This is topic Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff! in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-
quote:
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
Thoughts?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Ayo Capra where you at man! lmao
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Also found these tidbits interesting

"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)."
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Thinks to look at...

-Luxmada, the Tanzanian pastoralist clusters with Nilotic populations however is best modeled by Mota + PPNB(37%). This Near Eastern component is hardly EEF and lacks minor Iranian Admixture as do modern Cushitic populations. The high proportion of Near-east related Ancestry in respects to Luxmadas clustering position is anomalous... unless you attribute the Near eastern signatures to an indigenous African population structure ofcourse. ...see Ifri n'Amr or Moussa (IAM) Fregel et al 2017.

-Modern west African could have sustained an episode or two of drift which in combination with heterogeniety due to recombination with Ancient African populations pulls them away from the other African populations before the bantu expansion. This may be evident in the Eurasian "signals" widespread in Malawi and south Africa before the bantu expansion.

-The Hadza retains an Ancient East African component peripheral to Mota... Not really elaborated here but there's signs that they're Ancient genetic influence might extend beyond the continent to the East.

-The 2.6kya Pemba Agriculturalist is straight outa West Africa, I'm concerned about previous hypothesis about a secondary expansion from Malawi.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

-Luxmada, the Tanzanian pastoralist clusters with Nilotic populations however is best modeled by Mota + PPNB(37%). This Near Eastern component is hardly EEF and lacks minor Iranian Admixture as do modern Cushitic populations. The high proportion of Near-east related Ancestry in respects to Luxmadas clustering position is anomalous... unless you attribute the Near eastern signatures to an indigenous African population structure ofcourse. ...see Ifri n'Amr or Moussa (IAM) Fregel et al 2017.
.

Fvcked At both ends....
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Capra

Your thoughts?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I did not write this….honest. He! HE! HE!
1. San Peoples probably occupied all of Africa maybe into Europe
2. Modern West Africans are probably new to West Africa
3. Modern West African carry very archaic admixture(Dienekes and I).
4. Europeans are a sub-set of Africans


Quote
SUMMARY
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent
lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in
the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers 8,100–

2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers 1,400
years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement
of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the
population of a 3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern
to southern Africa,
including a 1,200-year old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications
of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically
disparate groups or a lineage MORE deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western
African
populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of
natural selection in southern African populations.

INTRODUCTION
Africa harbors more genetic diversity than any other part of the world (Cann et al., 1987; Tishkoff et al., 2009). This is reflected
both in a higher average number of differences among sub- Saharan African genomes than among non-African genomes
(Cann et al., 1987; Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of
that within it
(Tishkoff et al., 2009). Today, some of the earliest branching African lineages are present only in populations with
relatively small census sizes, including the southern African Khoe-San (see STAR Methods for terminology), central African
rainforest hunter-gatherers, and Hadza of Tanzania (Gronau et al., 2011; Schlebusch et al., 2012; Veeramah et al., 2012).
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
See ELMaestro. That is the problem with you white people. "Forest for the trees". You go in with pre-conceived notions without looking at the data. Like that new paper on ancient North Africans you people are quoting.

The data shows that North Africans and Levantines and at least southern Europeans were black skinned up to 4000bc. Carrying African ancestral forms of pigmentation. Now this paper prove I am right about Africa. I should be paid for this shyte. lol!


The problem is you people can't read the data and analyze it. You rely on lying Europeans to put their spin on it. Europeans have been historical liars. That is why I am on to their spin and lies.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Had to work last night so not done reading it yet.

Malawian foragers look like their own thing. Not sure it's totally extinct ancestry, they have a bunch of L0k2, which has previously been identified as a haplgroup Southern Bantu acquired to the northeast of their current location.

Seems like fairly pure Hadza or Mota like people were all over East Africa until quite recently (although that is probably lumping together a lot of quite different populations). 1400 years ago on Zanzibar okay, but someone 400 years ago on the coast of Kenya apparently had no Bantu ancestry, would not expect that. (Related to Dahalo maybe? They have that click substrate.)

South_Africa_1200BP is like a Nama without Bantu or extra European ancestry, which makes sense - an ancestral Khoe pastoralist. Modelled as around half (or more) Tanzanian Pastoralist - at least twice as much as you'd expect from the last paper, which used Amhara as a reference. TP is probably not a perfect reference either of course. But this level of admixture would definitely favour the Khoe language family arriving from East Africa as some linguists have suggested (it may be related to Sandawe).

Not sure what's anomalous about how the TP clusters?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is more spin and BS…First the 3100BP Tanzanian carried as much as ****40%***** Levantine (not Iranian or Turk) AIM. So what do they do? They increase the age of Pre-Pottery in the Levant to 10,000years!!! Thus trying to visualize a very ancient origin in the Levant. But yet admit….talk about “Fake News”.

Liars had to admit the , yes, there is a possibility this Eurasians AIM found in ancient Tanzanians may be African after all


--

Anyone understand what they are saying on page 65 2nd paragraph? Reading through their spin. Are they saying that the 1200year old South African already had “west Eurasian” ancestry. BEFORE modern colonial Europeans entered south Africa. When Pickerell et al published his paper I wondering where they were going with that, now I know. They already knew that “Eurasian” ancestry was indigenous to Africa. They were setting up the scenario to BS when more results came out. Guess what Eurasians are a subset of Afrcans. It existed in Africa BEFORE Eurasians existed.


Quote: “We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna
Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-
year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant
(Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early
farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery
Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_
3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa
or the Near East. We fit the
remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as most closely related to the Ethiopia_4500BP
(p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related
ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%)
(Table S4).”
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
They are re-inventing multi-regionalism in Africa. This is a bomb shell. Anyone want me to explain this? Capra? ElMaestro, Cass, DJ, Beyoku, Sweetness, Sage? This is where the rubber hits the road.

Quote:” In particular, we find that ancient southern Africans, who have NONE of the eastern African admixture
that is ubiquitous today
, share significantly more alleles with present-day and ancient eastern Africans (including Dinka,
Hadza, and Ethiopia_4500BP) than they do with present-day western Africans (Figure 3B; Table S6). Even within present day
western Africans, the genetic differences between Yoruba from Nigeria and the Mende from Sierra Leone are inconsistent
with descent from a homogeneous ancestral population isolated from ancient southern Africans
. The asymmetry between
Yoruba and Mende is ALSO OBSERVED WITH NON-AFRICANS but is no stronger than in eastern Africans (the most closely related Africans
to the ancestral out-of-Africa population), and thus these signals are not driven by admixture from OUTSIDE Africa and
instead likely reflect demographic events entirely WITHIN Africa (Figure 3C; Table S6).”

 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
have you forgotten all your wrong predictions already, xyyman? is it senility, or are you just pretending?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Wow!! This is what I have been waiting for.
I said – there was never a Bantu Expansion. That modern west Africans are a misture of East African and another set of Africans that existed in West Africa. They are related to WHG. If they test Cape Verde they will carry the highest ancestry of this type of all West Africans. I said West Africans are primarily Neolithics

Quote:
“The first posits that present-day western Africans harbor ancestry from a basal African lineage that contributed more to the
Mende than it did to the Yoruba, with the other source of western African ancestry being related to eastern Africans and non-
Africans
(Figures 3D, S4, and S5; Table S7). The second model posits that long-range and long-standing gene flow has connected
southern and eastern Africa to some groups in western Africa (e.g., the ancestors of the Yoruba) to a greater extent
than to other groups in western Africa (e.g., the ancestors of the Mende) (Figure 3E) (Pleurdeau et al., 2012). The possible basal
western African population lineage would represent the earliest known divergence of a modern human lineage that contributed
a MAJOR proportion of ancestry to present-day HUMANS
. Such a lineage must have separated BEFORE the divergence of San
ancestors, which is estimated to have begun on the order of 200–300 thousand years ago (Scally and Durbin, 2012). Such a
model of basal western African ancestry might support the hypothesis that there has been ANCIENT STRUCTURE in the ancestry of
present-day Africans, using a line of evidence INDEPENDENT from previous findings based on long haplotypes with deep divergences
from other human haplotypes (Hammer et al., 2011; Lachance et al., 2012; Plagnol and Wall, 2006). One scenario consistent
with this result could involve ancestry related to eastern Africans (and the out-of-Africa population) expanding into western
Africa and mixing there with more basal lineages
. Our genetic data do NOT support the theory that this putative basal lineage
diverged prior to the ancestors of Neanderthals, since the African populations we analyze here are approximately symmetrically
related to Neanderthals

 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You people and your delusion. Name one!? I have been bang on form the git go! Guess you did not read the paper. He! HE! HE! You don't have to. I am doing it now. re-read the above several times over. Ho!

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
have you forgotten all your wrong predictions already, xyyman? is it senility, or are you just pretending?

BTw- Anyone looked at Table 1. Notice no E1b1a. Also they used BT. Which includes ALL yDNA haplogroups except A & B. Do you want to know why? They have the results. Trust me! They want to let you Euronuts down first. Don’t want you jumping off the ledge. If I am a betting man. It is some earth shattering result like R1b-V88 or something like that. Come on Euronuts…calm down. He! HE! The best is yet to come.


Capra said: ".and yeah Xyyman, we're all waiting for you to catch up, I figure it'd take a while considering your obsession for tryna claim all those European lineages were GreatLakes somehow, then from there showing how horners are better proxies for AEgyptions... you know.... jumping from one wrong conclusion to the other.

And yes, Eurasian signatures in the Malawi etc. are not necessarily indicative of Eurasian admixture."


I said the Abusir are Africans like Tanzanians. Kenyans, Ugandans not necessarily Ethiopians ONLY. This is what the genetic data shows. we now see "Eurasian" Levant ancestry (not Turks) has been in Africa before there were "Eurasians".
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Capra

Well of course to YOU, this wouldn't be anomalous.. just speaking in general in terms of how people generally envision cushitic/horner involvement with prehistoric North Africa.

...and yeah Xyyman, we're all waiting for you to catch up, I figure it'd take a while considering your obsession for tryna claim all those European lineages were GreatLakes somehow, then from there showing how horners are better proxies for AEgyptions... you know.... jumping from one wrong conclusion to the other.

And yes, Eurasian signatures in the Malawi etc. are not necessarily indicative of Eurasian admixture.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


And yes, Eurasian signatures in the Malawi etc. are not necessarily indicative of Eurasian admixture.

Its most likely indirect if anything.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Mod Warning-


I'm getting tired off you and derailing this thread. Knock it off...


[ 22. September 2017, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You are such a p....princess oops! prince

PR: Enough!

[ 22. September 2017, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
This paper should not claim to be related to the entire prehistory of African people. The study only indicates that the San was the dominant group in much of Central, South and East Africa. This was obvious from a perusal of the location of the San in modern times.

The Niger-Congo speakers and Nilo-Saharans were predominantly North African and Sahel-Saharan people. As a result, you would not find these populations in Central and Southern Africa until after the fall of Egypt, as proven by the results of this study.

It was after the fall of Egypt that the Bantu spread into East-Central and Southern Africa. Other Sub-Saharan populations began to migrate out of Morocco, Mauritania and etc., into West Africa.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
If you were a betting man, xyyman, you'd be living in a cardboard box. Table S4, the Malawian Y haplogroups are BT(xCT), so B or some extinct relative, not C, D, E, or F. It would be nice to know what kind exactly; B2b predominates in Mbuti and Hadza and is common in San and others, so would fit.

The Cape foragers have A1b1b2a, like the Ballito Bay men from the previous paper, quite far away. Wonder where the A1b1a1a and B2b were lurking.

What's Eurasian in the Malawians? A bit in ADMIXTURE at low K, but that doesn't mean much.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
OK, one of the two 6100-year-old foragers from Fingira in northern Malawi had B2b1a1a-M8357; the other had unresolved B2b1 (lower coverage), could be same clade or not.

The (probably) ~8100-year-old man from Hora 1, also in the north of Malawi, had pre-B2b1b1a-Y25096.

Both B2b1a and B2b1b lineages are common among Khoisan, Eastern and Western Pygmies, and some East Africans (plus Arabians). The major branches of these are old, at least 30-40 thousand years, and I don't know which if any modern people these Malawians would be closer to.

Archaeologically they were apparently belonged to Nachikufan II and related Late Stone Age cultures, characterized by various sorts of microliths, bored stones, ground stone axes, bone points and beads. Vague similarities to cultures further north and south but I have no idea how it might all be connected in the grand scheme, anyone know anything about this period?

Most of the middle belt of Africa may have been dominated by B2b from around 50 000 to 5000 years ago, with A1b1 pushed to the north and south of that, and upstream branches of A and B more to the northwest?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Doug please understand, Different researchers, different excavators, different publishers... they all want to get payed. So they'll leave space for future studies and split samples and teams so on and so forth...

@Capra I apologize, this thread was off to such a slow start, which was confusing to me because it is pretty huge imo... I personally believe they could have used a greater SSAn Dataset but ehh.

I would like to point out that with the exception of the maybe 400bc Kenyan and Luxamanda, North Africa is rather irrelevant for this dataset. Idek why folks are bringing up V88, for the love of me...

The most interesting thing here is the plethora of qpGraphs with multiple terminals and the story they tell.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
@Elmaestro

Yeah, they could have put in a lot more populations. But hey, leaves something for other groups to do I guess.

