LSpvQ
Even the Pastoral Neolithic genomes can be modelled using Yemeni, and sometimes prefer Yemeni over direct PPNB, PPNC, EEF, ISR_C, Late period Egyptian etc... We can say for a fact 4000 year old Kenyans don't have Yemeni ancestry that arrived in the Horn 3000 years ago so in this case, I think its clear in this case that Yemeni is absorbing the aforementioned samples ancestry. https://imgur.com/a/nsvpWVd
The thing is, Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn are largely derived from Bronze age North Sudan/Upper Egypt (ancient Lower Nubia) so we should without a doubt be scoring some Neolithic Levantine and Chalcolithic Levantine yet we don't, the Eurasian portion of our ancestry can be modelled just fine as Natufian, IBM and Yemen, and in some samples, late period Egyptian, either way, we score little to no EEF-like ancestry or any group that carries EEF ancestry which is strange considering where Horners come from. North Ethio-Semitic speakers(Tigrinyas, Tigres and Tigrays) generally show 25-33% Yemeni, once you throw in the Late period Egyptian samples, the Yemeni often drops, sometimes dropping to 10-15% from around 30%. This could mean some of the "Arabian" ancestry in the Horn could be accounting for the ancient Egyptian/Levantine-like ancestry in the Horn of Africa which makes sense given what I said above, keep in mind whenever a Horner scores a lot of Late Period Egyptian ancestry, their Yemeni drops. Its worth noting that North Ethio Semites could be modelled as 70% Late Period Egyptian and we were said to prefer an ancient Egyptian source of ancestry rather than an Arabian one (Almarri 2021 et al), but on G25 its the complete opposite.
Pretty much any G25 model of Horn Africans will show heavy amounts of Natufian and Arabian with little to no EEF ancestry or ancestry from groups that carry EEF, yet most studies don't even model our Eurasian ancestry as Natufian but prefer Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levant, some papers like Haber 2016 et al shows EEF-like groups such as Sardinians were the best proxy for the Eurasian ancestry in Amharas and Oromos, and out of the ancient remains, LBK worked the best, again, not what you'd expect when going off of G25.
Some possible implications of this:
1. EEF-like ancestry isn't being picked up on by G25. The Arabian is also overestimated and rather being around 30% in North Ethio-Semitic speakers its more like 10-15%.
2. EEF-like ancestry barely spread into Lower Nubia and the Neolithic transition in the south was mostly a cultural rather than a genetic exchange, but this would have to be extended to Upper Egypt to a lesser degree, and I can't see even the very earliest Upper Egyptians being nearly devoid of EEF/ANF ancestry.
3. The Levantine/Iranian ancestry proportions in ancient Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt may resemble that found in Yemen? As in, both groups have a similar ratio of Natufian to EEF to Iranian so G25 chooses Yemen to model that portion of their ancestry.
4. Ancestors of Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn weren't along the Nile and were off in the Eastern Desert or some sort of place where they wouldn't be affected by Levantine farmers and are essentially Mesolithic Egyptian + Dinka + Yemen + Omotic and absorbed little Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine ancestry.
Please drop thoughts....
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't chalcolithic levantines rich in natufian ancestry and similar to modern day yemenites ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Weren't chalcolithic levantines rich in natufian ancestry and similar to modern day yemenites ?
They had Natufian ancestry yes but they had a ton of EEF too, some Iranian aswell.
The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic.
Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).
- Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation
Keep in mind theres Anatolian ancestry on the Levant_N side aswell. And yes they are kinda similar to Yemenis too.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Weren't chalcolithic levantines rich in natufian ancestry and similar to modern day yemenites ?
They had Natufian ancestry yes but they had a ton of EEF too, some Iranian aswell.
The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic.
Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).
- Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation
Keep in mind theres Anatolian ancestry on the Levant_N side aswell. And yes they are kinda similar to Yemenis too.
Well that's not really far from what arabs can score :
so it seems it goes back to the problem of using modern and ancient proxies at the same time
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Weren't chalcolithic levantines rich in natufian ancestry and similar to modern day yemenites ?
They had Natufian ancestry yes but they had a ton of EEF too, some Iranian aswell.
The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic.
Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).
- Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation
Keep in mind theres Anatolian ancestry on the Levant_N side aswell. And yes they are kinda similar to Yemenis too.
Well that's not really far from what arabs can score :
so it seems it goes back to the problem of using modern and ancient proxies at the same time
I don't get your point, my post was about the fact that Horners score no Levantine(other than Natufian) when Yemen is used as a source of ancestry and the possible implications of that, which is interesting given our ancestors were in Bronze Age Lower Nubia so they should be scoring some Levantine but they don't, even when Yemen is removed we only score Isr_C, nothing Neolithic.
Even with Yemen removed our Eurasian ancestry is Natufian + Iranian with tiny amounts of EEF which is not what studies say, not mixing ancient and modern samples doesn't have much if anything to do with this IMO.
Also, Levant_N = Levant Neolithic, not Natufian.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don't get your point, my post was about the fact that Horners score no Levantine(other than Natufian) when Yemen is used as a source of ancestry and the possible implications of that, which is interesting given our ancestors were in Bronze Age Lower Nubia so they should be scoring some Levantine but they don't, even when Yemen is removed we only score Isr_C, nothing Neolithic.
Even with Yemen removed our Eurasian ancestry is Natufian + Iranian with tiny amounts of EEF which is not what studies say, not mixing ancient and modern samples doesn't have much if anything to do with this IMO.
Also, Levant_N = Levant Neolithic, not Natufian. [/QB]
What I'm trying to say is that your ANF (more accurate than "EEF" in your case) does not appear because it's already inside the modern yemenite component and same can be said about Isr_c. The same way my EEF can be hidden if I use a sardinian source.
Also Modern arabs aren't drastically different from these late neolithic/chalcolithic levantines but anyway are you really expecting horners to score as much ANF as egyptians or arabs ? It obviously got gradually diluted along the Nile.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don't get your point, my post was about the fact that Horners score no Levantine(other than Natufian) when Yemen is used as a source of ancestry and the possible implications of that, which is interesting given our ancestors were in Bronze Age Lower Nubia so they should be scoring some Levantine but they don't, even when Yemen is removed we only score Isr_C, nothing Neolithic.
Even with Yemen removed our Eurasian ancestry is Natufian + Iranian with tiny amounts of EEF which is not what studies say, not mixing ancient and modern samples doesn't have much if anything to do with this IMO.
Also, Levant_N = Levant Neolithic, not Natufian.
What I'm trying to say is that your ANF (more accurate than "EEF" in your case) does not appear because it's already inside the modern yemenite component and same can be said about Isr_c. The same way my EEF can be hidden if I use a sardinian source.
