|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 2, 2024 22:36:00 GMT -5
The Schuenemann et al. study also shows the Iranian Neolithic to posses some pinkish looking markers. I think that might actually be South Asian in origin. See the full table from that study here.
|
|
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 3, 2024 3:20:47 GMT -5
^ Sorry for the late response but since I was posting in original ES. But now that it's down again... One study I had in mind was the Loosdrecht et al. study showing both Iranian Neolithic and Anatolian Neolithic to possess Hadza ancestry. The Schuenemann et al. study also shows the Iranian Neolithic to posses some pinkish looking markers. There's also the skeletal evidence showing "negroid" traits not to mention the Arab-Indian HbS. You know there's something fishy about these Hadza fok. I've noticed that in multiple studies they always seem to cluster close to Eurasians despite generally an unadmixed pure African group.Does anyone know why this is?
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 3, 2024 12:55:31 GMT -5
You know there's something fishy about these Hadza fok. I've noticed that in multiple studies they always seem to cluster close to Eurasians despite generally an unadmixed pure African group.Does anyone know why this is? It could be they're related to the African population from whom Eurasians sprang. Not all affinity an African population may possess to Eurasians has to be due to admixture.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 4, 2024 10:40:53 GMT -5
^ What's funny is that the Hadza are a hunter-gatherer group that speaks click language (though from a totally different family spoken by Khoisan). They are pretty much an isolate population having some relation to Basal Eurasians.
This reminds me that the Mota hunter-gatherer and Kakapel 900BP show more 'Eurasian' affinities than modern (non-Semitic speaking) Horn populations.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 4, 2024 11:04:20 GMT -5
The Schuenemann et al. study also shows the Iranian Neolithic to posses some pinkish looking markers. I think that might actually be South Asian in origin. See the full table from that study here. You're right. Now that I look back on it the Schuenemann et al. Neolithic Iranian sample does not show the Hadza influence however the Sandawe sample shows the brown Natufian influence despite Sandawe them being hunter-gatherers. I'm more interested in this newly distinguished Naqada marker. That Somalis are lacking in this tells us something.
|
|
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 4, 2024 12:34:14 GMT -5
^ What's funny is that the Hadza are a hunter-gatherer group that speaks click language (though from a totally different family spoken by Khoisan). They are pretty much an isolate population having some relation to Basal Eurasians. This reminds me that the Mota hunter-gatherer and Kakapel 900BP show more 'Eurasian' affinities than modern (non-Semitic speaking) Horn populations. Wait but how can that be when modern Horners are mixed with actual Eurasians at like up to 40% I think that might actually be South Asian in origin. See the full table from that study here. I'm more interested in this newly distinguished Naqada marker. That Somalis are lacking in this tells us something. What do you feel this tells us exactly? (sorry if I'm being intrusive I'm a beginner when it comes to this genetic stuff)
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 5, 2024 0:45:23 GMT -5
Wait but how can that be when modern Horners are mixed with actual Eurasians at like up to 40% Actually that number which comes from an old Tishkoff study says that 40% of Amhara (the politically dominant ethnic group) in Ethiopia is Eurasian ancestry. In Eritrea alone, the Eurasian ancestry reaches about 60% but when Eritrea and Ethiopia are combined the Eurasian ancestry is still around 40-45% Again most though not all of this alleged Eurasian ancestry is concentrated in Habeshas-- Semitic-speaking Ethiopians like Amhara, Tigre, etc. with the highest being found in Eritrea. This supports the hypothesis that Ethio-Semitic languages descend from migrants that entered the region from Eurasia namely south Arabia. However, none of this can explain the alleged 'Eurasian' ancestry found in non-Semitic speaking Ethiopians and not just other Afrasian speakers like Cushitic and Omotic but even hunter-gatherer groups who are more or less isolated and speak isolated click languages like Hadze and Sandawe whose click languages are not even related to each other! The problem is how geneticists define 'Eurasian' markers. The problem is that since Proto-Eurasians originated in Africa there could be issues in trying to differentiate actual Eurasian influence from Eurasia as opposed to older Proto-Eurasian influence. From Lazaridis: ^ According to Lazaridis both 'Main Eurasian' and 'Basal Eurasian' descend from an ancestral population that in turn shares common ancestry with 'Ancestral North African'. Ironically this ancestral population is often termed 'Non-African' which is a contradiction since it arose IN Africa. Here's another chart showing the relation between so-called 'Eurasians' and Mota hunter-gatherers. The same Tishkoff study on Amhara actually showed West African Dogon to be 60% Eurasian despite their overall stereotypical "negroid" look. This is why whenever I read about so-called Eurasian ancestry in an African population I have questions as to its provenance. In regards to Egyptians both the Abusir study and the Nubian Kadruka studies show 'Jordanian Neolithic' (Natufian) ancestry but this recent Predynastic study was successfully able to distinguishes a 'Naqada' from the marker from the Natufian ancestry which is something I've been waiting for. The thing about these autosomal markers is trying to break down or rather separate certain signal from others.