Finally got to the qpGraphs. OK, something that's bugging me - does it even make sense to say less admixture is more parsimonious because you have to posit admixture events? You could just as well say it's less parsimonious because you have to posit barriers to gene flow. Lack of admixture arrows every which way seems more of a necessary evil than a virtue.

I was wondering why they seem to be favouring the Basal African ghost over just Yoruba being closer to East Africans - but looking at those D stats everyone is closer to Yoruba than to Mende - even Mandenka. Crazy!
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
@Elmaestro

Yeah, they could have put in a lot more populations. But hey, leaves something for other groups to do I guess.

Finally got to the qpGraphs. OK, something that's bugging me - does it even make sense to say less admixture is more parsimonious because you have to posit admixture events? You could just as well say it's less parsimonious because you have to posit barriers to gene flow. Lack of admixture arrows every which way seems more of a necessary evil than a virtue.

I was wondering why they seem to be favouring the Basal African ghost over just Yoruba being closer to East Africans - but looking at those D stats everyone is closer to Yoruba than to Mende - even Mandenka. Crazy!

I'm not entirely sure but it looks like what little differences in Basal African Ancestry between the Mende and YRI is what defines how close other populations are to either of them. Mende having more Basal African Ancestry siglehandedly makes all other African populations closer to the Yorubans. Mbuti being representative of an early split just became less significant, as maybe even THEIR ancestry is drifted away considerably from the "ghost" African Ancestor. Yorubans as well as maybe all Bantu populations might have more Mbuti-like/(RHG) Admixture than the Mende.

~Reffering back to Patin 2017, elevated levels of RHG seems synonymous with scoring higher for Mbuti in comparison to Mota, It looks like YRI have admixture from Mbuti, and Basal African, and maybe more... this series of recombination is probably what shapes the west African genetic landscape, and that small amount of Archaic African means a lot... There's nothing parsimonious about less Admixture events, it's just convenient if you ask me, I don't think it's intentionally misleading though. The new South African Hunter Gatherer genomes puts the Mota->West African relationship in check, they have to explain why such a Divergent lineage (SAHG) shows closeness (relative to West Africans) to Mota.

But also, there's another thing.... The root population is modeled off of Neanderthals and Denisovan, so we have to Account for that as well. We can probably put together a working general phylogeny of Early human history now, but seems very webbed.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
I'm REALLY going beyond losing my paitence. This thread is about the Tanzanian pastoralist... NOT North Africans, silly conspiracies or any other off topic nonsense. If you have an issue with this article then make your OWN thread.


Anymore derailment will be met with me contacting Punos Rey.
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
I'm REALLY going beyond losing my paitence. This thread is about the Tanzanian pastoralist... NOT North Africans, silly conspiracies or any other off topic nonsense. If you have an issue with this article then make your OWN thread.


Anymore derailment will be met with me contacting Punos Rey.

Clearly you have not read your own article. It is the authors themselves who bring up North Africa and the Middle East. Punos_Rey was the first writer to note the authors discussion of Levantines or populations not found in Tazania in his post.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Also found these tidbits interesting

"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)."

.
.
The authors of this article made sure to avoid using any archaeological data in their paper so thay could make many unsubstantiated statements like the following

quote:


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.

Here the authors bring up North Africa several times. In fact the authors as noted above claimed that the"Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East" ; or they were "descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers " Why do you want to avoid talking about issues in the article you posted?

.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Clyde Winters

I am not arguing. You are welcome to make your OWN thread criticizing the author. Go ahead.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm not entirely sure but it looks like what little differences in Basal African Ancestry between the Mende and YRI is what defines how close other populations are to either of them. Mende having more Basal African Ancestry siglehandedly makes all other African populations closer to the Yorubans. Mbuti being representative of an early split just became less significant, as maybe even THEIR ancestry is drifted away considerably from the "ghost" African Ancestor. Yorubans as well as maybe all Bantu populations might have more Mbuti-like/(RHG) Admixture than the Mende.

~Reffering back to Patin 2017, elevated levels of RHG seems synonymous with scoring higher for Mbuti in comparison to Mota, It looks like YRI have admixture from Mbuti, and Basal African, and maybe more... this series of recombination is probably what shapes the west African genetic landscape, and that small amount of Archaic African means a lot...

yeah, looks like it. I would like to see a whole bunch more of those qpGraphs with different nodal populations, like with a proto-Pygmy population donating to others.

I know you can't really tack autosomal components on to uniparental markers, but looking at the latter we see some mid-levels that maybe ought to be the models. Mt hg L1 shared between West Africans and western Pygmies, L2 everywhere, L4 and L5 in the east. Y hg B2 practically everywhere outside West Africa. L0 + A1b1 can be accounted for in the East-South cline, L3 + E in the close-to-Eurasians node but I strongly suspect Mota ought to be mixed; L4b2 + B2b should not be conflated with L3 + E.

OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm not entirely sure but it looks like what little differences in Basal African Ancestry between the Mende and YRI is what defines how close other populations are to either of them. Mende having more Basal African Ancestry siglehandedly makes all other African populations closer to the Yorubans. Mbuti being representative of an early split just became less significant, as maybe even THEIR ancestry is drifted away considerably from the "ghost" African Ancestor. Yorubans as well as maybe all Bantu populations might have more Mbuti-like/(RHG) Admixture than the Mende.

~Reffering back to Patin 2017, elevated levels of RHG seems synonymous with scoring higher for Mbuti in comparison to Mota, It looks like YRI have admixture from Mbuti, and Basal African, and maybe more... this series of recombination is probably what shapes the west African genetic landscape, and that small amount of Archaic African means a lot...

yeah, looks like it. I would like to see a whole bunch more of those qpGraphs with different nodal populations, like with a proto-Pygmy population donating to others.

I know you can't really tack autosomal components on to uniparental markers, but looking at the latter we see some mid-levels that maybe ought to be the models. Mt hg L1 shared between West Africans and western Pygmies, L2 everywhere, L4 and L5 in the east. Y hg B2 practically everywhere outside West Africa. L0 + A1b1 can be accounted for in the East-South cline, L3 + E in the close-to-Eurasians node but I strongly suspect Mota ought to be mixed; L4b2 + B2b should not be conflated with L3 + E.

OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling.

Man I'm embarrassed for him too, however all that shit was legitimately funny... I was actually laughing out loud at my screen. In regards to some more robust qpGraphs, I'm working on it, I'm conflicted as to who should represent the root population, and how that'd effect coverage of Basal African lineages.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD! I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

-Mod


[ 27. September 2017, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling.

In another ForumBiodiversity thread, he thanked this post:
 -
If he tries claiming he's objective and unbiased again, I will repost this screencap for all the world to see.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:

OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling. [/QB]

lol... I see you too are watching the nonsense on the other site. This is what happens when you refuse to admit to certain points like Beyoku said.

Anyways lets stay on topic folks. If you wanna address Duwa's meltdown then your welcomed to make another thread on here.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-
quote:
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
Thoughts?
So are you saying you believe there is such a thing as a "true negro Bantustan" in Sub Saharan Africa that all Africans belong to? I mean this is not what the paper is saying so I don't understand your point? How is this significant? I mean who is shocked that black Africans would be found in "Sub Saharan" African DNA among any type of subsistance methods?

Please explain?

And I am not following threads from other forums. Why should we care about this on ES?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:

http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund, 2017

__________

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.


quote:

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.


So in the thread topic article how did they determine the L21a Tanzanian woman of 3,100 BP was 38% Levantine?


quote:


Below another article but talking about African origins of L2a1


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515592/

60,000 years of interactions between Central and Eastern Africa documented by major African mitochondrial haplogroup L2

Marina Silva,1 Farida Alshamali,1,2 Paula Silva,1,3,4 Carla Carrilho,5,6 Flávio Mandlate,5,7 Maria Jesus Trovoada,8,9 Viktor Černý,10 Luísa Pereira,a,1,3,4 and Pedro Soares1,11


L2a1 (26.5 ka in ML and 29.6 ka in BI) is the most complex sub-clade within L2a and it harbours lineages from all African regions, as well as lineages from other continents, including non-African branches, such as L2a1l2a (connected to Ashkenazi Jewish Diaspora35,36), and the exclusively European L2a1k37. Phylogenetic reconstruction of L2a1 is often difficult due to high levels of homoplasy. Major splits within L2a1 defined by homoplasic positions (143, 16189, 16192 and 16309) exist for parsimonious reconstruction purposes but will not be considered in the text. L2a1a has clearly a Western/Central African origin and distribution, with many sub-clades suggesting a recent Bantu migration southwards, and is hardly present in Eastern Africa. This pattern is also visible in L2a1c, L2a1f and L2a1i. L2a1e and the minor clade L2a1m exist essentially only in Western/Central Africa. L2a1l displays a similar pattern in sub-Saharan Africa, but with the peculiarity of a sub-branch present in Ashkenazi Jews, L2a1l2a35. L2a1b again shows an origin in Central Africa, but subclade L2a1b1a dating to 6.9 ka in ML is present in Southern Africa and has a few lineages in Eastern Africa (mainly Somalia). It might have moved earlier to the East in the Early Holocene and incorporated later by Bantu migrants. L2a1d splits into an Eastern African sub-clade (L2a1d1) at ~10.6 ka and L2a1d2 that shows a split between a Western African lineage and a Southern African clade dating to about 7 ka that contains the star-like L2a1d2a clade dating to 3.7 ka. Other clades show additional evidence of an early migration into Eastern Africa, like L2a1h and L2a1j. We detected a new clade specific to Somalia, L2a1r, at 7.3 ka. The clade L2a1 + 143 shows several basal Eastern African lineages (together with Near Eastern and Arabian lineages) that indicates a migration in the Early Holocene. Minor clades, namely L2a1g and L2a1q, are present in Bantu-speaking populations in the South and, although they were not detected in Western/Central Africa, their lower age suggest a direct involvement in the Bantu expansion.

L2a1b contains Somali lineages, whose founder age in Eastern Africa is 7.9 ka [1.5; 14.5] and the Eastern African L2a1d1 dates to 10.6 ka. L2a1h, probably with Eastern African origin, dates to 14.4 ka while L2a1r, a newly labelled Somali clade, dates to ~7.3 ka. Additionally, around 20% of Eastern African lineages cluster within the L2a1 + 143 branch (24.8 ka in ML). A founder age of this cluster suggests a migration time at 14.8 ka [10.2; 19.5], pointing to a migration in the Late Glacial or postglacial period. Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.



 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:


Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund

Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.



yet >

quote:


https://www.ancient.eu/article/997/ancient-egyptian-agriculture/

Ancient Egyptian Agriculture


Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.




 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@lioness
What exactly are you trying to say, I'm lost.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
copying error corrected in minute
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
CORRECTED VERSION quote 1
quote:


Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund

Bantu-speaking agriculturalists originating in western Africa are thought to have brought farming to eastern Africa by ∼2,000 years BP (years before present, defined by convention as years before 1950 CE) and to southern Africa by ∼1,500 BP, thereby spreading the largest single ancestry component to African genomes today (Russell et al., 2014, Tishkoff et al., 2009). Earlier migration(s), which brought ancestry related to the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Pagani et al., 2012, Pickrell et al., 2014), brought herding to eastern Africa by ∼4,000 BP (Marshall et al., 1984) and to southern Africa by ∼2,000 BP (Sadr, 2015).

yet >

quote:


https://www.ancient.eu/article/997/ancient-egyptian-agriculture/

Ancient Egyptian Agriculture


Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.




 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
The crops grown in Egypt were temperate zone wheat, barley, etc, not suited to the tropics - eventually they were adapted to highlands of East Africa but it took a long time. The Eastern Bantu had tropical crops domesticated in the Sahel/Savanna zone - pearl millet, sorghum, cowpea, etc.

The Bantu didn't necessarily bring all - or any - of these crops to (the northern part of) East Africa originally. If they went through the rainforest growing yams and spreading oil-fruit trees, as may be the case, they may have switched over to completely different crops when they spread into drier parts of East Africa. But they did later carry this crop package south of Tanzania, by all evidence.

Oh hey this came out yesterday! Sorghum Domestication in Fourth Millennium BC Eastern Sudan: Spikelet Morphology from Ceramic Impressions of the Butana Group. Cool! Previously there was earlier evidence of domesticated sorghum in India than in Africa itself. The people growing this might have been among the ancestors of the Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP.

So looks like you are right, Lioness, at least kind of.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Thanks for the heads up Capra, brings back to mind Christopher Ehrets claims in 1996.

"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)

Edit: also Capra, speaking of Barley..

"According to a widely accepted theory on barley domestication, wild barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum) from the Fertile Crescent is the progenitor of all cultivated barley (H. vulgare ssp. vulgare). To determine whether barley has undergone one or more domestication events, barley accessions from three continents have been studied (a) using 38 nuclear SSR (nuSSRs) markers, (b) using five chloroplast SSR (cpSSR) markers yielding 5 polymorphic loci and (c) by detecting the differences in a 468 bp fragment from the non-coding region of chloroplast DNA. A clear separation was found between Eritrean/Ethiopian barley and barley from West Asia and North Africa (WANA) as well as from Europe. The data from chloroplast DNA clearly indicate that the wild barley (H. vulgare ssp. spontaneum) as it is found today in the “Fertile Crescent” might not be the progenitor of the barley cultivated in Eritrea (and Ethiopia). Consequently, an independent domestication might have taken place at the Horn of Africa"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00122-007-0505-5
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Makes sense now and reflects what plenty of people have said here and elsewhere about cultivation of crops in Africa before the rise of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. And I have mentioned this as part of a 'survival toolkit' that Africans carried into the Near East.....