Also Modern arabs aren't drastically different from these late neolithic/chalcolithic levantines but anyway are you really expecting horners to score as much ANF as egyptians or arabs ? It obviously got gradually diluted along the Nile. [/QB]
Okay I get your point, but this happens even when Yemen is removed.
Lol obviously no ones expecting us to have as much EEF as ancient Egyptians and any EEF-like ancestry that would have entered Lower Nubia probably came indirectly from an ancient Egyptian-like source but we literally score no EEF at times, yet there are studies saying EEF is the best Eurasian source of ancestry for Horners.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Lol obviously no ones expecting us to have as much EEF as ancient Egyptians and any EEF-like ancestry that would have entered Lower Nubia probably came indirectly from an ancient Egyptian-like source but we literally score no EEF at times, yet there are studies saying EEF is the best Eurasian source of ancestry for Horners. [/QB]
What model did the paper used ? (the one which brought sardinian-like ancestry ; I can't find it)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
If you’re talking about Cushitic speakers, scenario no. 4 seems the most likely to me. It would make sense if Cushitic originated somewhere in the Eastern Desert near the Red Sea coast.
The first paper masked the African ancestry of some Ethiopian groups and showed there non African component was 85% Anatolian_N and 15% CHG.
The second paper analysed the Non African component of Chadians and Ethiopians and found that it was highly correlated and best represented by Sardinians and LBK.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
If you’re talking about Cushitic speakers, scenario no. 4 seems the most likely to me. It would make sense if Cushitic originated somewhere in the Eastern Desert near the Red Sea coast.
I think you're talking about Proto-Cushitic? I was talking about where the ancestors of Horn Africans were just before they arrived in the Horn of Africa, which i think was somehwere between 3000-2500 BCE, not where Proto-Cushitic itself originated.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
The first paper masked the African ancestry of some Ethiopian groups and showed there non African component was 85% Anatolian_N and 15% CHG.
The second paper analysed the Non African component of Chadians and Ethiopians and found that it was highly correlated and best represented by Sardinians and LBK.
The paper implies eurasian admixture in the region is only 3k years old and seems to propose sea people as good candidates... I don't understand why Haber took this hypothesis seriously but I admit I'm not enough knowledgeable about those programs but it's clear that the problem lies in those papers not G25.
I wonder if there might be a link with the expansion of V88 and I also discovered recently that maghrebis are not mostly western EEF but actually mostly LBK which further confirms the theory that the first farmers in NA came from italy and then settled in spain and morocco at roughly the same time.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The first paper masked the African ancestry of some Ethiopian groups and showed there non African component was 85% Anatolian_N and 15% CHG.
The second paper analysed the Non African component of Chadians and Ethiopians and found that it was highly correlated and best represented by Sardinians and LBK.
The paper implies eurasian admixture in the region is only 3k years old and seems to propose sea people as good candidates... I don't understand why Haber took this hypothesis seriously but I admit I'm not enough knowledgeable about those programs but it's clear that the problem lies in those papers not G25.
I wonder if there might be a link with the expansion of V88 and I also discovered recently that maghrebis are not mostly western EEF but actually mostly LBK which further confirms the theory that the first farmers in NA came from italy and then settled in spain and morocco at roughly the same time.
Yhh the Sea People explanation made no sense but thats just their shitty interpretation of the data, it doesn't change what that the data is showing them. I think the problem lies in both the papers and G25 and the truth is somewhere in the middle, as in, we aren't devoid of EEF and EEF isn't the primary source of our Eurasian.
I haven't really read about V88 too much but based on what I've seen I think it could be from Sardinia or somewhere near by so EEF coming into North Africa from somehwere like Italy could make sense. But I doubt Horners have much of this EEF ancestry as we have no V88 whatsoever, I don't think its been found even once in East Africa (excluding Sudan).
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
EEF is a model specific to the spread of farming in Europe and it doesn't make sense or fit into the history of farming or "neolithic" lifestyle in Africa. It came out of an attempt to examine all the ancient and modern DNA in Europe to see how much of an impact the spread of farming had on the local hunter gatherer populations. And as a result it found evidence for substantial displacement of populations by farming populations.
quote: Recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies have provided direct insights into the mtDNA and nuclear genomic diversity of hunter–gatherers in Europe [28–35] and the Central European LBK [33,36–40], describing genetic discontinuity between local foragers and early farmers [28,31,38,40]. Comparative analyses with present-day populations have revealed Near Eastern affinities of the mitochondrial LBK ancestry, supporting the demic diffusion model and population replacement at the beginning of the Neolithic period [38,39]. Ancient genomic studies have described the early farmers as genetically most similar to extant populations of southern Europe [31,33,40,41]. Y chromosome data from prehistoric Europeans is still scarce but relevant for our study (electronic supplementary material, dataset S20), including hunter–gatherers [33–35,40,42], and early farmers from Germany [38,40], eastern Hungary [41], Austria [43] and southwest Europe [40,44,45].
This has nothing to do with Africa as the evolution towards agriculture has a long history centered primarily in the Sahara/Sahel and parts of the Nile Valley as a local indigenous process. And there is no evidence of large scale demic or genetic diffusion from Europe with the spread of farming in Africa. So it makes sense that you wouldn't find any EEF connections in the Horn because early pastoralism in the Horn did not come from Europe or "European Farmers".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: EEF is a model specific to the spread of farming in Europe and it doesn't make sense or fit into the history of farming or "neolithic" lifestyle in Africa. It came out of an attempt to examine all the ancient and modern DNA in Europe to see how much of an impact the spread of farming had on the local hunter gatherer populations. And as a result it found evidence for substantial displacement of populations by farming populations.
quote: Recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies have provided direct insights into the mtDNA and nuclear genomic diversity of hunter–gatherers in Europe [28–35] and the Central European LBK [33,36–40], describing genetic discontinuity between local foragers and early farmers [28,31,38,40]. Comparative analyses with present-day populations have revealed Near Eastern affinities of the mitochondrial LBK ancestry, supporting the demic diffusion model and population replacement at the beginning of the Neolithic period [38,39]. Ancient genomic studies have described the early farmers as genetically most similar to extant populations of southern Europe [31,33,40,41]. Y chromosome data from prehistoric Europeans is still scarce but relevant for our study (electronic supplementary material, dataset S20), including hunter–gatherers [33–35,40,42], and early farmers from Germany [38,40], eastern Hungary [41], Austria [43] and southwest Europe [40,44,45].
This has nothing to do with Africa as the evolution towards agriculture has a long history centered primarily in the Sahara/Sahel and parts of the Nile Valley as a local indigenous process. And there is no evidence of large scale demic or genetic diffusion from Europe with the spread of farming in Africa. So it makes sense that you wouldn't find any EEF connections in the Horn because early pastoralism in the Horn did not come from Europe or "European Farmers".