|
|
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 5, 2024 1:14:30 GMT -5
Wait but how can that be when modern Horners are mixed with actual Eurasians at like up to 40% Actually that number which comes from an old Tishkoff study says that 40% of Amhara (the politically dominant ethnic group) in Ethiopia is Eurasian ancestry. In Eritrea alone, the Eurasian ancestry reaches about 60% but when Eritrea and Ethiopia are combined the Eurasian ancestry is still around 40-45% Again most though not all of this alleged Eurasian ancestry is concentrated in Habeshas-- Semitic-speaking Ethiopians like Amhara, Tigre, etc. with the highest being found in Eritrea. This supports the hypothesis that Ethio-Semitic languages descend from migrants that entered the region from Eurasia namely south Arabia. However, none of this can explain the alleged 'Eurasian' ancestry found in non-Semitic speaking Ethiopians and not just other Afrasian speakers like Cushitic and Omotic but even hunter-gatherer groups who are more or less isolated and speak isolated click languages like Hadze and Sandawe whose click languages are not even related to each other! The problem is how geneticists define 'Eurasian' markers. The problem is that since Proto-Eurasians originated in Africa there could be issues in trying to differentiate actual Eurasian influence from Eurasia as opposed to older Proto-Eurasian influence. From Lazaridis: ^ According to Lazaridis both 'Main Eurasian' and 'Basal Eurasian' descend from an ancestral population that in turn shares common ancestry with 'Ancestral North African'. Ironically this ancestral population is often termed 'Non-African' which is a contradiction since it arose IN Africa. Here's another chart showing the relation between so-called 'Eurasians' and Mota hunter-gatherers. The same Tishkoff study on Amhara actually showed West African Dogon to be 60% Eurasian despite their overall stereotypical "negroid" look. This is why I read about so-called Eurasian ancestry in an African population I have questions as to its provenance. In regards to Egyptians both the Abusir study and the Nubian Kadruka studies show 'Jordanian Neolithic' (Natufian) ancestry but this recent Predynastic study was successfully able to distinguishes a 'Naqada' from the marker from the Natufian ancestry which is something I've been waiting for. The thing about these autosomal markers is trying to break down or rather separate certain signal from others. Ok but what proof is there that this isolated "Naqada" marker also isn't Eurasian? Also why do Somalis in particular lack this component? Thank You so much for such a detailed answer btw!
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 5, 2024 3:27:41 GMT -5
^ Again what do YOU mean by "Eurasian" since as I've shown Eurasians originated in Africa. If by Eurasian, you mean from outside of Africa, then NO I think the Naqada marker if proof that they were an indigenous population and as we've discussed earlier in this thread the affinities they have with populations outside of Africa has to do with Basal Eurasian which itself originated in Africa. That Somalis lack this component simply means they are more distantly related to Nile Valley Africans than what was previously believed.