But anyway here is another paper focusing on the "Bantu Cushite" interaction in terms of agriculture:

quote:

Although often marginalized or overlooked in the development of models for agricultural origins, Africa presents unique and theoretically informative case studies for global comparison. Eastern Africa is of particular interest for understanding farming expansions, not only because of its location encompassing the hypothesized migration routes of Bantu-speaking farmers and Cushitic- and Nilotic-speaking herders (Fig. 1), but also owing to its potentially early involvement in Indian Ocean trade, which brought novel domesticated plants and animals to its shores in prehistory. It has been suggested that eastern Africa's pre-agricultural communities had a role in dispersing vegetative crops such as banana (Musa spp.), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and Asian yam (Dioscorea alata) (all of which were first domesticated thousands of kilometers to the east in Sahul) across the tropical forests of Africa as early as the first millennium BCE (De Langhe, 2007; Blench, 2009).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216302890

quote:
For archaeologists, the story of how Near Eastern hunters and gatherers became farmers has become as familiar as a bedtime fable. Beginning as early as 11,000 B.C., people settled into villages and began cultivating wild grasses like rye, emmer wheat and barley. Over time, the genetic makeup of the plants changed, so they needed to be sown and tended in order to grow.

Cows, goats and sheep were domesticated over the next few thousand years, and then ceramics were developed to store food. This new way of life quickly swept across Europe and much of Asia. Soon, almost everyone was farming.

But not in Africa. As Dr. Katharina Neumann, an archaeobotanist at the J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt, noted in the book ''Food, Fuel and Fields -- Progress in African Archaeobotany,'' published last year, archaeologists at several sites across sub-Saharan Africa have not found evidence of domesticated grains before 2000 B.C., suggesting that until then, people collected wild grains and did not plant their own.

While the first undisputed remains of domesticated cattle appear in the African archaeological record about 5900 B.C. at a site in Chad, other studies suggest that cattle were domesticated in the same region as early as 9,000 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/science/african-pastoral-archaeologists-rewrite-history-of-farming.html?mcubz=1
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
@PR - I can't access the barley paper, but looks interesting. I will check it out when I get the chance.

@Doug - thanks, I was thinking of posting the first one myself. The Panga ya Saidi site that Kenya_400BP is from was sampled in that paper. The Indian Ocean connection remains mysterious, though!

but maybe we should have a different thread for this
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:


Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund, 2017


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.


How do they get 38% of her ancestry is related to 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant ?

How?
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
See "Ancestry model and estimates with qpAdm" under Methods.

IIUC basically the qpAdm program runs f4 statistics, a measure of relatedness, between the target (in this case T_L_3100BP) and a set of outgroup populations. It then takes a set of potential source populations that you give it and creates virtual mixes from them. It calculates f4s between the virtual mix and the same set of outgroups, and compares them to the f4s determined for the actual target sample. A successful mix will have approximately matching f4 values, that is the same set of relationships with the outgroups as the target sample does.

So if for instance T_L_3100Bp was more closely related to West Africans than a mix of 38% PPNB and 62% Mota would be, that would show up in her having a stronger f4 with Mende than the mixture does. Or if she had not PPNB but say pure Basal Eurasian or super-Natufian or something like that, she would have a weaker f4 with Loschbour, Anatolia Neolithic, and so forth than the mix would have.

So it doesn't mean that she is literally a mix of Mota and PPNB but it can't really be something too crazy different from that. Look at the list of outgroup populations in the Methods to see what the constraints are.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Oh , I see the whole other section when you hit the methods tab

quote:

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.


quote:



METHODS

(excerpt)

Here, we used a model with 19 populations (Mbuti, Dinka, Mende, South_Africa_2000BP, Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP, Ethiopia_4500BP, Levant_Neolithic (PPNB), Anatolia_Neolithic, Iran_Neolithic, Denisova, Loschbour, Ust_Ishim, Georgian, Iranian, Greek, Punjabi, Orcadian, Ami, and Mixe), using previously published complete genomes (Fu et al., 2014, Lazaridis et al., 2014, Mallick et al., 2016, Meyer et al., 2012) and ancient DNA data enriched using the 1240k SNP set (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Mathieson et al., 2015) to maximize the power to infer admixture proportions for the ancient African populations. These populations, and in particular the ones from Africa, were chosen to capture major strands of ancestry and extremes in population differentiation found in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 1)


Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admixture in non-Africans – we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012, Reich et al., 2012). We found that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 transversion SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).



wikipedia:

PPNB

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is a Neolithic culture centered in upper Mesopotamia. It was typed by Kathleen Kenyon during her archaeological excavations at Jericho in the West Bank.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I think Lioness is moreso questioning the date if anything, no true dating method for admixture was referenced if I remember correctly... in fact it'll be damn near impossible to date a single individuals Admixture event. However I'm guessing that the lack of Iranian ancestry is a key indicator. On that note, what do you guys think about the following... I managed to make some interesting qpGraphs but tbh, I'm baffled at this one. -No Outliers
Worst F-stat:
code:
                                fst:       fitted       estim        diff         std. err     Z score 
Lux Lev Eth Bar 0.000093 -0.003223 -0.003316 0.001744 -1.901

Seems like OOA might not be what I thought it was lol... not too sure yet if I failed to accommodate all the SSAn Admixture in Luxmanda with "NE_Nilotic" ...but for perspective, this model failed miserably. In my heart of hearts I wanna believe Luxmanda is in large 80%+ continental, I'll just let my biases out now.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
^^^@Capra your thoughts on this?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Oh , I see the whole other section when you hit the methods tab

quote:

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.


quote:



METHODS

(excerpt)

Here, we used a model with 19 populations (Mbuti, Dinka, Mende, South_Africa_2000BP, Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP, Ethiopia_4500BP, Levant_Neolithic (PPNB), Anatolia_Neolithic, Iran_Neolithic, Denisova, Loschbour, Ust_Ishim, Georgian, Iranian, Greek, Punjabi, Orcadian, Ami, and Mixe), using previously published complete genomes (Fu et al., 2014, Lazaridis et al., 2014, Mallick et al., 2016, Meyer et al., 2012) and ancient DNA data enriched using the 1240k SNP set (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Mathieson et al., 2015) to maximize the power to infer admixture proportions for the ancient African populations. These populations, and in particular the ones from Africa, were chosen to capture major strands of ancestry and extremes in population differentiation found in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 1)


Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admixture in non-Africans – we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012, Reich et al., 2012). We found that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 transversion SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).



wikipedia:

PPNB

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is a Neolithic culture centered in upper Mesopotamia. It was typed by Kathleen Kenyon during her archaeological excavations at Jericho in the West Bank.

 -

" the skeleton H8 belonged to the African L3 lineage, this being the most prevalent African haplogroup found in present-day Near Eastern populations."

________________________________
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I think Lioness is moreso questioning the date if anything, no true dating method for admixture was referenced if I remember correctly... in fact it'll be damn near impossible to date a single individuals Admixture event. However I'm guessing that the lack of Iranian ancestry is a key indicator.

I doubt the admixture was at only one time and place anyway, but yeah, there is surely a more proximate source population, we just don't have a sample.

quote:
On that note, what do you guys think about the following... I managed to make some interesting qpGraphs but tbh, I'm baffled at this one. -No Outliers
Worst F-stat:
code:
                                fst:       fitted       estim        diff         std. err     Z score 
Lux Lev Eth Bar 0.000093 -0.003223 -0.003316 0.001744 -1.901

Seems like OOA might not be what I thought it was lol...

Huh, I got nothing. Sometimes a list of D stats makes more sense to me than a qpGraph.

quote:
this model[/b] failed miserably. In my heart of hearts I wanna believe Luxmanda is in large 80%+ continental, I'll just let my biases out now.
So you can't put Mota 100% upstream of Bari, is Bari actually closer to South African then?
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
This is the type of discussion I wanted to see. [Smile]
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Huh, I got nothing. Sometimes a list of D stats makes more sense to me than a qpGraph.

true, but having all is even better. However, if we really think about it,

"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.
"

-Skoglund 2017

I didn't see any reason for this postulation elaborated on in the study, luxmanda wasn't in any of the skeleton graphs either. The road block here is; Luxmanda will always fit between a contemporary non Admixed E.African (like Mota) and Levant_N... so how would we go about distinguishing whether Luxmanda is ancestral and to what degree, for instance 85% upsteam and 15% recombined from PPNB, which is a possibility.

quote:
So you can't put Mota 100% upstream of Bari, is Bari actually closer to South African then?
I Absolutely cannot... I'm thinking about A-M13 though, and what that Haplogroup can imply about pre-mota or even pre-PN2 population structure in east and Saharan Africa. I don't believe Nilotes are more San-like than Mota though.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23285/full

Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara july 2017


Authors
Iva Kulichová,
Verónica Fernandes,
Alioune Deme,
Jana Nováčková,
Vlastimil Stenzl,
Andrea Novelletto,
Luísa Pereira,
Viktor Černý


Abstract

Background

Today, African pastoralists are found mainly in the Sahel/Savannah belt spanning 6,000 km from west to east, flanked by the Sahara to the north and tropical rainforests to the south. The most significant group among them are the Fulani who not only keep cattle breeds of possible West Eurasian ancestry, but form themselves a gene pool containing some paternally and maternally-transmitted West Eurasian haplogroups.
Materials and Methods

We generated complete sequences for 33 mitogenomes belonging to haplogroups H1 and U5 (23 and 10, respectively), and genotyped 16 STRs in 65 Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b-V88.
Results

We show that age estimates of the maternal lineage H1cb1, occurring almost exclusively in the Fulani, point to the time when the first cattle herders settled the Sahel/Savannah belt. Similar age estimates were obtained for paternal lineage R1b-V88, which occurs today in the Fulani but also in other, mostly pastoral populations. Maternal clade U5b1b1b, reported earlier in the Berbers, shows a shallower age, suggesting another possibly independent input into the Sahelian pastoralist gene pool.
Conclusions

Despite the fact that animal domestication originated in the Near East ∼ 10 ka, and that it was from there that animals such as sheep, goats as well as cattle were introduced into Northeast Africa soon thereafter, contemporary cattle keepers in the Sahel/Savannah belt show uniparental genetic affinities that suggest the possibility of an ancient contact with an additional ancestral population of western Mediterranean ancestry.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean

what's your reference ?

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
H1 in SSA 8-7kya


what's your reference ?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.

 -
terminals 1-13 are Africans, 14 South Europe.


Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

from Bakeda 2013-
quote:
Others, like sub-haplogroup U5b1b [34], sub-haplogroups H1 and H3 [20,35,36] and haplogroup V [37] seem to have reached North Africa from Iberia in a post-last glacial maximum expansion. In concordance, an ancient DNA study from Ibero-Maurusian bone remains from Taforalt in Morocco detected the presence of haplogroups U6, V, T and probably H, pointing to a Paleolithic genetic continuity in Northwest Africa [38]. Additionally, male lineages also provide support to a Paleolithic Asia to Africa back migration [39] with Holocene trans-Saharan spreads as testified by the haplogroup R-V88 distribution [40]. Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**
I'm throwing this quote out here to give a little perspective... *notice how V88 is attributed to Near Eastern expansion during the Holocene!!

realquick, here's chiang 2016 on Sardinian population history
quote:
We were able to confirm a number of major features of previous analyses: the differentiation of Sardinia from mainland populations, the presence of high Neolithic farmer ancestry in Sardinia, and the presence of a small amount of sub-Saharan African admixture. Further, our analyses provide more detail regarding the isolation between Sardinia and the mainland. Our analysis of cross- coalescent rates suggest the population lineage ancestral to modern-day Sardinia was effectively isolated from the mainland European populations approximately 330 generations ago. This estimate should be treated with caution, but corresponds to approximately 9,900 years ago assuming a generation time of 30 years and mutation rate of 1.25x10-8 per basepair per generation
I mention that to point out the following...
 -

-Schroeder 2015; using an ancient AfroCarribean, they were able to get a coalesced age of 8.5 kya for the V88 split between Sards and Africans. We can effectively predict a timespan for which a lot of these relatively "inexplicable" clades were shuffled between Africa and Southern Europe, anywhere between 9000 and 5000 years ago. And there is detectable substructure among the "Eurasian" contributions to Fulani though the Kulichova et al 2017 article you posted above glosses over this.(because their main concern was Eurasians tbh, particularly potential European genetic and cultural contributions and not the African populations themselves.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) ...Not to mention Habers dates for non African Admixture and V88.

quote:
" ~The number of samples is shown on each branch tip.We estimate that the Chadian R1b emerged 5,700–7,300 ya, whereas most European R1b haplogroups emerged 7,300–9,400 ya. The African and Eurasian lineages coalesced 17,900–23,000 ya."
^ His broad coalescent age is important because his model was going off the assumption that V88 was acquired from the near east. However what he unintentionally does is provide evidence for an isolated Eurasian branch being related to the African variety. Which we have evidence for. -see above.
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia
-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

And we should all keep in mind the presence of ancient North African DNA now and how that keeps suggestions such as Bakeda's (quoted above) in check.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Also see:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22236/abstract

Multiple and differentiated contributions to the male gene pool of pastoral and farmer populations of the African Sahel

Authors
Jana Bučková,
Viktor Černý,
Andrea Novelletto
First published: 4 March 2013


 -
https://images.imgbox.com/25/21/z8QtXkXa_o.png

[ 16. May 2018, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia

-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

Wait, so you subscribe to neolithic north-south trans-mediterranean contacts now? Didn't you strongly reject north-south Mediterranean contacts involving some EEF subgroups and the ancestors of Egyptians as "Hamiticism"?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia

-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

Wait, so you subscribe to neolithic north-south trans-mediterranean contacts now? Didn't you strongly reject north-south Mediterranean contacts involving some EEF subgroups and the ancestors of Egyptians as "Hamiticism"?