I've seen you say pretty much this exact same thing in threads from years ago and people here proved the presence of EEF-like ancestry in Africa and explained the nature of EEF ancestry in Africa and that it doesn't mean half of what your saying.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: [QB] On G25, once Yemen is used as a source of ancestry for Horners they score practically little to no Neolithic Levantine(PPNB/PPNC), Chalcolithic Israeli, Neolithic/Chalcolithic Iranian or EEF/ANF ancestry.
Here are some examples: In this model where I don't use Yemen, the Eurasian side is Natufian + Isr_C + IBM + Iranian (any Iranian independent of Isr_C is likely from Yemen)...
I have read 2011 source saying Amhara and Tigray DNA is almost indistinguishable but I don't know if it's still current
West Asian sources of the Eurasian component in Ethiopians: a reassessment Ludovica Molinaro, Francesco Montinaro, Burak Yelmen, Davide Marnetto, Doron M. Behar, Toomas Kivisild & Luca Pagani Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 18811 (2019)
Abstract The presence of genomic signatures of Eurasian origin in contemporary Ethiopians has been reported by several authors and estimated to have arrived in the area from 3000 years ago. Several studies reported plausible source populations for such a signature, using haplotype based methods on modern data or single-site methods on modern or ancient data. These studies did not reach a consensus and suggested an Anatolian or Sardinia-like proxy, broadly Levantine or Neolithic Levantine as possible sources. We demonstrate, however, that the deeply divergent, autochthonous African component which accounts for ~50% of most contemporary Ethiopian genomes, affects the overall allele frequency spectrum to an extent that makes it hard to control for it and, at once, to discern between subtly different, yet important, Eurasian sources (such as Anatolian or Levant Neolithic ones). Here we re-assess pattern of allele sharing between the Eurasian component of Ethiopians (here called “NAF” for Non African) and ancient and modern proxies. Our results unveil a genomic legacy that may connect the Eurasian genetic component of contemporary Ethiopians with Sea People and with population movements that affected the Mediterranean area and the Levant after the fall of the Minoan civilization.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Y-DNA of EEFs was typically types of haplogroup G2a and to a lesser extent H, T, J, C1a2 and E1b1, while their mtDNA was diverse.
Haplogroup G is very low in most of Africa, although a little in the north
Also, Levantine and Arab DNA overlap, have some genes in common __________________________________________
A study of 20 Moroccan Jews found 30% were G.[9] The tested men were then apparently living in Israel. Another study of Jewish men found 19.3% of 83 Jewish men from Morocco belonged to haplogroup G.
Of 147 samples from among Egyptians in Egypt (2004), 9% were G.[4] And in a 2009 study, among 116 Egyptians, 6.9% were G.[5] In a study of 35 samples from oasis el-Hayez in the western Egyptian desert area, none were G. The 18th dynasty mummy Yuya was reported to be G2
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I think you're talking about Proto-Cushitic? I was talking about where the ancestors of Horn Africans were just before they arrived in the Horn of Africa, which i think was somehwere between 3000-2500 BCE, not where Proto-Cushitic itself originated.
Aren't most Horn Africans (apart from the Ethio-Semitics and Omotics) Cushitic speakers? I would therefore assume most Horn Africans can trace their ancestry to populations from the eastern Sahara/Red Sea region, where proto-Cushitic is likely to have arisen. Presumably, the people who speak Ethio-Semitic languages now were speaking something like Cushitic before anyone from Arabia brought South Semitic to the Horn. So I think it is probable that, apart from the Omotics and the Nilo-Saharans, most people in the Horn of Africa today can trace their ancestry to proto-Cushitic speakers from further north.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I think you're talking about Proto-Cushitic? I was talking about where the ancestors of Horn Africans were just before they arrived in the Horn of Africa, which i think was somehwere between 3000-2500 BCE, not where Proto-Cushitic itself originated.
Aren't most Horn Africans (apart from the Ethio-Semitics and Omotics) Cushitic speakers? I would therefore assume most Horn Africans can trace their ancestry to populations from the eastern Sahara/Red Sea region, where proto-Cushitic is likely to have arisen. Presumably, the people who speak Ethio-Semitic languages now were speaking something like Cushitic before anyone from Arabia brought South Semitic to the Horn.
You originally said "If you’re talking about Cushitic speakers" but this applies to Ethio-Semites to a certain extent aswell. Certain Cushitic speakers are nearly identical in their Arabian-like proportions to Ethio-Semitic speakers, this includes Afars, Bilens/Agaws, Beni-Amers and Sahos. Some of these people actually score more Yemeni than Amharas do.
I don't disagree with you about the Proto-Cushitic homeland being along the Red Sea/Eastern Desert of Sudan/Egypt buts thats dated to something like 8000 BC, pastoralism in the Horn of Africa goes back to around 3000 - 2500 BC. Your talking about where Cushitic "originated" I'm talking about where it was and who it mixed with in Sudan/Egypt from 6000 BC to 3000 BC. And after that how much they mixed with the Sabeans(Yemeni).
This doesn't have much to do with where Cushitic originated as I was focusing on the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine and Arabian ancestry in the Horn, which all spread well after 8000 BC.
Going based off of G25 models Horners score tiny amounts of EEF, if the ancestors of Horners were in Lower Nubia prior to entering the Horn from 3000-2500 BC then this tells us something about Lower Nubia at the time period and subsequently, Upper Egypt, but to a lesser degree ofc, I personally doubt EEF ancestry could be so low in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia which is why I proposed that G25 shouldn't be taken literally in this case or these people ancestral to Horners may have been in the Eastern Desert or another similar place where they could have avoided a lot of EEF ancestry that spread down the Nile and stayed Natufian-like + IBM-like + Dinka-like.
This, among other issues raised, such as Arabian possibly accounting for Late Period Egyptian-like ancestry in Horners is the purpose of the thread. When you remove Yemen/any Arabian source from Horners is when we start to score Late Period Egyptian ancestry on G25, taken literally this could mean a Late Period-like profile already existed in the Bronze age and had a presence in Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: [QB] On G25, once Yemen is used as a source of ancestry for Horners they score practically little to no Neolithic Levantine(PPNB/PPNC), Chalcolithic Israeli, Neolithic/Chalcolithic Iranian or EEF/ANF ancestry.
Here are some examples: In this model where I don't use Yemen, the Eurasian side is Natufian + Isr_C + IBM + Iranian (any Iranian independent of Isr_C is likely from Yemen)...