Another thing to point out is the skeletal evidence. If one were to look at the Natufian skeletal remains even the "negroid" looking ones from earlier periods differ from predynastic Egyptians except in later time periods. The poster Swenet from Egyptsearch is more knowledgeable about these sites than me. But this suggests Naqada people would like show more affinities to populations in the Levant who are African derived than Somalis further south.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 5, 2024 20:48:38 GMT -5
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 7, 2024 21:34:29 GMT -5
Some thought for food... Some you remember the 1997 Cavalli-Sforza study showing Europeans to be 'one-third' African and two-thirds Asian. Many including myself initially thought this meant that Europeans on average have one-third African admixture, but the truth is much of this African ancestry could in fact be shared alleles with proto-Eurasians that evolved in Africa before the Out-of-Africa immigrations. This explains why in proximity to Africans after Europeans is Amerindians who are between the latter and East Asians. This was later confirmed by the fact that Amerindians are a mixture between East Eurasians and Ancestral North Eurasians the latter are closer related to Paleolithic European Ancestors and thus also having more affinity to Africans without having recent African admixture. This reminds me of something that Ethiohelix posted 12 years ago, where a similar study with K=2 admixture graph shows Ethiopia to be the reverse of Europe being one-third Asian and two-thirds African. This study was on Ethiopians as a whole and we know that folks like the Ari and hunter-gatherers like the Hadze do NOT have admixture from Eurasians yet again they display Eurasian/Asian signals. But getting back to the topic of this thread, if northeast Africa and specifically Egypt is the very exit point for OOA I'd expect issues in regards to genetic relations between populations of this region and not just Eurasia but Northwest Africa and the Horn. From Wikipedia (2023): Lazaridis et al. (2016) observed that Eurasian populations could be explained as a mixture of four sources of ancestry: Iranian Neolithic, Levantine Neolithic, East European Paleolithic and West European Paleolithic. When Taforalt [Ancient North African Iberomaurusian] people were compared to previously published ancient and modern DNA data, Upper Paleolithic North Africans can be modeled as a mixture of Natufians (Epipaleolithic populations from the Levant) and West Africans, without the contribution of Paleolithic Europe (van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018). This result suggests that Iberomaurusian populations in North Africa were related to Paleolithic people in the Levant, but also that migrations of sub-Saharan African origin reached the Maghreb during the Pleistocene. However, a preprint from Lazaridis et al. (2018) has contested this conclusion based on new evidence from Paleolithic samples from the Dzudzuana site in Georgia (25,000 years BCE). When these samples are considered in the analysis, Taforalt can be better modeled as a mixture of a Dzudzuana component and a sub-Saharan African component. They also argue that it is the Taforalt people who contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians (c.20%) and not the other way around. More evidence will be needed to determine the specific origin of the North African Upper Paleolithic populations, but the presence of an ancestral U6 lineage in the Dzudzuana people is consistent with this population being related to the back migration to Africa." Proto-language homeland regions are based on the linguistic concensus (Ehret 2004, Güldemann 2018, Gragg 2019). Afroasiatic spreaded with an ancestry on the "Ancient North African-Natufian" cline, and is generally described as "Natufian-like" in the literature; eg. largely (West-) Eurasian derived.Remember, Ancestral North African according to Lazaridis is sister to Proto-Eurasian or 'Non-African'. But if this recent study is able to discern a Naqada signal separate from Natufian, then I think this holds many implications.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 8, 2024 23:25:30 GMT -5
Since folks are inquiring about genetic affinities with Horn populations, that reminds me why the only Horn sample used in the set was that of Somalis. Does this have to do with the old 90s Brace craniometric study showing Somalis to closely resemble Naqada? I don't see why this is the case considering that many more studies have pretty much dismissed the idea of close relations to Somalis anymore than the same Brace study showed close relations between Somalis and Germans. Hanihara's dental metric study shows Somalis to have crown sizes that are not microdont like North Africans (Egyptians) but intermediate between the former and mesodonts. What's more is that nonmetric data which is more reliable for genetic affinities shows that Ethiopians not Somalis show much closer relation to Nile Valley North Africans. Irish has shown that in his Jebel Moya study that Ethiopians in dental nonmetrics are closest to A-Group Nubians. Another study by Haddow shows his Ethiopian sample to align with Upper Egyptians, though he excludes A-Group Nubians. And here is a cranial metric study from Mukherji showing similar results. The Tigrean sample in particular clusters closest to D-Group Nubians followed by other Nile Valley groups. So I think Revoiye, Elmaestro or whoever should include an Ethiopian sample and we'll see if they possess or lack the Naqada marker.