Actually I was against the whoooole premise that there was an "Indigenous North African element" all together... But a few months ago I saw a few patterns that convinced me other wise, around the time when I started saying that there was no Basal Eurasian...

However I'm still not sold on the premise of Eurasian Farmers being responsible for physical variation in Africa and the eventual development of Ancient Egyptian culture etc. (...which is specifically what I'd refer to as Hamiticism.)

-But yeah, (though I don't remember neglecting trans Mediterranean contact). I view it differently now...
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
But yeah, (though I don't remember neglecting trans Mediterranean contact). I view it differently now...

I could have sworn you denied African ancestry in Aegean Neolithic just days ago (i.e. during my conversation with Polako), when I was literally trying to make the same argument you're making right now (i.e. direct maritime migration involving V68 and V257).

Am I missing something? If not that, what did you object to a couple of days ago?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Oh! I couldn't find any evidence for significant African contribution to Lazaridis' Mycenaean, Minoan and Greek samples ...So I conceded that point to them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But just so you know...Before on ABF When the Greek samples showed a lil bit of SSA.. I made a snarky remark about that being "surprising" to some people. When the Neolithic Moroccan paper dropped polako came at me personally, then made a general comment in public which I felt was aimed at me, cuz it echoed what he said to me.. But I personally wanted to crush him in public, so before I did any of that I gave him that point about the Neolithic Greeks, so that he wouldn't dwell on that as opposed to the more important stuff.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?

As we see on the chart the Fulani are primarily E carriers.
Some are R1b carriers

Essential reading on this complex topic is behind a pay wall ( but I have read it) particularly the discussion section

________________________________________________

Multiple and Differentiated Contributions to the Male Gene Pool of Pastoral and Farmer Populations of the African Sahel

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235787499_Multiple_and_Differentiated_Contributions_to_the_Male_Gen
Jana Bučková,
Viktor Černý,
Andrea Novelletto
First published: 4 March 2013


While the majority of the mtDNA gene pool of the Fulani popula- tion belongs to the West African gene pool, it also includes lineages such as U5 and J1b (Cerezo et al., 2011; Cerny; et al., 2006, 2011) that must have been introduced in their population via North Africa, perhaps together with R1b. Haplogroup U5b1b, with a coales- cence age 􏰂8.6 ka and a presence in West Africa, the West Mediterranean and even in North Europe (Achilli et al., 2005) provides a good argument for such reason- ing. Last but not least, the 13,910C>T variant enabling the lactase persistence phenotype (Lokki et al., 2011) is one the Fulani nomads also share with Europeans.
Our data show that R1b-M343 does not prevail in Chadic speaking groups as reported previously by Cruciani et al. (2010a). In fact, we found this haplogroup exclusively in the Fulani pastoralists’ gene pool and not in the today sedentary Chadic populations.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
What percentage of EFF ancestry did the ancient Egyptians supposedly have?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-
quote:
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
Thoughts?
Sorry for the late response. I just got through reading the paper and it's really nothing surprising. A lot of genetic diversity has been lost since the Holocene not only in Africa but throughout the world via the spread of food producing populations which either replaced or subsumed other groups.

By the way Elite, E-V22/M1 is a male lineage found in the Y-chromosome while L2a1 is a female lineage found in mitochondria. The Luxmanda specimen is female so she doesn't have any Y chromosome. That said, it is interesting to note that most of the ancient Y chromosomes found from males in the sites are A or B and not E derived.

I have to agree with Punos Rey that this common ancestry that Luxmanda had associated with the neolithic Levant may very well be the so-called "basal Eurasian", and that such ancestry may very well be indigenous to Africa instead of Eurasia. Check out Swenet's blog page on that topic here.

As far as Somali having 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry, this too is no surprise considering the presence of paternal lineage hg T in Somalia and other parts of the Horn. T is derived from hg LT and is a sibling of hg L which is predominantly found in India and Iran. Interestingly while T is also found in India and traces are found throughout western Eurasia, the highest frequency is found in the Horn.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
One thing I forgot to mention is that it is of utmost importance not only of understanding the genetic landscape of Africa but also Southwest Asia as well and this includes not only the Levant but also Arabia. I personally believe Arabia is the missing link between what is African and 'Eurasian'. I can't stress S.O.Y. Keita's point enough that paleolithic hunter-gatherers have been moving back and forth between North Africa and Southwest Asia that it would be difficult to ascertain which lineages are truly 'Eurasian'. Hence "basal Eurasian" which I believe to be a parallel ancestral group originating in Africa but descending from the same pre-OOA populations. I have read excerpts from old studies and literature including those cited by Dana describing ancient skeletal remains in Arabia displaying "negroid" or "African" features.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What percentage of EFF ancestry did the ancient Egyptians supposedly have?

Can you Elaborate on what you specifically mean by EEF, cuz I have the same exact question, Eurasian farmers that actually came from Eurasia, or North Africans that didn't go no where but makes up a portion of the current southern European and Near eastern genepool? I'd like to believe the former was negligible earlier but increased over time, as for the Latter, atm, your guess is as good as mines, could be 100%, but Idk how much sense that would make archaeologically.

@Djehuti
at this point, we might as well treat the term "Basal Eurasian" as a misnomer, really suggesting "African Affinity". cuz the only thing these carriers have in common is African Affinity... And it's not even like a singular African population can best fit the mold.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Just note that most "Africa wide" studies of DNA omit populations in the Sahel, including the Fulani, the populations of Southern Algeria, Northern Mali, Mauritania, Northern Sudan and so forth. And when they do study the DNA of these populations, they are treated as a "distinct group" of their own, in other words, not included in North Africa and not included as "Sub Saharan". Just more games being played with the data.....

quote:

Understanding human genetic diversity in Africa is important for interpreting the evolution of all humans, yet vast regions in Africa, such as Chad, remain genetically poorly investigated. Here, we use genotype data from 480 samples from Chad, the Near East, and southern Europe, as well as whole-genome sequencing from 19 of them, to show that many populations today derive their genomes from ancient African-Eurasian admixtures. We found evidence of early Eurasian backflow to Africa in people speaking the unclassified isolate Laal language in southern Chad and estimate from linkage-disequilibrium decay that this occurred 4,750–7,200 years ago. It brought to Africa a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) whose closest relatives are widespread in present-day Eurasia; we estimate from sequence data that the Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago. This migration could thus have originated among Near Eastern farmers during the African Humid Period. We also found that the previously documented Eurasian backflow into Africa, which occurred ∼3,000 years ago and was thought to be mostly limited to East Africa, had a more westward impact affecting populations in northern Chad, such as the Toubou, who have 20%–30% Eurasian ancestry today. We observed a decline in heterozygosity in admixed Africans and found that the Eurasian admixture can bias inferences on their coalescent history and confound genetic signals from adaptation and archaic introgression.

African genetic diversity is still incompletely understood, and vast regions in Africa remain genetically undocumented. Chad, for example, makes up ∼5% of Africa’s surface area, and its central location, connecting sub-Saharan Africa with North and East Africa, positions it to play an important role as a crossroad or barrier to human migrations. However, Chad has been little studied at a whole-genome level, and its position within African genetic diversity is not well known. With 200 ethnic groups and more than 120 indigenous languages and dialects, Chad has extensive ethnolinguistic diversity.1 It has been suggested that this diversity can be attributed to Lake Chad, which has attracted human populations to its fertile surroundings since prehistoric times, especially after the progressive desiccation of the Sahara starting ∼7,000 years ago (ya).

Important questions about Africa’s ethnic diversity are the relationships among the different groups and the relationships between cultural groups and existing genetic structures. In the present study, we analyzed four Chadian populations with different ethnicities, languages, and modes of subsistence. Our samples are likely to capture recent genetic signals of migration and mixing and also have the potential to show ancestral genomic relationships that are shared among Chadians and other populations. An additional major question relates to the prehistoric Eurasian migrations to Africa: what was the extent of these migrations, how have they affected African genetic diversity, and what present-day populations harbor genetic signals from the ancient migrating Eurasians? We have previously reported evidence of gene flow from the Near East to East Africa ∼3,000 ya, as well as subsequent selection in Ethiopians on non-African-derived alleles related to light skin pigmentation.

snip

Multiple Eurasian Admixtures in Africa after 6,000 ya

We have previously reported massive gene flow ~3,000 ya from Eurasians to Ethiopian populations.4 Here, we reassess the presence of Eurasian ancestry in Africa by using f3 statistics25 in the form of f3:X; Eurasian, Yoruba, where a negative value with a Z score < -4 indicates that X is a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. We found, as expected, that most Ethiopians are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. An exception is the Gumuz population, where f3: Gumuz; Eurasian, Yoruba is always positive. The Gumuz language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan family, which could have isolated the Gumuz from the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Ethiopians. However, we found that the Toubou in Chad, who also speak a Nilo-Saharan language, are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians, making f3:Toubou; Eurasian, Yoruba always significantly negative. This suggests that the impact of Eurasian migrations today extends beyond East Africa and the Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487


 -

They say they have little DNA from Chad and other African populations but they are quick to claim that "Eurasians" migrated all the way into Central Africa? Seriously? Where are the other surrounding African populations included as part of this study? Note the primary populations used for comparison: Yoruba (the so called pure sub saharans reference population used in most of these studies), Ethiopians like the Ahmara and then they go way off to Greece and Turkey. No Fulani included, No Tuareg included. No Northern Nigerians included, No populations in Niger included. No Sudanese (Beja, "nubians", Darfurians, Nuer, Dinka, etc). No populations surrounding Chad were included. But this is the game they play with all these papers. By now any Africa wide genomic study should inclcude ALL populations of Africa not certain hand picked populations used over and over again.

And not to mention lets not talk about any DNA from ancient remains in Chad compared to moderns... which is standard for most of these types of DNA studies, except in Africa. Of course they will claim that they cant find any ancient sites and remains in Chad for whatever reason.
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Mod

Like I said create your OWN thread. You're free to do so. Final warning
.

[ 07. October 2017, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Doug
In a perfect world where you got your way as far as how we do research, what results would you expect to see? This isn't an essay question btw, can you keep it short.

EDIT oh fuck, look at what you started ....all because you're afraid to actually read a fucking paper.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Can you Elaborate on what you specifically mean by EEF, cuz I have the same exact question, Eurasian farmers that actually came from Eurasia, or North Africans that didn't go no where but makes up a portion of the current southern European and Near eastern genepool? I'd like to believe the former was negligible earlier but increased over time, as for the Latter, atm, your guess is as good as mines, could be 100%, but Idk how much sense that would make archaeologically.

If I'm not mistaken EEF means Early European Farmer which is comprised of Neolithic Near Easterners and Western Hunter Gatherers.

quote:
@Djehuti
at this point, we might as well treat the term "Basal Eurasian" as a misnomer, really suggesting "African Affinity". cuz the only thing these carriers have in common is African Affinity... And it's not even like a singular African population can best fit the mold.

Unfortunately we do not yet have the smoking gun so to speak in the form of skeletal remains in Africa yielding the 'Basal Eurasian' component at significant enough frequency which is why they still use the term "Eurasian". This despite the fact that there are skeletal remains in Southwest Asia (both Levant and Arabia) displaying African features.
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What percentage of EFF ancestry did the ancient Egyptians supposedly have?

While we do have records of European populations like the Greeks and Sea Peoples settling in northern Egypt during the late dynastic period, I suspect most of the Eurasian ancestry in AE would have come from Levantine rather than European sources. And I don't think we have enough aDNA data yet to say for sure how much Eurasian vs indigenous North & sub-Saharan African ancestry the AE throughout time and space had. We might have to wait and see on this one.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Sorry for the late response. I just got through reading the paper and it's really nothing surprising. A lot of genetic diversity has been lost since the Holocene not only in Africa but throughout the world via the spread of food producing populations which either replaced or subsumed other groups.

No prob. Just glad you can join. And yeah a lot of genetic diversity has been lost sadly. I'm pretty sure those food producing populations were able to become more larger and dominate other groups. But its surprising to me personally in that the maternal lineage for the Tanzanian pastoralist is not a "Southern Cushite" one.


quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Elite, E-V22/M1 is a male lineage found in the Y-chromosome while L2a1 is a female lineage found in mitochondria. The Luxmanda specimen is female so she doesn't have any Y chromosome. That said, it is interesting to note that most of the ancient Y chromosomes found from males in the sites are A or B and not E derived.