I have read 2011 source saying Amhara and Tigray DNA is almost indistinguishable but I don't no if it's still current
Amharas have a tiny bit less Yemeni and more Mota/Omotic than Tigrays, overall around 5% more SSA, still very, very similar to Tigrays but they can be differentiated in a some cases.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: EEF is a model specific to the spread of farming in Europe and it doesn't make sense or fit into the history of farming or "neolithic" lifestyle in Africa. It came out of an attempt to examine all the ancient and modern DNA in Europe to see how much of an impact the spread of farming had on the local hunter gatherer populations. And as a result it found evidence for substantial displacement of populations by farming populations.
quote: Recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies have provided direct insights into the mtDNA and nuclear genomic diversity of hunter–gatherers in Europe [28–35] and the Central European LBK [33,36–40], describing genetic discontinuity between local foragers and early farmers [28,31,38,40]. Comparative analyses with present-day populations have revealed Near Eastern affinities of the mitochondrial LBK ancestry, supporting the demic diffusion model and population replacement at the beginning of the Neolithic period [38,39]. Ancient genomic studies have described the early farmers as genetically most similar to extant populations of southern Europe [31,33,40,41]. Y chromosome data from prehistoric Europeans is still scarce but relevant for our study (electronic supplementary material, dataset S20), including hunter–gatherers [33–35,40,42], and early farmers from Germany [38,40], eastern Hungary [41], Austria [43] and southwest Europe [40,44,45].
This has nothing to do with Africa as the evolution towards agriculture has a long history centered primarily in the Sahara/Sahel and parts of the Nile Valley as a local indigenous process. And there is no evidence of large scale demic or genetic diffusion from Europe with the spread of farming in Africa. So it makes sense that you wouldn't find any EEF connections in the Horn because early pastoralism in the Horn did not come from Europe or "European Farmers".
I've seen you say pretty much this exact same thing in threads from years ago and people here proved the presence of EEF-like ancestry in Africa and explained the nature of EEF ancestry in Africa and that it doesn't mean half of what your saying.
And I said it because it is correct as "Early European Farmers" means just that, early populations who carried farming into Europe. How does that have anything to do with the origins and history of farming in Africa? If anything the term would be "Early African Farmers" in reference to the first populations of Africans who carried farming in Africa. Because there is no evidence of widespread demic replacement from migrating Eurasians into Africa 7,000 years ago carrying farming. So it makes no sense to use the term in reference to Africa. If you are talking specific genetic lineages then just say what lineages you expected to find then but those lineages have nothing to do with the spread of farming into Africa 8,000 years go is my point. Which is why the data doesn't reflect it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And I said it because it is correct as "Early European Farmers" means just that, early populations who carried farming into Europe. How does that have anything to do with the origins and history of farming in Africa? If anything the term would be "Early African Farmers" in reference to the first populations of Africans who carried farming in Africa. Because there is no evidence of widespread demic replacement from migrating Eurasians into Africa 7,000 years ago carrying farming. So it makes no sense to use the term in reference to Africa. If you are talking specific genetic lineages then just say what lineages you expected to find then but those lineages have nothing to do with the spread of farming into Africa 8,000 years go is my point. Which is why the data doesn't reflect it.
I wouldn't characterize it as "widespread demic replacement", necessarily. But you might want to get used to the probability that ancient Egyptians (more so those in Lower, or northern, Egypt than the south, of course) would have admixed with Levantine and Mediterranean populations as well as other Africans. Egypt lies at a geographic crossroads connecting the Mediterranean basin with the African interior, so that is to be expected.
If you makes you feel any better, admixture would have gone both ways. It's very likely Natufians and even the Anatolian forerunners of Neolithic European farmers had substantial ancestry from northeastern Africa, so they wouldn't have been fully West Eurasian anyway. If their descendants mixed with Egyptians, it would involve a lot of recent African ancestry returning to Egypt.
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Overall, I think there was a lot of good info in that study but I think they should have investigated the nature of the Eurasian component in the remains more, that paper is a good example of what I mean in terms of the contradictory results between G25 and any study that looks at the Eurasian portion of East Africans in general, they use Chalcolithic Israel as a proxy for the Eurasian portion of the PN remains, on G25 90%+ of East Africans won't even score a single % if you throw in Yemen, using Natufian and Taforalt removes a lot of it aswell even the PN remains show this pattern, they won't score a drop of ISR_C or PPNB/PPNC if you use Yemen as a source of ancestry. Yet I haven't seen a single study use Natufian and Taforalt as a source of ancestry for East Africans, only post-Mesolithic Eurasians are used, I think I've seen Europeans such as LBK, Sardinians and even Tuscany Italians used as a source, but I can't think of many papers that employ Natufian and IBM.
You get what I'm trying to say right? On one end, Early Cushites look to be Natufian + Taforalt (Mesolithic Egyptian?) + Dinka-like, on the other end Cushites could have been rich in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine/EEF ancestry. Its difficult trying to understand the formation of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic people when different methodologies come out with completely different results.
Obfuscated is an understatement lol, the Prendergast paper does kinda contradict Horners having Arabian ancestry, an Arabian proxy completely removes Chalcolithic Israeli from the Horn. I'm not saying Horners don't have Arabian ancestry btw, just saying East Africans never simultaneously score Arabian and Isr_C on G25.
Eritreans scored 70%, Somalis score 50-55% and they have pretty small amounts of Arabian, so they largely retained the Cushitic component pretty well compared to Northern Habeshas, so based on this it would seem that Horners Cushite ancestors had some Ancient Egyptian-like ancestry. That exact study said Horners preferred the Ancient Egyptian source rather than the Arabian one, but this is not the case in the slightest on G25, which is why I proposed that some of the Arabian found in Horners could be accounting for some Ancient Egyptian-like.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
It also says "We tested if we can model our populations as deriving ancestry from one of the sampled regional Bronze Age populations, and found that the Middle Bronze Age population from Sidon (Lebanon)(Sidon_BA) could be a source of ancestry for some modern Levantine and Arabian populations" Table 1. Showing models involving Sidon_BA or Egypt_prePtolemaic as one of the ancestry sources.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And I said it because it is correct as "Early European Farmers" means just that, early populations who carried farming into Europe. How does that have anything to do with the origins and history of farming in Africa? If anything the term would be "Early African Farmers" in reference to the first populations of Africans who carried farming in Africa. Because there is no evidence of widespread demic replacement from migrating Eurasians into Africa 7,000 years ago carrying farming. So it makes no sense to use the term in reference to Africa. If you are talking specific genetic lineages then just say what lineages you expected to find then but those lineages have nothing to do with the spread of farming into Africa 8,000 years go is my point. Which is why the data doesn't reflect it.
I wouldn't characterize it as "widespread demic replacement", necessarily. But you might want to get used to the probability that ancient Egyptians (more so those in Lower, or northern, Egypt than the south, of course) would have admixed with Levantine and Mediterranean populations as well as other Africans. Egypt lies at a geographic crossroads connecting the Mediterranean basin with the African interior, so that is to be expected.
If you makes you feel any better, admixture would have gone both ways. It's very likely Natufians and even the Anatolian forerunners of Neolithic European farmers had substantial ancestry from northeastern Africa, so they wouldn't have been fully West Eurasian anyway. If their descendants mixed with Egyptians, it would involve a lot of recent African ancestry returning to Egypt.