|
|
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 9, 2024 1:34:20 GMT -5
Since folks are inquiring about genetic affinities with Horn populations, that reminds me why the only Horn sample used in the set was that of Somalis. Does this have to do with the old 90s Brace craniometric study showing Somalis to closely resemble Naqada? I don't see why this is the case considering that many more studies have pretty much dismissed the idea of close relations to Somalis anymore than the same Brace study showed close relations between Somalis and Germans. Hanihara's dental metric study shows Somalis to have crown sizes that are not microdont like North Africans (Egyptians) but intermediate between the former and mesodonts. What's more is that nonmetric data which is more reliable for genetic affinities shows that Ethiopians not Somalis show much closer relation to Nile Valley North Africans. Irish has shown that in his Jebel Moya study that Ethiopians in dental nonmetrics are closest to A-Group Nubians. Another study by Haddow shows his Ethiopian sample to align with Upper Egyptians, though he excludes A-Group Nubians. And here is a cranial nonmetric study from Mukherji showing the same results as Irish's dental study. So I think Revoiye, Astenb or whoever should include an Ethiopian sample and we'll see if they possess or lack the Naqada marker. I swear to god you're a mind reader Djehuti. I was literally talking about this with my mother ironically (who's into population history) We were talking about how we felt Somalis were a poor representation of Ancient Egyptians because of their overly "Caucasoid" phenotype. And you're right almost every study that I've personally read always have Nubians and Ethiopians being close to Ancient Egyptians NOT Somalis (except for Brace) I always knew that Somalis wouldn't resemble most Ancient Egyptians due to their overly Caucasoid look. I've noticed Ethiopians despite often being fairer than Somalis tend to have stronger "Negroid" features compared to them same thing with Nubians.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 9, 2024 12:43:30 GMT -5
^ You misunderstand. It's not about facial features like "caucasoid" or "negroid". Brace is correct that metrically Naqada and Somalis do resemble each other closely in features, but the problem is so do Germans. So it's not about features. Just because a population has the same facial features as another does not mean they are necessarily closely related. It is non-metric traits that are the ones that show a direct genetic relation. These are traits that are not measurable like bumps and suture patterns of the skull or shape and markings of the teeth. The point is that Ethiopians (and I have to go back and find out which ones make up the sample) show a closer relation to Nile Valley North Africans firstly A-Group Nubians, followed by Upper Egyptians like Badarians and Naqadans.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 9, 2024 13:17:23 GMT -5
^ You misunderstand. It's not about facial features like "caucasoid" or "negroid". Brace is correct that metrically Naqada and Somalis do resemble each other closely in features, but the problem is so do Germans. So it's not about features. Just because a population has the same facial features as another does not mean they are necessarily closely related. It is non-metric traits that are the ones that show a direct genetic relation. These are traits that are not measurable like bumps and suture patterns of the skull or shape and markings of the teeth. The point is that Ethiopians (and I have to go back and find out which ones make up the sample) show a closer relation to Nile Valley North Africans firstly A-Group Nubians, followed by Upper Egyptians like Badarians and Naqadans. I wonder why Ethiopians would be closer in genetic affinity to Nile Valley populations than Somalis?
|
|