I am completely aware of the bolded. Again what I meant was that people on Forumbiodiversity were HOPING to see more "Southern Cushite-like" lineages for Luxmanda like M1 or L0 for example. Instead they got L2a1 which they consider "true Negroid" and have been ignoring this study ever since. They were hoping this female would be representative for Upper Egyptians. While not from FBD, Razid Khan was one of those Euronuits praying she would be a Cushite-Levant type. Basically what they REALLY wanted was almost "pure" Eurasians in Southeast Africa. Instead they got the TOTAL OPPOSITE not even Cushite types. The males mainly being A or B only makes it WORSE for them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/razibkhan/status/881895944710651904

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

I have to agree with Punos Rey that this common ancestry that Luxmanda had associated with the neolithic Levant may very well be the so-called "basal Eurasian", and that such ancestry may very well be indigenous to Africa instead of Eurasia. Check out Swenet's blog page on that topic here.

Don't quote me on this but there have been theories on here that the Hadza could carry some Basel Eurasian but it was thrown out the window because it was a theory that was just played around with. Luxmanda seems to occupy the same location as the Hadza, but again dont quote me on this. And yeah i read Swenet's blog before may give it another read.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

As far as Somali having 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry, this too is no surprise considering the presence of paternal lineage hg T in Somalia and other parts of the Horn. T is derived from hg LT and is a sibling of hg L which is predominantly found in India and Iran. Interestingly while T is also found in India and traces are found throughout western Eurasia, the highest frequency is found in the Horn.

Never knew the highest frequencies were found in the Horn. Learn new stuff everyday.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
While we do have records of European populations like the Greeks and Sea Peoples settling in northern Egypt during the late dynastic period, I suspect most of the Eurasian ancestry in AE would have come from Levantine rather than European sources. And I don't think we have enough aDNA data yet to say for sure how much Eurasian vs indigenous North & sub-Saharan African ancestry the AE throughout time and space had. We might have to wait and see on this one.

In your opinion what do you think this study might say for Upper Egyptians. I mean the timeline for these pastoralist is 3,000 years ago.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Doug
In a perfect world where you got your way as far as how we do research, what results would you expect to see? This isn't an essay question btw, can you keep it short.

EDIT oh fuck, look at what you started ....all because you're afraid to actually read a fucking paper.

The point is you are seeing "false positives" based on selective DNA sampling and comparisons.

And it isn't a "perfect world" which is why I don't pretend these papers are really pushing anything more than propaganda.... ie. Eurasians overran North Africa and thus limiting "true African" DNA lineages to the "Sub Saharan" bantustan lineages...

The TL;DR Bottom line African genetic history should not be modeled on or based on "Eurasian" anything. The roots of and origins of farming included.

quote:

Africa harbors more genetic diversity than any other part of the world (Cann et al., 1987, Tishkoff et al., 2009). This is reflected both in a higher average number of differences among sub-Saharan African genomes than among non-African genomes (Cann et al., 1987, Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of that within it (Tishkoff et al., 2009). Today, some of the earliest-branching African lineages are present only in populations with relatively small census sizes, including the southern African Khoe-San (see STAR Methods for terminology), central African rainforest hunter-gatherers, and Hadza of Tanzania (Gronau et al., 2011, Schlebusch et al., 2012, Veeramah et al., 2012). However, the population structure of Africa prior to the expansion of food producers (pastoralists and agriculturalists) remains unknown (Busby et al., 2016, Gurdasani et al., 2015, Patin et al., 2017). Bantu-speaking agriculturalists originating in western Africa are thought to have brought farming to eastern Africa by ∼2,000 years BP (years before present, defined by convention as years before 1950 CE) and to southern Africa by ∼1,500 BP, thereby spreading the largest single ancestry component to African genomes today (Russell et al., 2014, Tishkoff et al., 2009). Earlier migration(s), which brought ancestry related to the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Pagani et al., 2012, Pickrell et al., 2014), brought herding to eastern Africa by ∼4,000 BP (Marshall et al., 1984) and to southern Africa by ∼2,000 BP (Sadr, 2015).

This is nothing more than a rehashing of the old Bantustan model of African DNA. It doesn't go back more than 10 thousand years and doesn't discuss the antiquity of African DNA prior to that.


 -

Not to mention the fact that Africans have been practicing all sorts of subsistence strategies, including collecting wild grains and herding wild cattle and livestock since LONG BEFORE any Eurasian back migration during the Neolithic. In fact I would argue that the movement of Saharan populations after the drying of the Sahara 10,000 years ago is a key spark for the arrival of the Neolithic in the "Near East".

quote:

There are essentially three archaeologically-based models for the domestication of cattle in North Africa. Wendorf et al. (2001) argue for domestication in the 9th millennium BC, pointing to their reconstruction of the ecology of the Nabta Play – Bir Kiseiba region and to diminishing skeletal size; there is minimal if any input from Near Eastern cattle later on. Andrew Smith’s (2005) model states that the inhabitants of the NP region were hunter-gatherers prior to the late 6th millennium BC and that all the cattle and ovicaprids came from the Near East via the Red Sea coast. My (2007) model hypothesises that anatomical domestication occurred ca 6300 BC, around the time that ovicaprids were introduced into the Eastern Sahara and this may well have included cattle too, and that they were incorporated into and transformed the economy & social structures of the inhabitants of the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba area who had previously been managing some small numbers of wild cattle. It is this managing of wild cattle which could have been a source for the Y2 introgression and the mixed mtDNA results seen to date.

Maria Gatto (2011), however, notes that the early Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba pottery is part of the same tradition as the early Kerma region pottery, augmenting Donatella Usai’s (2005) analysis of the stone tools from Nabta Playa in reaching a similar conclusion. There are also currently no known earlier instances of Bos primigenious in the Kerma region, which argues in favour of Honegger’s cattle having been under human control. This is taken by Honegger and Gatto as being supportive of the early domestication model of Wendorf & Schild, i.e. that the cattle were brought to the Kerma region from Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba through pastoralist contact with more settled hunter-forager communities living along the Nile.

However, the issue is not so cut and dried. If the criticisms of the reconstruction of the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba ecology are valid and a limited degree of herd management was occurring, possibly similar to the less dangerous Barbary sheep in the Acacus Mountains around this time (di Lernia, 2001), there is no valid reason why some of these cattle would not have been exchanged and ended up in the more favourable environment in the Nile Valley.

What we may be witnessing in fact are two or more centres of morphological domestication occurring, a phenomenon which frankly should not be surprising. Perhaps as part of re-evaluating our epistemological and theoretical approaches to early cattle domestication in North-East Africa, we should also consider discontinuing the antiquated use of imported terms such as Neolithic (Gatto, 2011; Wengrow 2006) and instead continue developing appropriate regionalised archaeolological traditions (cf. Garcea, 2004). This is a wake-up call for North-East Africanists more broadly to better critically engage with the trends, methods and theories being developed elsewhere both on the African continent and elsewhere, as many who are fauna and faunal specialists already do.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783853/

quote:



Researchers at the Organic Geochemistry Unit in the University of Bristol's School of Chemistry, working with colleagues at Sapienza, University of Rome and the Universities of Modena and Milan, studied unglazed pottery dating from more than 10,000 years ago, from two sites in the Libyan Sahara.

The invention of cooking has long been recognised as a critical step in human development.

Ancient cooking would have initially involved the use of fires or pits and the invention of ceramic cooking vessels led to an expansion of food preparation techniques.

....
Detailed investigations of the molecular and stable isotope compositions showed a broad range of plants were processed, including grains, the leafy parts of terrestrial plants, and most unusually, aquatic plants.

The interpretations of the chemical signatures obtained from the pottery are supported by abundant plant remains preserved in remarkable condition due to the arid desert environment at the sites.

The plant chemical signatures from the pottery show that the processing of plants was practiced for over 4,000 years, indicating the importance of plants to the ancient people of the prehistoric Sahara.

Dr Julie Dunne, a post-doctoral research associate Bristol's School of Chemistry and lead author of the paper, said: "Until now, the importance of plants in prehistoric diets has been under-recognised but this work clearly demonstrates the importance of plants as a reliable dietary resource.

"These findings also emphasise the sophistication of these early hunter-gatherers in their utilisation of a broad range of plant types, and the ability to boil them for long periods of time in newly invented ceramic vessels would have significantly increased the range of plants prehistoric people could eat."

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-earliest-evidence-cooked-ancient-pottery.html

And of course we cannot pretend that the arrival of the Neolithic is the basis of ancient African DNA going back 300,000 years which is absurd. But that is precisely what they are doing with this paper....
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
While we do have records of European populations like the Greeks and Sea Peoples settling in northern Egypt during the late dynastic period, I suspect most of the Eurasian ancestry in AE would have come from Levantine rather than European sources. And I don't think we have enough aDNA data yet to say for sure how much Eurasian vs indigenous North & sub-Saharan African ancestry the AE throughout time and space had. We might have to wait and see on this one.

True. Which makes it all the more ironic that predynastics are, phenotypically, closer to most EEF subgroups than to Natufians and PPN.

I think this discrepancy is partly due to what I told Polako about E-V68 and E-V257, partly because of the unique pre-Natufian genetic makeup of the Levant, and partly because the autosomal signature associated with the Neolithization of North Africa was not typically Levantine. R1b-V88, although ultimately of eastern Eurasian origin, seems more consistent with EEF-related ancestry around the time it was introduced to North Africa (not with Levantine ancestry).

In fact, the apparent presence of R1b in the Levant in post-PPN times jibes well with the trend of homogenization and the spread of EEF-like ancestry in the Mediterranean basin. So, for instance, the Natufian-PPN transition is associated with roughly as much EEF-like input as the IAM-KEB transition is. This suggests that post-PPN populations in the Levant are likely to have even more EEF-like input than PPN do. Relevance? The R1b carriers who introduced domesticates to Egypt ~7kya apparently belonged to this EEF-admixed post-PPN population.

BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also. I think when predynastics are sampled, their non-SSA ancestry will show a preference for PPN and Natufians (compared to EEF). But, taken literally, this is similarly bogus for all the aforementioned reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Check out Swenet's blog page on that topic here.[/QB]

When I have time I will make a new post about Basal Eurasian because I understand it much better now.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Your argument is good I haven't been following V68.

Sure you haven't. [Big Grin] [Frown] [Embarrassed]


quote:



Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)

A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also.

I haven't seen any stats with Natufians for the ancient East Africans, but apparently Maasai and Somalis are equidistant between PPNB and Natufians. There's no Natufian in the qpAdm population set, so maybe something more toward Natufian than PPNB would fit. I'd like to see that stats for them and ancient Egyptians, and of course for IAM when the genomes are released.

The biggest outlier for Luxmanda is with South_Africa_2000BP though, possibly meaning Mota is too southern on the East-South Africa cline as a reference; maybe Luxmanda has a bunch of ancestral East African ancestry from further north?

Looking at the outlier stats for the qpAdm models, most of them are minor and explicable but there are a couple of really weird ones. Like it appears that Ju|'hoan have (non-literal) anti-Denisovan and Mbuti anti-Iran Neolithic. [Big Grin] [Confused]

From what I understand PPNB didn't really expand into Egypt, there's some influence - livestock obviously, Helwan-type points, but doesn't look like a wholesale migration really? But I may have picked that up from some unreliable source, like Afrocentrists. [Wink]
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is you are seeing "false positives" based on selective DNA sampling and comparisons.

And it isn't a "perfect world" which is why I don't pretend these papers are really pushing anything more than propaganda.... ie. Eurasians overran North Africa and thus limiting "true African" DNA lineages to the "Sub Saharan" bantustan lineages...

The TL;DR Bottom line African genetic history should not be modeled on or based on "Eurasian" anything. The roots of and origins of farming included.

Ok... let's try again, what do you expect to see in the available ancient genomes? Which populations, ancient or extant do you desire to be Analyzed? And when they are, what exactly do you expect from the outcome?
^Start here, never mind the "BASAL this" or "Eurasian that" ...just please, start from here^ and help contribute to the progression of Afrocentered freelance research please.

I find it funny that you complain about African not only being Bantoid or SSA or whatever, but little do you know Indigenous North African might be closest to ProtoBantu, not only that, I can tell you haven't so much as read the Abstract from Fregel 2017 operating on Ancient North African DNA, maybe if you did, you can occupy ground to debate on.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
If I'm not mistaken EEF means Early European Farmer which is comprised of Neolithic Near Easterners and Western Hunter Gatherers.

Unfortunately we do not yet have the smoking gun so to speak in the form of skeletal remains in Africa yielding the 'Basal Eurasian' component at significant enough frequency which is why they still use the term "Eurasian". This despite the fact that there are skeletal remains in Southwest Asia (both Levant and Arabia) displaying African features.

It doesn't matter what it's called(Basal Eurasian), what does matter however, is the fact that we wont find a smoking gun... For instance to reiterate on my previous point, Hotu, draws closer or shows signatures related to Senegambians.. Natufians to a pseudo ~East African with low San HG, and CHGs to Nilotes. All three of these populations consistently show SSA signatures and score very high for Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian... How can a singular African population accommodate for all this variation?