I am not talking about the idea of "Eurasian" mixture in Egypt as a general principle. What I am talking about is using the phrase "Early European Farmers" as a reference to the genetic history associated with the spread of farming in Europe and applying it to the genetic history and spread of farming in Africa. EEF is about a specific population and set of genetic lineages found in Europe during the spread of farming from the Levant. Like I said, the history and spread of agriculture and pastoral lifestyles in Africa in many cases predates Europe. If you want to understand the genetics and spread of farming in Africa you need ancient DNA from Africa to start with and not just genetic data from Europe. It makes no sense to try and model ancient African genetic history starting with European DNA models is my point. This is not denying any potential mixture back and forth between Africa and Europe as opposed to questioning usage of terms and concepts that don't make sense for ancient Africa. At the end of the day this really boils down to getting more ancient DNA from Africa, including more of the Nile, including Upper Egypt, Lower and Central Sudan, the Sahel and Sahara going back 15,000 years. Then you would have a better model to fit modern populations into versus relying on ancient DNA from Europe to fit ancient African DNA into. The only reason the idea of "EEF" even exists is because of the amounts of ancient DNA that they had from Europe in order to understand this history. Which also means that this idea of Eurasian migrants into the Nile Delta and coastal North Africa are not the progenitors of such practices in Africa and certainly not the ones associated with EEF in Europe.
quote: Cave sediments formed during the human occupation of rock shelters (e.g., Goldberg and Macphail, 2006, Weiner, 2010 and references cited therein) are an example of anthropogenic deposits with great potential for palaeoclimatic studies. Among such samples, the Holocene infillings of the rock shelters of the Tadrart Acacus Massif (Central Sahara, South-West Libya) play an important role in palaeoenvironmental reconstructions, as they resulted from peculiar depositional and post-depositional processes controlled by both natural and anthropic factors (e.g., Cremaschi, 1998, Cremaschi and di Lernia, 1999a, Mercuri, 2008a, Cremaschi and Zerboni, 2011, Biagetti and di Lernia, 2013). These deposits date back to a pivotal period for human development as they include the transition from hunter–gatherer subsistence to food production (e.g., Barich, 1987, Cremaschi and di Lernia, 1998, di Lernia, 1999, di Lernia, 2001, di Lernia, 2002). This event occurred in the Early Holocene, during the African Humid Period (AHP), c. 11,000–6000 cal yr BP, when the Sahara, different from its present aridity, was fed by monsoon rain and covered by patches of savannah (e.g., Lézine, 1989, Gasse and Van Campo, 1994, Gasse, 2000, Hoelzmann et al., 2004; Kuper and Kröpelin, 2006; Lézine et al., 2011).
quote: Taken together, though, these finds point to traditions of wild Pennisetum harvesting across the central and western Sahara during the Early to Middle Holocene, which could constitute the cultural background for the later cultivation of Pennisetum violaceum and its subsequent domestication (Dupuy 2014; Manning and Fuller 2014). In the case of the Acacus region of Libya, however, Pennisetum sp. drops out of use by ca. 6200 BC, with subsequent plant exploitation and probable cultivation focusing on small millets, such as Panicum and Echinochloa (Mercuri et al. 2018). Indeed, Winchell et al. (2018) suggest three distinct, yet parallel, pathways to cereal cultivation in Africa that were each initially based on different grasses: small millet cultivation in the central Sahara, sorghum in the eastern Sahel, and pearl millet in the western Sahel.
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Overall, I think there was a lot of good info in that study but I think they should have investigated the nature of the Eurasian component in the remains more, that paper is a good example of what I mean in terms of the contradictory results between G25 and any study that looks at the Eurasian portion of East Africans in general, they use Chalcolithic Israel as a proxy for the Eurasian portion of the PN remains, on G25 90%+ of East Africans won't even score a single % if you throw in Yemen, using Natufian and Taforalt removes a lot of it aswell even the PN remains show this pattern, they won't score a drop of ISR_C or PPNB/PPNC if you use Yemen as a source of ancestry. Yet I haven't seen a single study use Natufian and Taforalt as a source of ancestry for East Africans, only post-Mesolithic Eurasians are used, I think I've seen Europeans such as LBK, Sardinians and even Tuscany Italians used as a source, but I can't think of many papers that employ Natufian and IBM.
You get what I'm trying to say right? On one end, Early Cushites look to be Natufian + Taforalt (Mesolithic Egyptian?) + Dinka-like, on the other end Cushites could have been rich in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine/EEF ancestry. Its difficult trying to understand the formation of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic people when different methodologies come out with completely different results.
Obfuscated is an understatement lol, the Prendergast paper does kinda contradict Horners having Arabian ancestry, an Arabian proxy completely removes Chalcolithic Israeli from the Horn. I'm not saying Horners don't have Arabian ancestry btw, just saying East Africans never simultaneously score Arabian and Isr_C on G25.
Eritreans scored 70%, Somalis score 50-55% and they have pretty small amounts of Arabian, so they largely retained the Cushitic component pretty well compared to Northern Habeshas, so based on this it would seem that Horners Cushite ancestors had some Ancient Egyptian-like ancestry. That exact study said Horners preferred the Ancient Egyptian source rather than the Arabian one, but this is not the case in the slightest on G25, which is why I proposed that some of the Arabian found in Horners could be accounting for some Ancient Egyptian-like.
I think your Analysis misses 2 things.
1 - The hypothesis of North African Genetic substructure distinct from North West African concentrated ANA. All the "Eurasian" you are looking at is not even "Eurasian" so you are trying to piece together a genetic model created with puzzle pieces made for a totally different puzzle, they dont fit.
2 - The idea that "Cushitic" people doesn't represent a *singular* migration into the horn of Africa. What you are likely looking at are Cushitic speaking migrants....and Cushitic type ancestry among Nilo Saharan speaking migrants into the Horn of Africa and great lakes regions starting about 10,000 years ago.....not 3000 years ago but probably 8-10000 years ago or even earlier.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Overall, I think there was a lot of good info in that study but I think they should have investigated the nature of the Eurasian component in the remains more, that paper is a good example of what I mean in terms of the contradictory results between G25 and any study that looks at the Eurasian portion of East Africans in general, they use Chalcolithic Israel as a proxy for the Eurasian portion of the PN remains, on G25 90%+ of East Africans won't even score a single % if you throw in Yemen, using Natufian and Taforalt removes a lot of it aswell even the PN remains show this pattern, they won't score a drop of ISR_C or PPNB/PPNC if you use Yemen as a source of ancestry. Yet I haven't seen a single study use Natufian and Taforalt as a source of ancestry for East Africans, only post-Mesolithic Eurasians are used, I think I've seen Europeans such as LBK, Sardinians and even Tuscany Italians used as a source, but I can't think of many papers that employ Natufian and IBM.
