quote:Recent studies have identified Northeast Africa as an important area for human movements during the Holocene. Eurasian populations have moved back into Northeastern Africa and contributed to the genetic composition of its people. By gathering the largest reference dataset to date of Northeast, North, and East African as well as Middle Eastern populations, we give new depth to our knowledge of Northeast African demographic history. By employing local ancestry methods, we isolated the Non-African parts of modern-day Northeast African genomes and identified the best putative source populations. Egyptians and Sudanese Copts bore most similarities to Levantine populations whilst other populations in the region generally had predominantly genetic contributions from the Arabian peninsula rather than Levantine populations for their Non-African genetic component. We also date admixture events and investigated which factors influenced the date of admixture and find that major linguistic families were associated with the date of Eurasian admixture. Taken as a whole we detect complex patterns of admixture and diverse origins of Eurasian admixture in Northeast African populations of today.
Just skimmed it so far. No aDNA samples included, just modern ones as far as I can see.
Elmaestro Member # 22566
posted
-We shall be seeing the Socotra paper very soon. -I want people to notice the subtle hints and changes to ancestry components. We have a Levantine vs Arabian component more elaborately highlighting the west Eurasian differences. -Populations from Chad (Toubou) and North East Africa are finally included in one analysis, can't say this was the first it was done since the Natufian paper but we can once again see the West Eurasian elements get split apart in Africans via ADMIXTURE. -Eventually we'll probably play pretend attributing up to 12kya of backmigration to Yemeni groups for the next 5-10 years now that it's blazingly obvious that the true Levantine components highlighted in Copts and Egyptians are recent.
Pay attention to the distribution of the Arabian component at the most significant K, (K7)
BrandonP Member # 3735
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Eventually we'll probably play pretend attributing up to 12kya of backmigration to Yemeni groups for the next 5-10 years now that it's blazingly obvious that the true Levantine components highlighted in Copts and Egyptians are recent.
I did see this line in the paper:
quote:Our admixture date for the Copts (with Eurasians) was inferred to be 27.5 for the f3 analysis and 25.7 for the R2 and around 22 generations for the Egyptians. Thus this admixture took place around the 14th century.
However, I figured Eurocentrics would write it off as the moment "sub-Saharan slaves" arrived in Egypt to mix with the Egyptians they claim have always been Levantine at the base. Or are you referring to something else in the findings?
Elmaestro Member # 22566
posted
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Eventually we'll probably play pretend attributing up to 12kya of backmigration to Yemeni groups for the next 5-10 years now that it's blazingly obvious that the true Levantine components highlighted in Copts and Egyptians are recent.
I did see this line in the paper:
quote:Our admixture date for the Copts (with Eurasians) was inferred to be 27.5 for the f3 analysis and 25.7 for the R2 and around 22 generations for the Egyptians. Thus this admixture took place around the 14th century.
However, I figured Eurocentrics would write it off as the moment "sub-Saharan slaves" arrived in Egypt to mix with the Egyptians they claim have always been Levantine at the base. Or are you referring to something else in the findings?
'Eurocentrists' will say whatever. The paper states mixture with Eurasians not Africans. The paper also shows that christian Lebanon Samples own the "Levantine" component in ADMIXTURE.
Remember: "Southern Arabia has the highest estimates of Natufian ancestry."
The argument has already been shifted.
BTW, I want to point out that most of this was already discoverable with available DNA, ancient and modern. We always could easily detect the modernity of specific Eurasian inrogression among various populations.
BrandonP Member # 3735
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 'Eurocentrists' will say whatever. The paper states mixture with Eurasians not Africans.
What are they modeling as the opposite side of the admixture from "Eurasians"?
Elmaestro Member # 22566
posted @Brandon
Arabian + SSA (vague mixture of Chadic and Horner) See admixture run
quote:MOSAIC version 1.3.7 was compiled and ran under R version 4.0.0 [34] to perform local admixture inference, admixture dating as well as ancestry deconvolution. To minimize the potential bias of different sample sizes between investigated target populations, and sources the number of individuals investigated for each population was downsampled to ten individuals. The ancestry deconvolution was performed by running MOSAIC, using the specified resources (see Results for specific scenarios), and then looking at the constructed ancestries that MOSAIC infers from the provided sources. The constructed ancestry in MOSAIC was then compared to the source populations and Fst was used to evaluate which one of the source ancestries it most closely resembled. If one of the ancestries shows the most genetic similarity to a Eurasian source then the analysis continued for that ancestry. Thus only samples/targets that mosaic found could be explained by at least one Eurasian ancestry source was ancestry de-convoluted. Segments of each individual’s genome that were assigned to the Eurasian ancestry with a probability of 80% or more by MOSAIC were saved and the remainder of the genome was set as missing. Admixture dating was extracted from MOSAIC’s co-ancestry curves for the Eurasian-like ancestry.
Lebanon Christians and late Iberians best matched their Eurasian.
posted 