Swenet makes a good point...
quote:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also. I think when predynastics are sampled, their non-SSA ancestry will show a preference for PPN and Natufians (compared to EEF). But, taken literally, this is similarly bogus for all the aforementioned reasons.
I cosign the Model, but to me whatever falls inline with being EEF-like is simply NorthAfrican Ancestry shared between European Neolithic Groups... Which I believe is supported by the ruling out of Anatolian Admixture (Skoglund 2017). the remainder of Luxmandas ancestry not shared with African groups in the paper is more related to the Near east (some if not all is actually due to admixture FMPOV)... regardless, this doesn't happen with a archetypal African Basal Eurasian subgroup existing, unless its North African... how does that Idea hold up with NAfrican aDNA, KEB can't be Basal Eurasian like, ...IAM, maybe, however, if you can prove introgression from Ibermaurasians and Model the remaining outgroup as both African but not SSAn... But once again, I don't know how well this is supported by archaeology
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
THIS is the DAMN discussion I wanted!!! thank you Capra, Elmaestro, DJ, Swenet and Lioness. [Smile]

If we keep this up we can turn around the Egyptology section.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also.

I haven't seen any stats with Natufians for the ancient East Africans, but apparently Maasai and Somalis are equidistant between PPNB and Natufians. There's no Natufian in the qpAdm population set, so maybe something more toward Natufian than PPNB would fit. I'd like to see that stats for them and ancient Egyptians, and of course for IAM when the genomes are released.

The biggest outlier for Luxmanda is with South_Africa_2000BP though, possibly meaning Mota is too southern on the East-South Africa cline as a reference; maybe Luxmanda has a bunch of ancestral East African ancestry from further north?

Glad to see someone question this confusing part of the paper. The way I see it, Mota has a unique population history, distinct from any known SSA population. According to Llorente et al, Mota shares more drift with modern Maghrebis than with their Central African and southern African populations. Mota also shares more drift with highly admixed Ethio-Semitic speakers than with most Sub-Saharan Africans. AFAIK, no known SSA genome has such affinities, while simultaneously showing a lack of detectable Eurasian ancestry. So I'm surprised various authors don't question their data when it comes back saying that the SSA ancestry in Hadza, Luxmanda etc. is 100% derived from Mota. At best Mota is a provisional placeholder for their SSA-like ancestry, until better samples are found.

This opens up the possibility that some of Luxmanda's SSA ancestry has, as you suggest, a more northern origin. We can't say for sure, because the analyses describing her ancestry so far are not very sophisticated. But I would be surprised if this part of her ancestry derives as far north as the Lower Nile Valley.

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
From what I understand PPNB didn't really expand into Egypt, there's some influence - livestock obviously, Helwan-type points, but doesn't look like a wholesale migration really? But I may have picked that up from some unreliable source, like Afrocentrists. [Wink]

If (rock) art is anything to go by, there is a gradual lightening of the pigment used to paint skin in North African art. Skin pigmentation in pre-Neolithic times was darker, while Neolithic and predynastic skin pigmentation was lighter on average (e.g. an extreme example of lighter pigmentation used during the Neolithic and an example from the predynastic). In dynastic times it was more variable, including all of the above pigmentaton levels and even lighter forms of reddish not seen in earlier periods. So, we have a range of brown in the early Holocene, and progressively more reddish shades in mid-Holocene times, until we get to the distinctly ochre red pigments used in some later dynastic art.

Some Afroasiatic speakers still place themselves and their neighbours on a black-red spectrum, so it's tempting to see the gradual use of more reddish pigments as really reflecting an awareness of skin pigmentation in different time periods.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Swenet makes a good point...
quote:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also. I think when predynastics are sampled, their non-SSA ancestry will show a preference for PPN and Natufians (compared to EEF). But, taken literally, this is similarly bogus for all the aforementioned reasons.
I cosign the Model, but to me whatever falls inline with being EEF-like is simply NorthAfrican Ancestry shared between European Neolithic Groups... Which I believe is supported by the ruling out of Anatolian Admixture (Skoglund 2017).
IIRC, they just ruled out an Anatolian source—not an Anatolian contribution. It seems to me that, if Luxmanda's non-SSA part specifically resembles PPN, as the authors claim, then part of it would have to be Anatolian Neolithic.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
the remainder of Luxmandas ancestry not shared with African groups in the paper is more related to the Near east (some if not all is actually due to admixture FMPOV)... regardless, this doesn't happen with a archetypal African Basal Eurasian subgroup existing, unless its North African... how does that Idea hold up with NAfrican aDNA, KEB can't be Basal Eurasian like, ...IAM, maybe, however, if you can prove introgression from Ibermaurasians and Model the remaining outgroup as both African but not SSAn... But once again, I don't know how well this is supported by archaeology

I don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian. If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian. If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).
Not if I believe Lazaridis' basal Eurasian can't be a singlepopulation. If you recall I was open to the idea of a "pseudo basal Eurasian" expansion from North Africa but as far as the laz 2016 distribution goes, I don't see all those non african populations sharing the same African ancestry. How do you go about explaining shared ancestry between CHG (@ ~30%) and Ancient African for example?

And yeah they weren't particularly transparent on what they meant by Anatolian ancestry but I have a hard time believing they'd consider luxmanda as a possible source for such ancestry in PPNB... Why they didn't include natufians in qpAdm is another story/possible complaint.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian. If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).
Not if I believe Lazaridis' basal Eurasian can't be a singlepopulation. If you recall I was open to the idea of a "pseudo basal Eurasian" expansion from North Africa but as far as the laz 2016 distribution goes, I don't see all those non african populations sharing the same African ancestry. How do you go about explaining shared ancestry between CHG (@ ~30%) and Ancient African for example?

And yeah they weren't particularly transparent on what they meant by Anatolian ancestry but I have a hard time believing they'd consider luxmanda as a possible source for such ancestry in PPNB... Why they didn't include natufians in qpAdm is another story/possible complaint.

What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol.

Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:

We have previously reported massive gene flow ~3,000 ya from Eurasians to Ethiopian populations.4 Here, we reassess the presence of Eurasian ancestry in Africa by using f3 statistics25 in the form of f3:X; Eurasian, Yoruba, where a negative value with a Z score < -4 indicates that X is a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. We found, as expected, that most Ethiopians are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. An exception is the Gumuz population, where f3: Gumuz; Eurasian, Yoruba is always positive. The Gumuz language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan family, which could have isolated the Gumuz from the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Ethiopians. However, we found that the Toubou in Chad, who also speak a Nilo-Saharan language, are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians, making f3:Toubou; Eurasian, Yoruba always significantly negative. This suggests that the impact of Eurasian migrations today extends beyond East Africa and the Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations.

Whenever these monyockos include Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations it degenerates into nonsense.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol.

Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin.

Iight, you got me there, I respect that...

Not trying to go too deep into Eurasian DNA, but I didn't know it's appropriate to equate EEF - CHG relatedness to shared admixture as opposed to shared ancestry. As it relates to the latter, how far back can you possibly push BE geneflow (as a singular population) to Eurasia and how relevant would they be if you do you so? I'm saying that relevant North African dispersal post-dates the split in EEF and CHG, & I don't think relatively recently shared African Ancestry is responsible for bringing EEF and CHG together.

My theory was that the closest thing that'd resemble Lazaridis' BE is a post Bottleneck/Homogenized Iranian/Arabian With limited admixture from other ancient Eurasian groups and no Archaic introgression... the kicker though is that though this populations Autosomal profile fits the description it isn't responsible for the "BasalEurasian" ancestry we find in all modern west Eurasian populations, however it's the default proximity towards Africans that would create these false positives. So in actually, that is why I suggest caution in putting Lazaridis' "Basal Eurasian" Eurasian in Africa, despite converting my beliefs on indigenous North Africa.

It's a safety net for shit like this, which is even stated in the OP as we speak.
quote:
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admix- ture in non-Africans –we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012).Wefound that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 trans- version SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

-See Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population

..It'll better explain how Basal Eurasian is undetected as a secondary wave of migration, than a mass expansion of Africans >20kya, and it's consistent with the timing of Iranian Haplogroup dispersal in Europe, etc. This is why I had put so much emphasis of the differences among SSAfrican signals in Eurasians.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol.

Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin.

Iight, you got me there, I respect that...

Not trying to go too deep into Eurasian DNA, but I didn't know it's appropriate to equate EEF - CHG relatedness to shared admixture as opposed to shared ancestry. As it relates to the latter, how far back can you possibly push BE geneflow (as a singular population) to Eurasia and how relevant would they be if you do you so? I'm saying that relevant North African dispersal post-dates the split in EEF and CHG, & I don't think relatively recently shared African Ancestry is responsible for bringing EEF and CHG together.

My theory was that the closest thing that'd resemble Lazaridis' BE is a post Bottleneck/Homogenized Iranian/Arabian With limited admixture from other ancient Eurasian groups and no Archaic introgression... the kicker though is that though this populations Autosomal profile fits the description it isn't responsible for the "BasalEurasian" ancestry we find in all modern west Eurasian populations, however it's the default proximity towards Africans that would create these false positives. So in actually, that is why I suggest caution in putting Lazaridis' "Basal Eurasian" Eurasian in Africa, despite converting my beliefs on indigenous North Africa.

It's a safety net for shit like this, which is even stated in the OP as we speak.
quote:
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admix- ture in non-Africans –we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012).Wefound that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 trans- version SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

-See Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population

..It'll better explain how Basal Eurasian is undetected as a secondary wave of migration, than a mass expansion of Africans >20kya, and it's consistent with the timing of Iranian Haplogroup dispersal in Europe, etc. This is why I had put so much emphasis of the differences among SSAfrican signals in Eurasians.

When you leave Basal Eurasian (BE) out of the picture, and look at the non-BE ancestry in EEF and CHG, EEF will be related to WHG and what remains of CHG will be related to Russian HGs). As soon as you allow Basal Eurasian back into the picture, EEF and CHG start to form a clade. This is incongruent, because they are most closely related to WHG and Russian HGs, respectively. The only explanation of this is that BE is drawing these otherwise distant populations together.

My money is on Basal Eurasian being mostly a result of postglacial movements out of northeast Africa and spreading in all directions (including the Maghreb, the Sinai, the Aegean and other coasts to the west). There might have been older, pre-existing pockets of groups with Basal Eurasian in the Middle East, but most Middle Eastern ancestry will fit somewhere on this ancient DNA landscape, which so far has been a complete Basal Eurasian desert before 14kya. I see that Sub-Saharan ancestry which you take as an argument against Basal Eurasian, as ancestry that Basal Eurasians mixed with right before migrating to the Middle East:

quote:
From the African BSP (Figure 3B), all the African random samples also showed a 5-fold growth at ~15−11 kya, corresponding to expansion haplogroups L0a1a, L1b1a, L1b1a3, L2a1a, L3b1a, L3e1, L3e2a and L3e2b, and subsequently a 2-fold growth ~5−4kya, which might be driven by the Neolithic Revolution.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00745

^Hence, the ~5% West/Central African ancestry in the recently sampled Natufians. I also expect the maximum percent of SSA ancestry, as well as the maximum amount of Basal Eurasian, to increase as samples of these new arrivals get closer to the 14ky date and as more endogamous members among these new arrivals are sampled. For instance, the Natufians found in the Shuqbah cave are good examples of more endogamous arrivals in the Levant, in my view. I expect the same for all other Neolithic regions with notable Basal Eurasian.

Those are some of my predictions for future aDNA. Feel free to hold me to every single point.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -


 -
Oase 2


DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6%-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and suggests that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier.

The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non-European admixture in modern Europeans[7]
Oase 1 belongs to an extinct Y-DNA haplogroup and an extinct mitochondrial DNA haplogroup.
Research by Poznik et al. (2016) suggests that Oase 1 belongs to haplogroup K2a*. That is, Oase 1 possesses SNPS similar to Ust'-Ishim man (also K2a*), 45,000-year-old remains from Siberia, and upstream from a rare lineage found in two living males (from ethnic Telugu and Malay backgrounds, respectively, for whom Poznik et al. proposed the creation of a new subclade, named "K2a1").[8] (Earlier research by Fu et al. reported that Oase 1 belonged to a subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup F, other than haplogroups G, H, I and J – leaving open the possibility that Oase 1 belonged to macrohaplogroup K.)
According to Fu, Oase-1 belongs to a basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N.[7] (General research into N* has found that it occurs at its highest frequencies among the modern populations of Socotra,[9] and Somalia, albeit only at levels of 20–24%.[10] It is also found at low frequencies among Algerians and Reguibate Sahrawi.[
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Oase I is a basal Eurasian but not the Basal Eurasian. His N is not even true N* but pre-N, which is (as far as anyone knows) long extinct. So there is no reason to connect it to modern N*; for that matter one N* is no more relatable to any other N* that it is to an identified N branch.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
This point right here makes sense imo.
quote:
My money is on Basal Eurasian being mostly a result of postglacial movements out of northeast Africa and spreading in all directions (including the Maghreb, the Sinai, the Aegean and other coasts to the west). There might have been older, pre-existing pockets of groups with Basal Eurasian in the Middle East, but most Middle Eastern ancestry will fit somewhere on this ancient DNA landscape, which so far has been a complete Basal Eurasian desert before 14kya. I see that Sub-Saharan ancestry which you take as an argument against Basal Eurasian, as ancestry that Basal Eurasians mixed with right before migrating to the Middle East:

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
This point right here makes sense imo.