You get what I'm trying to say right? On one end, Early Cushites look to be Natufian + Taforalt (Mesolithic Egyptian?) + Dinka-like, on the other end Cushites could have been rich in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine/EEF ancestry. Its difficult trying to understand the formation of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic people when different methodologies come out with completely different results.
Obfuscated is an understatement lol, the Prendergast paper does kinda contradict Horners having Arabian ancestry, an Arabian proxy completely removes Chalcolithic Israeli from the Horn. I'm not saying Horners don't have Arabian ancestry btw, just saying East Africans never simultaneously score Arabian and Isr_C on G25.
Eritreans scored 70%, Somalis score 50-55% and they have pretty small amounts of Arabian, so they largely retained the Cushitic component pretty well compared to Northern Habeshas, so based on this it would seem that Horners Cushite ancestors had some Ancient Egyptian-like ancestry. That exact study said Horners preferred the Ancient Egyptian source rather than the Arabian one, but this is not the case in the slightest on G25, which is why I proposed that some of the Arabian found in Horners could be accounting for some Ancient Egyptian-like.
I think your Analysis misses 2 things.
1 - The hypothesis of North African Genetic substructure distinct from North West African concentrated ANA. All the "Eurasian" you are looking at is not even "Eurasian" so you are trying to piece together a genetic model created with puzzle pieces made for a totally different puzzle, they dont fit.
2 - The idea that "Cushitic" people doesn't represent a *singular* migration into the horn of Africa. What you are likely looking at are Cushitic speaking migrants....and Cushitic type ancestry among Nilo Saharan speaking migrants into the Horn of Africa and great lakes regions starting about 10,000 years ago.....not 3000 years ago but probably 8-10000 years ago or even earlier.
When I say Eurasian I basically mean Eurasian-like/related, which would include a Eurasian-like ancestry autochthonous to North/NE Africa, aswell as actual Eurasian ancestry which isn't native to Africa, I'll make the distinction from now to avoid confusion. But either way, groups like Natufians and IBM are AFAIK, the best way(for now) to model the Mesolithic Egyptian genepool which I think is the ultimate source of the Natufian/IBM related ancestry you see absorbing most of the Eurasian-like ancestry in East Africans, I don't see how else I can account for indigenous NE ancestry, these are the samples avaialble to the public, if there is a better way to model that ancestry than let me know but I honestly don't think there is yet.
What makes you place it back so far? I agree that there were earlier migrations that skipped the Horn but Cushitic ancestry in the Great Lakes is 10,000 years old? Please elaborate if you can, that really caught my attention. Also, the main purpose of using PN remains was to show that they also score Arabian ancestry, which they definitely don't have, to make a point that Arabian proxies could be absorbing Egyptian/Levantine ancestry that came via an ancient Egyptian-like source, some of the PN remains score Late Period Ancient Egyptian. I used them because they carry a lot of Cushitic ancestry with no Arabian and share the patterns I outlined with modern Horners so I think its an okay comparison regardless of whether they were ancestral to Horn Africans or not.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Overall, I think there was a lot of good info in that study but I think they should have investigated the nature of the Eurasian component in the remains more, that paper is a good example of what I mean in terms of the contradictory results between G25 and any study that looks at the Eurasian portion of East Africans in general, they use Chalcolithic Israel as a proxy for the Eurasian portion of the PN remains, on G25 90%+ of East Africans won't even score a single % if you throw in Yemen, using Natufian and Taforalt removes a lot of it aswell even the PN remains show this pattern, they won't score a drop of ISR_C or PPNB/PPNC if you use Yemen as a source of ancestry. Yet I haven't seen a single study use Natufian and Taforalt as a source of ancestry for East Africans, only post-Mesolithic Eurasians are used, I think I've seen Europeans such as LBK, Sardinians and even Tuscany Italians used as a source, but I can't think of many papers that employ Natufian and IBM.
You get what I'm trying to say right? On one end, Early Cushites look to be Natufian + Taforalt (Mesolithic Egyptian?) + Dinka-like, on the other end Cushites could have been rich in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine/EEF ancestry. Its difficult trying to understand the formation of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic people when different methodologies come out with completely different results.
Obfuscated is an understatement lol, the Prendergast paper does kinda contradict Horners having Arabian ancestry, an Arabian proxy completely removes Chalcolithic Israeli from the Horn. I'm not saying Horners don't have Arabian ancestry btw, just saying East Africans never simultaneously score Arabian and Isr_C on G25.
Eritreans scored 70%, Somalis score 50-55% and they have pretty small amounts of Arabian, so they largely retained the Cushitic component pretty well compared to Northern Habeshas, so based on this it would seem that Horners Cushite ancestors had some Ancient Egyptian-like ancestry. That exact study said Horners preferred the Ancient Egyptian source rather than the Arabian one, but this is not the case in the slightest on G25, which is why I proposed that some of the Arabian found in Horners could be accounting for some Ancient Egyptian-like.
I think your Analysis misses 2 things.
1 - The hypothesis of North African Genetic substructure distinct from North West African concentrated ANA. All the "Eurasian" you are looking at is not even "Eurasian" so you are trying to piece together a genetic model created with puzzle pieces made for a totally different puzzle, they dont fit.
2 - The idea that "Cushitic" people doesn't represent a *singular* migration into the horn of Africa. What you are likely looking at are Cushitic speaking migrants....and Cushitic type ancestry among Nilo Saharan speaking migrants into the Horn of Africa and great lakes regions starting about 10,000 years ago.....not 3000 years ago but probably 8-10000 years ago or even earlier.
When I say Eurasian I basically mean Eurasian-like/related, which would include a Eurasian-like ancestry autochthonous to North/NE Africa, aswell as actual Eurasian ancestry which isn't native to Africa, I'll make the distinction from now to avoid confusion. But either way, groups like Natufians and IBM are AFAIK, the best way(for now) to model the Mesolithic Egyptian genepool which I think is the ultimate source of the Natufian/IBM related ancestry you see absorbing most of the Eurasian-like ancestry in East Africans, I don't see how else I can account for indigenous NE ancestry, these are the samples avaialble to the public, if there is a better way to model that ancestry than let me know but I honestly don't think there is yet.
What makes you place it back so far? I agree that there were earlier migrations that skipped the Horn but Cushitic ancestry in the Great Lakes is 10,000 years old? Please elaborate if you can, that really caught my attention. Also, the main purpose of using PN remains was to show that they also score Arabian ancestry, which they definitely don't have, to make a point that Arabian proxies could be absorbing Egyptian/Levantine ancestry that came via an ancient Egyptian-like source, some of the PN remains score Late Period Ancient Egyptian. I used them because they carry a lot of Cushitic ancestry with no Arabian and share the patterns I outlined with modern Horners so I think its an okay comparison regardless of whether they were ancestral to Horn Africans or not.
Point taken on the "Eurasians". As to Northern incursions into Equatorial regions in Africa. I would point the the Archology. I think you need to look at the Archology as far as presumed influences in maternal culture and skeletal data. See sources Here , Here , and Here. Look at some of the early remains in East Africa and Central Africa that have what could be seen as Desert Adapted phenotypes.....those phantom Caucasoids that were just some more Africans from a different region. Since its this far back i am not arguing they are Cushitic speakers linguistically......but the Blend of Ancestry typified as "Cushitic" is probably a wastebasket of some regional ancestries that differentiated over time in the same way Niger-Congo ancestry is not only "Bantu" but also Senegambian, Sahelian, West Central African, Eastern and Southern Bantu - Each of these Ancestries all split from a West African or Western Saharan SOURCE but they split from each other over different times....only to be flattened and consolidated by some Asshole as "Bantu" Ancestry, even when describing Senegalese.
That Red Sea Hills / Eastern Saharan Corridor IN MY OPINION had this mix of ancestry during the time of Iberomaurusian and Natufian. Pulse migration from this region into the Equatorial regions would be sustained over long periods of time possibly producing a flattening effect where it all looks the same or recent. Archeology tells us its not recent. So in a nutshell this is why i push these dates back so far. I think the archeology allows for it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
And the reality that Horners descended from a Cushitic base with recent ancestry from the east is in no way contradicted by these results, though a bit Obfuscated by G25 of-course. The reality that a Natufian related component which was likely a terminal proxy for "ANA" related ancestry already present in proto-cushitic populations.
The issue comes when you try to add Bronze age or post bronze age nile-valley-AEgyptian ancestry to which I have to ask, why?
Overall, I think there was a lot of good info in that study but I think they should have investigated the nature of the Eurasian component in the remains more, that paper is a good example of what I mean in terms of the contradictory results between G25 and any study that looks at the Eurasian portion of East Africans in general, they use Chalcolithic Israel as a proxy for the Eurasian portion of the PN remains, on G25 90%+ of East Africans won't even score a single % if you throw in Yemen, using Natufian and Taforalt removes a lot of it aswell even the PN remains show this pattern, they won't score a drop of ISR_C or PPNB/PPNC if you use Yemen as a source of ancestry. Yet I haven't seen a single study use Natufian and Taforalt as a source of ancestry for East Africans, only post-Mesolithic Eurasians are used, I think I've seen Europeans such as LBK, Sardinians and even Tuscany Italians used as a source, but I can't think of many papers that employ Natufian and IBM.
You get what I'm trying to say right? On one end, Early Cushites look to be Natufian + Taforalt (Mesolithic Egyptian?) + Dinka-like, on the other end Cushites could have been rich in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levantine/EEF ancestry. Its difficult trying to understand the formation of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic people when different methodologies come out with completely different results.
Obfuscated is an understatement lol, the Prendergast paper does kinda contradict Horners having Arabian ancestry, an Arabian proxy completely removes Chalcolithic Israeli from the Horn. I'm not saying Horners don't have Arabian ancestry btw, just saying East Africans never simultaneously score Arabian and Isr_C on G25.
Eritreans scored 70%, Somalis score 50-55% and they have pretty small amounts of Arabian, so they largely retained the Cushitic component pretty well compared to Northern Habeshas, so based on this it would seem that Horners Cushite ancestors had some Ancient Egyptian-like ancestry. That exact study said Horners preferred the Ancient Egyptian source rather than the Arabian one, but this is not the case in the slightest on G25, which is why I proposed that some of the Arabian found in Horners could be accounting for some Ancient Egyptian-like.
I think your Analysis misses 2 things.
1 - The hypothesis of North African Genetic substructure distinct from North West African concentrated ANA. All the "Eurasian" you are looking at is not even "Eurasian" so you are trying to piece together a genetic model created with puzzle pieces made for a totally different puzzle, they dont fit.
2 - The idea that "Cushitic" people doesn't represent a *singular* migration into the horn of Africa. What you are likely looking at are Cushitic speaking migrants....and Cushitic type ancestry among Nilo Saharan speaking migrants into the Horn of Africa and great lakes regions starting about 10,000 years ago.....not 3000 years ago but probably 8-10000 years ago or even earlier.
When I say Eurasian I basically mean Eurasian-like/related, which would include a Eurasian-like ancestry autochthonous to North/NE Africa, aswell as actual Eurasian ancestry which isn't native to Africa, I'll make the distinction from now to avoid confusion. But either way, groups like Natufians and IBM are AFAIK, the best way(for now) to model the Mesolithic Egyptian genepool which I think is the ultimate source of the Natufian/IBM related ancestry you see absorbing most of the Eurasian-like ancestry in East Africans, I don't see how else I can account for indigenous NE ancestry, these are the samples avaialble to the public, if there is a better way to model that ancestry than let me know but I honestly don't think there is yet.
What makes you place it back so far? I agree that there were earlier migrations that skipped the Horn but Cushitic ancestry in the Great Lakes is 10,000 years old? Please elaborate if you can, that really caught my attention. Also, the main purpose of using PN remains was to show that they also score Arabian ancestry, which they definitely don't have, to make a point that Arabian proxies could be absorbing Egyptian/Levantine ancestry that came via an ancient Egyptian-like source, some of the PN remains score Late Period Ancient Egyptian. I used them because they carry a lot of Cushitic ancestry with no Arabian and share the patterns I outlined with modern Horners so I think its an okay comparison regardless of whether they were ancestral to Horn Africans or not.
Point taken on the "Eurasians". As to Northern incursions into Equatorial regions in Africa. I would point the the Archology. I think you need to look at the Archology as far as presumed influences in maternal culture and skeletal data. See sources Here , Here , and Here. Look at some of the early remains in East Africa and Central Africa that have what could be seen as Desert Adapted phenotypes.....those phantom Caucasoids that were just some more Africans from a different region. Since its this far back i am not arguing they are Cushitic speakers linguistically......but the Blend of Ancestry typified as "Cushitic" is probably a wastebasket of some regional ancestries that differentiated over time in the same way Niger-Congo ancestry is not only "Bantu" but also Senegambian, Sahelian, West Central African, Eastern and Southern Bantu - Each of these Ancestries all split from a West African or Western Saharan SOURCE but they split from each other over different times....only to be flattened and consolidated by some Asshole as "Bantu" Ancestry, even when describing Senegalese.
That Red Sea Hills / Eastern Saharan Corridor IN MY OPINION had this mix of ancestry during the time of Iberomaurusian and Natufian. Pulse migration from this region into the Equatorial regions would be sustained over long periods of time possibly producing a flattening effect where it all looks the same or recent. Archeology tells us its not recent. So in a nutshell this is why i push these dates back so far. I think the archeology allows for it.