Postglacial times are filled with special dates in African population history (e.g. the TMRCA of modern Afroasiatic, Niger-Kordofanian and Y DNA mutations, like E-M2, E-M81 and E-M78 which would later replace most Sub-Saharan and North African Y lineages). Indications of dramatic postglacial demographic events and population growth make Africa, by far, best positioned to be the source of Basal Eurasian.

There is no evidence that non-African homelands often suggested for Basal Eurasian could have supported a population large enough to fundamentally change the entire Middle East. At least Africa has several precedents of having done exactly that in ancient times. Ancestral Semitic speakers being the most recent example.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:


DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6%-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and suggests that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier.

The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non-European admixture in modern Europeans[7]
Oase 1 belongs to an extinct Y-DNA haplogroup and an extinct mitochondrial DNA haplogroup.
Research by Poznik et al. (2016) suggests that Oase 1 belongs to haplogroup K2a*. That is, Oase 1 possesses SNPS similar to Ust'-Ishim man (also K2a*), 45,000-year-old remains from Siberia, and upstream from a rare lineage found in two living males (from ethnic Telugu and Malay backgrounds, respectively, for whom Poznik et al. proposed the creation of a new subclade, named "K2a1").[8] (Earlier research by Fu et al. reported that Oase 1 belonged to a subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup F, other than haplogroups G, H, I and J – leaving open the possibility that Oase 1 belonged to macrohaplogroup K.)
According to Fu, Oase-1 belongs to a basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N.[7] (General research into N* has found that it occurs at its highest frequencies among the modern populations of Socotra,[9] and Somalia, albeit only at levels of 20–24%.[10] It is also found at low frequencies among Algerians and Reguibate Sahrawi.[ [/QB]

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Oase I is a basal Eurasian but not the Basal Eurasian. His N is not even true N* but pre-N, which is (as far as anyone knows) long extinct. So there is no reason to connect it to modern N*; for that matter one N* is no more relatable to any other N* that it is to an identified N branch.

What is this "pre haplogroup" you speak of?

N* is the basal N. That is pre N and it's found in modern populations as quoted above.
Oase is 30-45 kya

Didn't you mention Ust'-Ishim earlier?
What about K2a*
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet

Again very good point. When we always discuss genetic history of a region of the world we always forget to add the context of the environment/climate of that time. Sure we bring up the Sahara(desert vs fertile) but we never talk about the other climate events.


Even when the ice sheets were retreating Southern Europe and Northern Southwest Asia would have still been quite cold for a large population. Africa would have easily been able to support a large population that would have been ancestral to basel Eurasian.

I mean not to go off-topic but I feel this is a good example. Look at the population of Canada. Only 30,000,000 million people. The African-American population is larger than that. But why is that?

Sure Southern Canada is densely populated and not in the arctic.
 -

But the majority of Canada IS in the arctic. And while Canada is much bigger than the USA. The USA can more easily support a larger and diverse population. To me this would have been the same with Africa vs Western Eurasia.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Isn't basal Eurasian of topic? I thought the topic is Neolithic, much more recent
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Swenet, I've read a few studies indicating ANE influence in prehistoric SW Asia and such influence would seem to correlate with hg R lineages in that region. If so, do you identify ANE as being a possible component in EEF and thus its arrival in Africa?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Elite Diasporan
You have to be aware that that particular point you're elaborating on can also be a counter argument. Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian should be some what homogenized suggesting founder, or drift. A large founding population increases the gene pool and so far we are collectively doing a poor job of detecting ancient recombination with modern and some ancient African populations.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23285/full

Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara july 2017


Authors
Iva Kulichová,
Verónica Fernandes,
Alioune Deme,
Jana Nováčková,
Vlastimil Stenzl,
Andrea Novelletto,
Luísa Pereira,
Viktor Černý


Abstract

Background

Today, African pastoralists are found mainly in the Sahel/Savannah belt spanning 6,000 km from west to east, flanked by the Sahara to the north and tropical rainforests to the south. The most significant group among them are the Fulani who not only keep cattle breeds of possible West Eurasian ancestry, but form themselves a gene pool containing some paternally and maternally-transmitted West Eurasian haplogroups.
Materials and Methods

We generated complete sequences for 33 mitogenomes belonging to haplogroups H1 and U5 (23 and 10, respectively), and genotyped 16 STRs in 65 Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b-V88.
Results

We show that age estimates of the maternal lineage H1cb1, occurring almost exclusively in the Fulani, point to the time when the first cattle herders settled the Sahel/Savannah belt. Similar age estimates were obtained for paternal lineage R1b-V88, which occurs today in the Fulani but also in other, mostly pastoral populations. Maternal clade U5b1b1b, reported earlier in the Berbers, shows a shallower age, suggesting another possibly independent input into the Sahelian pastoralist gene pool.
Conclusions

Despite the fact that animal domestication originated in the Near East ∼ 10 ka, and that it was from there that animals such as sheep, goats as well as cattle were introduced into Northeast Africa soon thereafter, contemporary cattle keepers in the Sahel/Savannah belt show uniparental genetic affinities that suggest the possibility of an ancient contact with an additional ancestral population of western Mediterranean ancestry.

I take it you already forgot about the dozens of past threads on the topic where we told you the 'Fulani' are a large cultural group comprised of many tribes and that some in the Western Sahel display typical West African NRY hg E1b1a at 100% while others in the Eastern Sahel in Sudan and near the Horn display hg T like some Horn populations. Therefore the conclusions of this paper may only apply to a subgroup of Fulani but not the entire cultural group.

Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Elite Diasporan
You have to be aware that that particular point you're elaborating on can also be a counter argument. Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian should be some what homogenized suggesting founder, or drift. A large founding population increases the gene pool and so far we are collectively doing a poor job of detecting ancient recombination with modern and some ancient African populations.

Noted.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Sorry to go further off topic, but paragroups seem to cause a lot of confusion

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
What is this "pre haplogroup" you speak of?
N* is the basal N. That is pre N and it's found in modern populations as quoted above.

Pre-haplogroup is an informal way of referring to a lineage with some, but not all, of the mutations defining that haplogroup. If you look at PhyloTree you can see there are 5 mutations shared by N. Oase-1 is missing two of them: he has ancestral 8701G and 9540C. Likewise MA-1 is missing some of the mutations leading to Y haplogroup R, so we can call him pre-R. This is just to avoid reorganizing the entire frigging tree to account for a single extinct ancient lineage.

Pre-N is not the same as N*, which is anything that belongs to haplogroup N but not to any known branch that could be detected by the study in question. N* just means "unidentified branch of N". In fact unless it is a full sequence it is probably part of some known branch. All known full N sequences other than Oase-1 have all 5 mutations and hence are N and not pre-N. So an N* branch is parallel to identified N branches, it doesn't branch off before them, it is not basal or earlier.

All three of the sources cited in the Oase-1 Wikipedia article sequenced only the HVS-1 and few coding region mutations, which is a lot cheaper than full sequencing but can make it impossible to determine the actual haplogroup. Now, the second source cited by Wikipedia decided that the N* from Soqotra reported in the first source was actually either I3 or I5. However, the Wikipedia editor who put this stuff in ignores that and refers to all of it as N* anyway. [Roll Eyes] In fact this Soqotri N* is I5a according to Fernandes et al 2012, I5a2a on PhyloTree. The Algerian N from the third source is some other random subclade unrelated to the Yemeni one.

None of it has anything to do with Oase-1. Oase-1 is not any more closely related to any modern N* than he is to, say, U6a1a, or W3b2, or anything else under haplogroup N. You should know better than to trust random junk on Wikipedia, Lioness.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It's not random junk. It's all referenced in scientific articles

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html?foxtrotcallback=true

An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor

David Reich, Svante Pääbo et al

Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558
2015
_________________________________

If basal Eurasian remains were found
-How would they know they were basal Eurasian?


However I'm not going to pursue it further because basal Eurasian is off topic. The topic is

•Genome-wide analysis of 16 African individuals who lived up to 8,100 years ago

But "Basal Eurasian" is tens of thousands of years later


quote:

Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry
The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11


The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.

The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations

--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis

I don't know why the basal eurasian hypothetic keeps getting brought up in Neolithic studies, it's Lazaridis fault
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya? .....

European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.




 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It's not random junk. It's all referenced in scientific articles

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html?foxtrotcallback=true

An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor

David Reich, Svante Pääbo et al

Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558
2015
_________________________________

If basal Eurasian remains were found
-How would they know they were basal Eurasian?


However I'm not going to pursue it further because basal Eurasian is off topic. The topic is

•Genome-wide analysis of 16 African individuals who lived up to 8,100 years ago

But "Basal Eurasian" is tens of thousands of years earlier


quote:

Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry
The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11


The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.

The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations

--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis

I don't know why the basal eurasian hypothetic keeps getting brought up in Neolithic studies, it's Lazaridis fault
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Swenet

Again very good point. When we always discuss genetic history of a region of the world we always forget to add the context of the environment/climate of that time. Sure we bring up the Sahara(desert vs fertile) but we never talk about the other climate events.


Even when the ice sheets were retreating Southern Europe and Northern Southwest Asia would have still been quite cold for a large population. Africa would have easily been able to support a large population that would have been ancestral to basel Eurasian.

I mean not to go off-topic but I feel this is a good example. Look at the population of Canada. Only 30,000,000 million people. The African-American population is larger than that. But why is that?

Sure Southern Canada is densely populated and not in the arctic.
 -

But the majority of Canada IS in the arctic. And while Canada is much bigger than the USA. The USA can more easily support a larger and diverse population. To me this would have been the same with Africa vs Western Eurasia.

People do this all the time. They make elaborate narratives with no regard for things that hamper or promote growth and migration. One of the reasons I saw through that claim on ABF about Malawian-mediated Neolithization of South Africa is because Malawi is in the middle of Tsetse-infested zone.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Swenet, I've read a few studies indicating ANE influence in prehistoric SW Asia and such influence would seem to correlate with hg R lineages in that region. If so, do you identify ANE as being a possible component in EEF and thus its arrival in Africa?

I can't prove it as I've never looked for admixture analyses, but I think so, yes. The R-V88(?)-carrying farmer in Spain (el Trocs [see Haak et al 2015]) seems indistinguishable from non-R1b-carrying EEF. But ANE-related ancestry is probably still in his genome. Just like L3b-related African ancestry in the Russian below is still present at low levels that most tools used by hobbyists probably wouldn't pick up on.

quote:

Table 4 shows the comparison of the frequencies of
alleles of the autosomal microsatellite loci found in
Russians with mitochondrial haplotypes of African
origin in European, African, and Russian populations.
We found that the autosomal haplotypes of the Rus-
sians carrying African mtDNA haplotypes were
mainly characterized by alleles common to European
and African populations. However, Russians had alle-
les that are characteristic of Europeans but are
extremely rare in Africans (e.g., D13S317*8,
D13S17*9, D81179*10, and D19S433*15 in an L1b
subject and D18S51*17 in an L3b subject), which
indicates their European origin. Only two alleles
found in an L3b Russian subject (D2S1338*22 and
TPOX*7) were frequent in Africans but extremely rare
or absent in Russians. Apparently, these alleles are a
genetic trace of a past mixing of races.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16240714

Other R1b carrying European farmers might have much more ANE than Troc3, though. I just mentioned him because I'm more familiar with him than with other European R carrying farmers that have been found more recently.
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
Wow... lol. I see "lol_race" didn't read this study. Him and others still pushing the idea that this women wasnpurely South Cushite.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
People do this all the time. They make elaborate narratives with no regard for things that hamper or promote growth and migration. One of the reasons I saw through that claim on ABF about Malawian-mediated Neolithization of South Africa is because Malawi is in the middle of Tsetse-infested zone.

lol. I remember that Malawian discussion. But yeah people usually forget the context of certain environmental issues.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol at the results posted in that thread in light of my comments on EEF-related ancestry in Luxmanda. Good to know my aDNA radar is on point.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
The non African signatures were probably partially allocated to "East African pastoralists" and the less "med farmer" is shared with Europeans the higher luxmanda should score for it, I expect higher proportion of North African*.
..But then again, it's just GEDmatch

Near East Neolithic K13 Oracle results:

gedrosia K13 Oracle

code:
1	SUB_SAHARAN	        50.15
2 NATUFIAN 30.41
3 ANATOLIA_NEOLITHIC 11.04
4 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 1.51
5 EHG 1.43
6 SHG_WHG 1.41
7 SIBERIAN 1.36
8 PAPUAN 1.33
9 SE_ASIAN 1.23
10 ANCESTRAL_INDIAN 0.12

Now 12-13% of luxmandas SSAn is elsewhere

code:
#	 	Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1 66.1% Hadza + 33.9% Levant_N @ 5.39
2 64.3% Hadza + 35.7% Levant_BA @ 5.62
3 74.9% Masai + 25.1% Levant_N @ 5.91
4 61.8% Mota + 38.2% Levant_BA @ 6.78
5 63.6% Mota + 36.4% Levant_N @ 6.89
6 73.6% Masai + 26.4% Levant_BA @ 7.09
7 51.5% Gambian + 48.5% Levant_BA @ 7.95
8 50.1% Levant_BA+ 49.9% Esan @ 8.16
9 50.1% Levant_BA+ 49.9% Yoruba @ 8.16
10 60.1% Masai + 39.9% Moroccan @ 8.21
11 66.2% Masai + 33.8% Libyan @ 8.73
12 61.2% Masai + 38.8% Saharawi @ 8.74
13 50.2% Hadza + 49.8% Saharawi @ 8.75
14 72.8% Masai + 27.2% Jew_Libyan @ 9.19
15 67.9% Masai + 32.1% Egyptian @ 9.3
16 55.6% Hadza + 44.4% Libyan @ 9.3
17 77.9% Masai + 22.1% Anatolia_ChL @ 9.31
18 73.3% Masai + 26.7% Jew_Tunisian @ 9.37
19 52.8% Saharawi+ 47.2% Mota @ 9.47
20 63.5% Masai + 36.5% Algerian @ 9.48


 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Djehuti

I need to send you a PM if you are still around.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Was in a fairly decent mood, decided to killed some free time, inspired by Capra and BBH, I decided to Run Some DStats. It is very telling as it pretty much clears up most if not all of the questions surrounding Luxmandas Non-SubSaharan Ancestry... so maybe my time wasn't all that wasted. Blue text denotes best fit and Z-score, Red text is worst Stat, blue bg is the best Z-Score.

Quick breakdown: It appears that Luxmandas NonSSA might be an intermediate between Natufians and PPNB (more shifted towards PPNB), EEF-Anatolian like ancestry in Luxmanda is amplified by relatively non-Admixed Africans. However, when looking at Modern admixed populations; Cushitic, Nubian, we see signs of Anatolian Admixture dropping due to these newer population having more recent Anatolian-like ancestry (Nubians, Beja) or similar ancestry being wide spread in the source populations for non African Admixture (Somali).
..thoughts, anyone?
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Thanks for these, Elmaestro.

A little tricky with these indirect comparisons but I think I see what you are saying. The Beni Amer and Halfawieen have a little more affinity to Anatolian than to Levant_N while the opposite is the case with Luxmanda, so the former have not only more but slightly different composition of the MENA portion of their ancestry.

With Luxmanda, Somali; WA, Mbuti the difference between the ancient West Asian references is negligible, so Somalis seem to have much the same amount and composition of MENA as Luxmanda.

But in the paper Somalis were modelled as 16% Iran_N, 22% Dinka, 62% Luxmanda - that would make 40% of their MENA ancestry Iran_N. No way that should work! Are these different Somali populations being tested?
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
^Wait so Somalis are only 30% MENA?
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Luxmanda was modelled as about 38% PPNB (36-39% range). By Elmaestro's stats Somalis should be about the same as Luxmanda.

Or, Somalis modelled in this study as 62% Luxmanda, 16% Iran_N, 22% Dinka. So 62% x 38% (of MENA in Luxmanda) = 24%, plus 16% for Iran_N comes to 40% MENA in total. All give or take a few percent.

Pickrell et al estimated Somalis at 38% MENA back in 2013, so this actually matches the previously accepted numbers very well.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^You're right on the money.

To my knowledge the Somali samples are all uniform. They have a lil more MENA than Luxmanda, however they also have low amount of Mbuti-like ancestry possibly from bantu influences. I ran the same results with the chimp earlier and got negative Z-scores for Lux,Som;WA,Mbuti... So I can believe that their amounts of MENA is very close maybe a lil less than 40% as you say. However I don't think the differences among WAsian influences should be taken lightly, and the shared ancestry between those guys should also be respected.

for instance: Somalis are simultaneously more Modern SSAn(dinka-WAfr) and West-Eurasian than Luxmanda, the biggest differences in their non African ancestry is that of Iran_N, so if you fit Somali between Luxmanda,Dinka,Iran_N in qpAdm the Iranian component will have to compensate for the added SSan(dinka) ancestry. It's a bit convoluted but what's thought provoking is the possibility that Luxmanda might harbor shared ancestry between these West Asian groups, whether it is BE, N.African or whatever.. if that is true, how would we go about distinguishing which population mixed with Luxmanda and to what magnitude??

The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

IMO this is where all roads have been leading for while. I think the community at large is reluctant to make that jump due to long held biases....BUT it’s exactly what we would expect.

Speaking of “taking things more seriously”.....I think we are going to have to start taking some of those splits times and divergences a bit more literal a la XYYMAN style. When it comes to all his bio-anthro many of us have a different research styles and come from a different backgrounds. For better or for worse I think the newer group of folks looking into this have come to totally different conclusions than some of us “old guard” folks. There are plenty of scenarios I wouldn’t have even considered until someone with younger eyes took a look at the data and evaluated it. Ma’alta boy at 25kya has Amerindian affinities. The new skeleton out of East Asia at 40 kya has Amerindian affinities.

It’s pretty much “game over man”.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

yeah, I wonder if they were just being logically complete, or do they have some hunch or new model?

I don't like pure Basal Eurasian for it, not as worked out by Laziridis et al at least; didn't fit for East Africans before and doesn't fit for Luxmanda now. Some earlier population shared between West Asia and North Africa yes, the question is always why does Anatolia Neolithic work relatively well and why isn't Natufian the best fit?

But maybe there is a widely shared base Paleo-MENA population here, and there is not only the recognizable additional ancestry in Anatolians (WHG etc) pulling them away from it, but some unrecognized ghost contributing to Natufians which is pulling them away in a different direction?
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
BUMP...
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Nothing more needs to be added
---
Quotes:
“of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically
disparate groups or a lineage MORE deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western
African populations than to others.
We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of
natural selection in southern African populations.”

“(Cann et al., 1987; Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of
that within it
(Tishkoff et al.,”

“We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna
Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-
year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early
farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.
These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery
Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_
3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that ****lived thousands of years earlier in Africa***
or the Near East. We fit the
remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as most closely related to the Ethiopia_4500BP
(p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related
ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
SMH – comedians?
The forest for the trees. Luxmandra is not the issue. The bigger problem is Malawi_hora-8100BP also carry “European” ancestry and virtually zero East Asian. That will take the presence of “European” ancestry in Africa BEFORE PPNB!!! Therefore Skoglund had no other choices but “back into” a possibly African origin. He was cornered!!!! Do you get that? That is what European do when they are caught in a lie..

I told Cass-Dead BEFORE the paper was released what was coming based upon the abstract and tone of the writeup Malawi_Hora. I asked him to dig up the anthropological history of Malawi_hora because the author hinted on what was coming. Malawi was described as Mediterranean(whatever that is) . A Mediterranean deep in sub-saharan Africa in the late stone age. "Cacausoid" Hofmeyer was how old. lol!

The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe.


quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

yeah, I wonder if they were just being logically complete, or do they have some hunch or new model?

I don't like pure Basal Eurasian for it, not as worked out by Laziridis et al at least; didn't fit for East Africans before and doesn't fit for Luxmanda now. Some earlier population shared between West Asia and North Africa yes, the question is always why does Anatolia Neolithic work relatively well and why isn't Natufian the best fit?

But maybe there is a widely shared base Paleo-MENA population here, and there is not only the recognizable additional ancestry in Anatolians (WHG etc) pulling them away from it, but some unrecognized ghost contributing to Natufians which is pulling them away in a different direction?


 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I just want to add. I pointed out this before I was "kicked out"...no E-M2 is found in these ancient Africans(except 2000bc Mota East Africa). It is surprising that so much of the mtDNA is L0* and not L2*. Where am I going with this? Two things. First - The molecular clock may be all screwed up based upon 30yrs/generation. Or the mutation rate is messed up. Second- There was massive population change over not only in Europe but Africa as well. Is it cultural?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

IMO this is where all roads have been leading for while. I think the community at large is reluctant to make that jump due to long held biases....BUT it’s exactly what we would expect.

Speaking of “taking things more seriously”.....I think we are going to have to start taking some of those splits times and divergences a bit more literal a la XYYMAN style. When it comes to all his bio-anthro many of us have a different research styles and come from a different backgrounds. For better or for worse I think the newer group of folks looking into this have come to totally different conclusions than some of us “old guard” folks. There are plenty of scenarios I wouldn’t have even considered until someone with younger eyes took a look at the data and evaluated it. Ma’alta boy at 25kya has Amerindian affinities. The new skeleton out of East Asia at 40 kya has Amerindian affinities.

It’s pretty much “game over man”.

Beyoku, you smashed the nail on the head all the way hard! The implications you point out is what I've been trying to get at! If you have pre-Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians. And in East Africa crania that don't look like typical 'Sub-Saharans' but rather like certain early West Asians. Yet in the latter case many scholars assume back-migration instead of the other way around. As another example, you have experts who use autosomal DNA data as proof of the difference between Natufians and 'Sub-Saharans' as proof that they are not of African origin, yet the Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese. The implications are clear as it pertains to Asian diversity visavi African diversity.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Beyoku, you smashed the nail on the head all the way hard! The implications you point out is what I've been trying to get at! If you have pre- Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians. And in East Africa crania that don't look like typical 'Sub-Saharans' but rather like certain early West Asians. Yet in the latter case many scholars assume back-migration instead of the other way around. As another example, you have experts who use autosomal DNA data as proof of the difference between Natufians and 'Sub-Saharans' as proof that they are not of African origin, yet the Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese. The implications are clear as it pertains to Asian diversity visavi African diversity.

quote:

Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians


If you don't buy the idea of back migration of Eurasians into East Africa that can't be used as an analogy with Amerindians and modern Chinese.
If the traits or DNA called Eurasian were actually African and went from Africa to Asia, an analogous theory seems not work with Amerindians and modern Chinese because geographically and sequentially in time the Americas were populated after China. Amerindians can't be the ancestors of modern Chinese so please explain how this works.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese.

why?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-
quote:
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
Thoughts?
^^ this is the first post in the thread

I made a new thread recently called

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure Pontus Skoglund 2017


I forgot about this thread we are in now because except for a URL link neither the title of the thread or the initial post states the name of the article or it's author.

I hope in the future that when people will make threads that are about a particular article that either title of the thread will be the same title as the article
or have a different title but list the author's name and date

and that the initial post should have both article title and author in addition to the URL

There are so many articles to keep track of that it is not so easy to tell in a search that a particular article has already been discussed and this is coming from me who has been on this site for a while. Imagine new people doing a search looking at search results trying to see if a particular article is or has already been discussed.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

If you don't buy the idea of back migration of Eurasians into East Africa that can't be used as an analogy with Amerindians and modern Chinese.

What do you mean? Eurasian back-migration to East Africa is a fact! At least such dating to historical times as shown by archaeology in the Horn as well as linguistics (Semitic languages) and confirmed by genetic findings in Horn populations showing the timing of the admixture to be ∼3,000 YBP. What I don't buy is that such admixture had anything to do with pastoral traditions in Africa such as the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic of Tanzania farther south since pastoralism in the continent predates the back-migration event by millennia. Nor do I buy the notion of any previous Eurasian back-migrations from prehistoric times either from the start of the Holocene or prior, unless you can show conclusive evidence otherwise.

Even Lazaridis states this possibility in regards to the findings on Luxmanda woman:

These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East.


quote:
If the traits or DNA called Eurasian were actually African and went from Africa to Asia, an analogous theory seems not work with Amerindians and modern Chinese because geographically and sequentially in time the Americas were populated after China. Amerindians can't be the ancestors of modern Chinese so please explain how this works.
I would recommend that you go back and read what I posted on Doug's thread about Tianyuan Man, but I'm just going to assume you have and still don't understand so I'll break it down myself.

 -

^Findings show that Amerindians derive from two main lines of ancestry--one predominant line that came from Siberia and splintered off from another line that is ancestral to many modern Central Asians and Europeans which is known as 'Ancient North Eurasian', while the other peculiar line comes from Eastern Asia from a ghost population whose line also spread to Southeast Asia and Australasia and Oceania.

So you have Western Asians whose OOA ancestry is not much different from other Eurasians, probably descending from an 'Ancient North African' or rather 'Ancestral Out-of-African' line while there are other West Asians who descend from a ghost population called 'Basal Eurasian' which may very well be in fact a more recent African population compared to the Ancestral OOA.

Tianyuan Man by the way is geographically Chinese although he may very well look more Amerindian. (btw, I base this on crania from nearby sites like Shandingdong since all that remains of Tianyuan Man's skull is part of his mandible) The findings show Tianyuan Man to carry the 'Population Y' or 'Basal East Asian' ancestry.

Finally we have both linguistic and genetic evidence for American back-migrations into Asia!

 -

So I hope the analogy is clear to you now.

quote:
why?
Because there is genetic diversity in East Asians with autosomal differences of the Ainu/Jomon showing that but that doesn't make the Ainu any less 'Asian'. The same can be said for Africans. Just because you have African populations especially in ancient times who genetically differ from today's 'typical' "Sub-Saharans" doesn't make them any less African or as you would have it "Eurasian".
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@BBH What do you think about the Sudanese (nubians-Arabs) "Non-Eurasian" signatures being more similar to Great-Lakes than to Horners and or even Nilotes? ...More specifically, Which ancient or extant population do you think the unadmixed sudanese will resemble? being intermediate or a mixture of "cushitic" and Nilotic..?

 -
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3