This has been helpful, thanks a ton for the explanation.
What made you push the admixture dates to the IBM/Natufian time period?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
What made you push the admixture dates to the IBM/Natufian time period?
I think around that time is when we have the evidence for migration and the physical remains of what we presume to be the distinct peoples and admixture. Think of the fossils of Jebel Sahaba, Tushka and Wadi Halfa vs their contemporaries at Al-Khiday. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2021.0969Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: EEF is a model specific to the spread of farming in Europe and it doesn't make sense or fit into the history of farming or "neolithic" lifestyle in Africa. It came out of an attempt to examine all the ancient and modern DNA in Europe to see how much of an impact the spread of farming had on the local hunter gatherer populations. And as a result it found evidence for substantial displacement of populations by farming populations.
quote: Recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies have provided direct insights into the mtDNA and nuclear genomic diversity of hunter–gatherers in Europe [28–35] and the Central European LBK [33,36–40], describing genetic discontinuity between local foragers and early farmers [28,31,38,40]. Comparative analyses with present-day populations have revealed Near Eastern affinities of the mitochondrial LBK ancestry, supporting the demic diffusion model and population replacement at the beginning of the Neolithic period [38,39]. Ancient genomic studies have described the early farmers as genetically most similar to extant populations of southern Europe [31,33,40,41]. Y chromosome data from prehistoric Europeans is still scarce but relevant for our study (electronic supplementary material, dataset S20), including hunter–gatherers [33–35,40,42], and early farmers from Germany [38,40], eastern Hungary [41], Austria [43] and southwest Europe [40,44,45].
This has nothing to do with Africa as the evolution towards agriculture has a long history centered primarily in the Sahara/Sahel and parts of the Nile Valley as a local indigenous process. And there is no evidence of large scale demic or genetic diffusion from Europe with the spread of farming in Africa. So it makes sense that you wouldn't find any EEF connections in the Horn because early pastoralism in the Horn did not come from Europe or "European Farmers".
I've seen you say pretty much this exact same thing in threads from years ago and people here proved the presence of EEF-like ancestry in Africa and explained the nature of EEF ancestry in Africa and that it doesn't mean half of what your saying.
I would love to see a genetic or historical analysis of how European farmers spread agriculture to the Horn that is not from a fantasy novel of some sort.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a thought exercise I would highly suggest everyone to refence as PCA of human populations and use the position in the plot as stand-ins for the actual populations in question.
For instance, in the Model that predicts Ethiopians west Asian ancestry as being similar to "Sardinians" you can envision that type of ancestry as forming an anchor or cornerstone to West Eurasian diversity.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Beyoku may be on to something. We are too used to the paradigm that the region of Arabia (including Yemen) is automatically 'Eurasian'. Yet geologically the Arabian Plate was part of the African Plate and has only recently (geologically speaking) broken away from Africa and begun to merge with the Eurasian plate.
And this is also reflected in the biogeography with shared flora and fauna:
9. Afrotropical Region
The same should be true with populations especially since the Arabian zone was likely the hub of proto-Eurasians from as early as the Nubian Complex of Dhofar.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Results
The Saudi mtDNA profile confirms the absence of autochthonous mtDNA lineages in Arabia with coalescence ages deep enough to support population continuity in the region since the out-of-Africa episode.
[…]
Introduction
At the beginning of this century, studies based on mtDNA complete genomes [15–18] confirmed that only two mtDNA lineages (named M and N), sister branches of the African macro-haplogroup L3 lineages, embraced all the mtDNA variation that exists out of Africa. Based on the phylogeography of M and N in Eurasia, it was proposed that M and N could respectively represent the maternal signals of both a southern and a northern route out of Africa [19].
[…]
For western Eurasian haplogroups we relied on recent reviews carried out by others: N1 [6,25–29], N2 [6,27–29], N3 [26,28–30], N5 [27,31], and X [6,26,27,32]. In addition, 553 Arabian samples previously published in Abu-Amero et al. [19]) were also included in our study.
[…]
Khor Angar (Djibouti) L3 Expected age (Kya) 70.8(52.7–88.1)
Damqawt (Yemen) N1a3a Expected age (Kya) 68.2(56.1–80.0)
~Rosa Fregel, Vicente Cabrera, […], and Ana M. González (2015) Carriers of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N Lineages Reached Australia around 50,000 Years Ago following a Northern Asian Route
quote: haplogroup J
To resume, our results clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes. Similarly, the causal association between STR-defined haplotypes and ethnic groups appear without any robust support, making its use inadequate for forensic or genealogical purposes. Instead, J1 variation provided the genetic background to correlate climatic changes to human demographic and socio-cultural events scarcely documented in the archaeological record – the dispersal of hunter gatherers after the termination of glacial conditions in the late Pleistocene and the desertification-driven retreat of tribes of Saharan and Arabian foragers in the transition to a food-producing economy.
~Sergio Tofanelli et al. J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements
European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 1520 – 1524
quote: Population comparisons
Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt). Finally, the cluster on the right part of the graph is composed by the Indian populations on the top, the Near and Middle Eastern groups in the middle and the populations of the Arabian peninsula at the bottom; Yemeni Jews being slightly different. The only outlier within the region of southwestern Asia is the Kalash sample that is situated on the extreme right part of the graph (see also Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). There is a general cline among all populations in the MDS plot from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub-Saharan and Indian populations.
Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the compara- tive populations are different and fewer than in the mi- tochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.
Phylogenetic affiliations
Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably hap- logroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub- Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro- haplogroup N is represented by three different haplo- types of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).
The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplo- types can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a hap- lotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that sug- gests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R hap- lotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.
[…]
In comparison with datasets from neighboring regions, the Soqotri population shows evidence of long-term isolation and autochthonous evolution of several mitochondrial haplogroups.
~Viktor Cˇ erny ́ Out of Arabia—The Settlement of Island Soqotra as Revealed by Mitochondrial and Y Chromosome Genetic Diversity
quote: “Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined”
One thing to keep in mind is that there is a gap in population data also for Arabia with most of the data coming from as early as the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.
There is much speculation as to the ethnic or even linguistic identities of the peoples in that region or specifically Yemen. For example, linguist Alexander Militarev identifies a Cushitic substratum and features in Modern South Arabian languages. And then we have this from Blench (2011).
There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both epigraphic (ESA) and modern South Arabian (MSA) were languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethiopia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing with ESA. Beeston (1981: 181) cites an inscription from Marib which begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown language. He mentions several other texts which have similar morphology (a final –k suffix) and which may represent an unknown non-Semitic language (possibly a Nilo-Saharan language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would be typical).
And all of this comes from the early historic period of the region alone.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic