Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Posts
    8
    Sex
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Nationality
    American

    United States of America

    Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

    I wanted to promote a little article I typed up near the beginning of this year. It's possible that some information in it is a few months out of date, but I believe the general thesis still holds up. Thoughts from this community?

    (This has been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the Internet, but unfortunately it seems that I cannot post any of the links from the original article into this post for some reason.)

    Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

    It should be common knowledge by now that human beings in their modern form, Homo sapiens, first evolved in Africa. Exactly when we emerged on the scene remains uncertain (recent fossil discoveries suggest it may have happened over 300,000 years ago, a hundred millennia earlier than we originally thought), but whenever it was, most of our species’s history of existence would have played out on the so-called “Dark Continent”. It would have been no earlier than 70,000 years ago — and possibly as soon as 55,000 years ago — when the ancestors of all people outside of Africa would wander out of the continent and colonize the rest of the habitable world.

    This would not have been the first dispersal of hominin apes out of Africa, mind you. Much in the press has been made of the fact that between 1–7% of modern human ancestry outside our ancestral continent comes from the descendants of earlier emigrants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. What may not be so widely publicized, however, is that the famous “Out of Africa” migration between 70–55,000 years ago would not have been the last movement of Homo sapiens from Africa into Eurasia and beyond, either. There is in fact a plethora of compelling evidence that humans from Africa continued to venture out and leave a permanent genetic mark on the ancestry of their Eurasian kin— even the “white” peoples of Europe.

    I don’t mean a light dash, either. Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years.

    As early as 1997, population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza observed in Genes, peoples, and languages that the ancestry of Europeans could be characterized as 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. More recently, Jeffrey D. Wall and colleagues reported in 2013 that East Asian people had a higher proportion of ancestry from Neanderthals than did Europeans. Since Neanderthals are known to have lived in Europe and the Middle East but not East Asia, it seems unlikely that the ancestors of East Asians had any more contact with Neanderthals than those of Europeans. It would, however, make sense if the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans got driven down by admixture with people with little to no such ancestry — namely, people from Africa.

    In 2012, a population genetics blogger with the pseudonym “Ethio Helix” ran the ancestry of almost 3,000 individuals around the world through the program ADMIXTURE, measuring how much of their ancestry was of relatively recent African origin versus how much of it descended from the initial “Out of Africa” migration. His results revealed that between 28–29% of his European subjects’ ancestry was of recent African origin. This held true for European nationalities as different from one another as the Spanish, Italians, French, Slovenians, Lithuanians, and White American citizens from Utah.

    In addition, African genetic haplogroups pop up quite often in some European populations. For example, almost 25% of Greek men carry the originally African Y-chromosomal haplogroup E.

    That such discoveries would surprise most people of European descent is a given. It would certainly be ironic given the infamous history of white supremacists (or white nationalists, or alt-rightists, or whatever euphemism they want to be called these days) decrying “racial miscegenation” and “non-white immigration” as threats to Western civilization. However, even those who don’t subscribe to such ideological racism might still wonder when and how this African ancestry would have entered the European gene pool.

    Most of it probably happened sometime before the first appearance of agriculture in Europe during the Neolithic period (7000–1700 BC).

    Back in 1971, physical anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel wrote in The People of Lerna that the skeletal remains of Neolithic peoples in Greece and Macedonia showed “Negroid” physical traits common to African people, which he speculated had arrived in the region from the Nile Valley of Egypt and Sudan. More recently in 2005, C. Loring Brace claimed that the remains of a prehistoric Middle Eastern people called the Natufians — among the immediate predecessors to the first farmers in the Fertile Crescent and then Europe— showed “unexpected ties” to African populations.

    Such ties between the Natufians and African populations may not be limited to skeletal features. Archaeologists such as Ofer Bar-Yosef and Graeme Barker describe the primitive tools the Natufians used as similar to those of earlier populations along Africa’s northern coast, even speculating that these similarities could attest to African technological influences if not a full-blown migration.

    If the skeletal and archaeological data hinted at recent African admixture in the first farmers of the Fertile Crescent and their European offshoots, later genetic data from remains such as these would confirm it — even if the geneticists haven’t always realized it.

    When analyzing ancient DNA extracted from various prehistoric remains in 2014, Iosif Lazaridis concluded that the first farmers to appear in Europe had 44% of their ancestry derived from a population he called “Basal Eurasian”, characterized by an almost complete absence of the Neanderthal ancestry that all non-African people have inherited today. He would later find in a second study that approximately half of the ancestry in Natufian and early Neolithic Middle Eastern populations came from this “Basal Eurasian” heritage.

    Common sense alone would imply that this so-called “Basal Eurasian” component must actually be African. After all, it is the indigenous peoples of Africa, not anywhere in Eurasia or the rest of the habitable world, who have little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Yet, in a sense, Lazaridis’s label might only be partly wrong. One of the ramifications of the “Out of Africa” theory is that not all African people will be equally related to those outside the continent. Instead, those Africans from whom non-Africans splintered off (i.e. populations in the northeastern region of the continent) would have a greater genetic affinity to those non-Africans than would other Africans. And indeed, genetic research has revealed that native Northeast African ancestry is genetically closer to that of non-Africans than is ancestry from, say, West or Central Africa (the ancestry of aboriginal peoples from southernmost Africa, who speak Khoisan languages, is the furthest removed of all). This means that Northeast Africans really would represent a population basal to non-Africans (hence “Basal Eurasian”).

    It is very likely, then, that the “Basal Eurasian” ancestry identified by Lazaridis and his colleagues actually comes from a native Northeast African population that stayed home on the continent for tens of millennia before moving into the Middle East and giving rise to the Natufians between 12,500 and 9500 BC. This African ancestry would have been absorbed and inherited by the Fertile Crescent’s Neolithic populations before they spread into Europe. With them would have arrived farming, animal husbandry, and the majority of the recent African ancestry that all modern Europeans possess.

    This is not to say that Africans did not influence European ancestry after that point in the Neolithic. For example, skeletal remains with African characteristics have been uncovered in Roman-era sites in Britain, such as Leicester and York. We have also found a skull with a mixture of African and European features in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey — it may belong to the famous Cleopatra’s (half?) sister Arsinoe. Given the influence of the Hellenistic and Roman civilizations around the Mediterranean basin in classical antiquity, it is not surprising that native Africans would have entered their population upon being incorporated into their empires.

    For that matter, the Middle East may have also received influential African immigration even long after the time of the Natufians. Genetic data indicates the introgression of African ancestry into populations in Armenia around 3800 BC. It is around this same time period that linguists believe the Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, and ancient Phoenician) would have appeared in the region. Since we know that Semitic is one branch of the larger “Afroasiatic” language phylum which first emerged in Northeast Africa, it seems likely that ancestral Semitic’s development in the Middle East is linked to the contemporaneous influx of additional African ancestry as far north as Armenia. In other words, it would have been yet another wave of Africans who brought the progenitor language of Semitic there.

    And then, of course, there’s the historical incorporation of the Syro-Palestinian coast into two African empires, those of ancient Egypt and its Sudanese neighbor Kush.

    All this history is important not only for its potential use for trolling white supremacists and eugenicists. It also attests to a little-appreciated influence of African people on the cultures of ancient Europe and the Middle East. Too often, Eurocentric accounts of history have regulated Africa and its indigenous peoples to the sidelines of importance, with one of the few exceptions being a de-Africanized misrepresentation of Egypt. The knowledge that Africa was not only the birthplace of all humankind, but also a major influence on the so-called cradles of Western civilization, should be one of many reasons to push it back into the spotlight of history that it deserves.

  2. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    134
    Sex
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA

    Slovakia Poland Romani United States of America
    But that doesn't help against racist trolls...

    What are now Europeans are the people who left Africa... the ones who stayed are now known as African.

    Humans are not gorillas or chimps, or descended from gorillas or chimps, but from the same common ancestor.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Posts
    8
    Sex
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Nationality
    American

    United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by JosephK View Post
    But that doesn't help against racist trolls...

    What are now Europeans are the people who left Africa... the ones who stayed are now known as African.

    Humans are not gorillas or chimps, or descended from gorillas or chimps, but from the same common ancestor.
    I believe you misunderstood what my article is saying. This article says that, in addition to OOA human ancestry (plus introgression from Neanderthals etc.), modern Europeans owe almost 1/3 of their ancestry to additional movements out of Africa after the initial OOA event ~55kya. Which is to say, they and other West Eurasians have more recent African ancestry than other OOA populations (e.g. East Asians, Native Americans, or Australasians).

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Brandon S. Pilcher For This Useful Post:

     JosephK (09-28-2018)

  5. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    134
    Sex
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA

    Slovakia Poland Romani United States of America
    Sure, but saying that such mixing/migrations are "much more recent" isn't the same thing as "Europeans are 1/3 black"... Because "European" has a very specific meaning in its modern context, just as "Black" or Sub-Saharan African does... Generalizing North-East Africa during late prehistory/early history into a larger modern "Black" ideology can be misleading.

    Sorry, I don't mean to seem like I'm arguing against your point, but as an anthropology student in the 1990s it seemed obvious that research was being help back by political arguments and ideology. The American Anthropological Association, in fact, recently stated that they don't believe in "science," because it's dangerous, and would rather be a political organization. Science shouldn't proceed through political ideology.
    Last edited by JosephK; 09-28-2018 at 05:59 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to JosephK For This Useful Post:

     palamede (10-02-2018)

  7. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,834

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    I wanted to promote a little article I typed up near the beginning of this year. It's possible that some information in it is a few months out of date, but I believe the general thesis still holds up. Thoughts from this community?...

    Common sense alone would imply that this so-called “Basal Eurasian” component must actually be African. After all, it is the indigenous peoples of Africa, not anywhere in Eurasia or the rest of the habitable world, who have little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Yet, in a sense, Lazaridis’s label might only be partly wrong. One of the ramifications of the “Out of Africa” theory is that not all African people will be equally related to those outside the continent. Instead, those Africans from whom non-Africans splintered off (i.e. populations in the northeastern region of the continent) would have a greater genetic affinity to those non-Africans than would other Africans. And indeed, genetic research has revealed that native Northeast African ancestry is genetically closer to that of non-Africans than is ancestry from, say, West or Central Africa (the ancestry of aboriginal peoples from southernmost Africa, who speak Khoisan languages, is the furthest removed of all). This means that Northeast Africans really would represent a population basal to non-Africans (hence “Basal Eurasian”)...
    The construct Basal Eurasian by definition is as African as OoA non-Basal is. Basal Eurasian shares significant drift with OoA non-Basal, perhaps as much as 50000 years of drift after separation from SSA.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-10-2018),  Arch Hades (10-10-2018),  Eihwaz (10-10-2018),  Michał (10-11-2018),  Nebuchadnezzar II (09-28-2018),  palamede (10-02-2018),  Ruderico (09-29-2018),  Saetro (10-01-2018)

  9. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    44
    Sex

    Why is the Basal Eurasian African? Why can't it be from the Arabian Peninsula? Bedouins have the highest amount of it. Not to mention it's now found in the Caucasus 26,000 years ago.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-10-2018)

  11. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    838
    Sex
    Location
    Earth
    Ethnicity
    Italian Slavic Jew
    Y-DNA
    E-V12 Egypt/Natufian
    mtDNA
    I5a Levant

    Italy Poland Germany Palatinate Prussia Rheinland Star of David
    The Basal Eurasian is Levantine, not African .
    DNA Tribes

    Balto - North Slavic 22.4%
    Northwest European 18.8%
    Italian Greek 18.1%
    Persian Jewish 9%
    Iberian 6.3%
    Ashkenazi Jewish 5.9%
    Basque 4.3%
    Sephardic Jewish 4.1%
    Balochi Punjab 3.7%
    Caucasus 2.5%
    Urals 1.3%
    Finnish 1.2%
    Lebanese Cypriot 1%
    Other 1.4%

    Sephardic Jewish Turkey 18.8%
    Argyll and Bute Scottish Highlands 18.6%
    Sardinia 18.4%
    Lithuania 15.7%
    Russia Voronezh 7%
    Belgium 5.6%
    Syrian Jewish 4.9%
    Libyan Jewish 4.4%
    Russia Tver 2.4%
    Azerbaijani Jewish 2.2%

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Tz85 For This Useful Post:

     Tolan (10-11-2018)

  13. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    212
    Sex
    Location
    Papantla, Mexico

    Ireland Ireland England England Ireland Munster European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    I wanted to promote a little article I typed up near the beginning of this year. It's possible that some information in it is a few months out of date, but I believe the general thesis still holds up. Thoughts from this community?

    (This has been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the Internet, but unfortunately it seems that I cannot post any of the links from the original article into this post for some reason.)

    Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

    It should be common knowledge by now that human beings in their modern form, Homo sapiens, first evolved in Africa. Exactly when we emerged on the scene remains uncertain (recent fossil discoveries suggest it may have happened over 300,000 years ago, a hundred millennia earlier than we originally thought), but whenever it was, most of our species’s history of existence would have played out on the so-called “Dark Continent”. It would have been no earlier than 70,000 years ago — and possibly as soon as 55,000 years ago — when the ancestors of all people outside of Africa would wander out of the continent and colonize the rest of the habitable world.

    This would not have been the first dispersal of hominin apes out of Africa, mind you. Much in the press has been made of the fact that between 1–7% of modern human ancestry outside our ancestral continent comes from the descendants of earlier emigrants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. What may not be so widely publicized, however, is that the famous “Out of Africa” migration between 70–55,000 years ago would not have been the last movement of Homo sapiens from Africa into Eurasia and beyond, either. There is in fact a plethora of compelling evidence that humans from Africa continued to venture out and leave a permanent genetic mark on the ancestry of their Eurasian kin— even the “white” peoples of Europe.

    I don’t mean a light dash, either. Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years.

    As early as 1997, population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza observed in Genes, peoples, and languages that the ancestry of Europeans could be characterized as 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. More recently, Jeffrey D. Wall and colleagues reported in 2013 that East Asian people had a higher proportion of ancestry from Neanderthals than did Europeans. Since Neanderthals are known to have lived in Europe and the Middle East but not East Asia, it seems unlikely that the ancestors of East Asians had any more contact with Neanderthals than those of Europeans. It would, however, make sense if the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans got driven down by admixture with people with little to no such ancestry — namely, people from Africa.

    In 2012, a population genetics blogger with the pseudonym “Ethio Helix” ran the ancestry of almost 3,000 individuals around the world through the program ADMIXTURE, measuring how much of their ancestry was of relatively recent African origin versus how much of it descended from the initial “Out of Africa” migration. His results revealed that between 28–29% of his European subjects’ ancestry was of recent African origin. This held true for European nationalities as different from one another as the Spanish, Italians, French, Slovenians, Lithuanians, and White American citizens from Utah.

    In addition, African genetic haplogroups pop up quite often in some European populations. For example, almost 25% of Greek men carry the originally African Y-chromosomal haplogroup E.

    That such discoveries would surprise most people of European descent is a given. It would certainly be ironic given the infamous history of white supremacists (or white nationalists, or alt-rightists, or whatever euphemism they want to be called these days) decrying “racial miscegenation” and “non-white immigration” as threats to Western civilization. However, even those who don’t subscribe to such ideological racism might still wonder when and how this African ancestry would have entered the European gene pool.

    Most of it probably happened sometime before the first appearance of agriculture in Europe during the Neolithic period (7000–1700 BC).

    Back in 1971, physical anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel wrote in The People of Lerna that the skeletal remains of Neolithic peoples in Greece and Macedonia showed “Negroid” physical traits common to African people, which he speculated had arrived in the region from the Nile Valley of Egypt and Sudan. More recently in 2005, C. Loring Brace claimed that the remains of a prehistoric Middle Eastern people called the Natufians — among the immediate predecessors to the first farmers in the Fertile Crescent and then Europe— showed “unexpected ties” to African populations.

    Such ties between the Natufians and African populations may not be limited to skeletal features. Archaeologists such as Ofer Bar-Yosef and Graeme Barker describe the primitive tools the Natufians used as similar to those of earlier populations along Africa’s northern coast, even speculating that these similarities could attest to African technological influences if not a full-blown migration.

    If the skeletal and archaeological data hinted at recent African admixture in the first farmers of the Fertile Crescent and their European offshoots, later genetic data from remains such as these would confirm it — even if the geneticists haven’t always realized it.

    When analyzing ancient DNA extracted from various prehistoric remains in 2014, Iosif Lazaridis concluded that the first farmers to appear in Europe had 44% of their ancestry derived from a population he called “Basal Eurasian”, characterized by an almost complete absence of the Neanderthal ancestry that all non-African people have inherited today. He would later find in a second study that approximately half of the ancestry in Natufian and early Neolithic Middle Eastern populations came from this “Basal Eurasian” heritage.

    Common sense alone would imply that this so-called “Basal Eurasian” component must actually be African. After all, it is the indigenous peoples of Africa, not anywhere in Eurasia or the rest of the habitable world, who have little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Yet, in a sense, Lazaridis’s label might only be partly wrong. One of the ramifications of the “Out of Africa” theory is that not all African people will be equally related to those outside the continent. Instead, those Africans from whom non-Africans splintered off (i.e. populations in the northeastern region of the continent) would have a greater genetic affinity to those non-Africans than would other Africans. And indeed, genetic research has revealed that native Northeast African ancestry is genetically closer to that of non-Africans than is ancestry from, say, West or Central Africa (the ancestry of aboriginal peoples from southernmost Africa, who speak Khoisan languages, is the furthest removed of all). This means that Northeast Africans really would represent a population basal to non-Africans (hence “Basal Eurasian”).

    It is very likely, then, that the “Basal Eurasian” ancestry identified by Lazaridis and his colleagues actually comes from a native Northeast African population that stayed home on the continent for tens of millennia before moving into the Middle East and giving rise to the Natufians between 12,500 and 9500 BC. This African ancestry would have been absorbed and inherited by the Fertile Crescent’s Neolithic populations before they spread into Europe. With them would have arrived farming, animal husbandry, and the majority of the recent African ancestry that all modern Europeans possess.

    This is not to say that Africans did not influence European ancestry after that point in the Neolithic. For example, skeletal remains with African characteristics have been uncovered in Roman-era sites in Britain, such as Leicester and York. We have also found a skull with a mixture of African and European features in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey — it may belong to the famous Cleopatra’s (half?) sister Arsinoe. Given the influence of the Hellenistic and Roman civilizations around the Mediterranean basin in classical antiquity, it is not surprising that native Africans would have entered their population upon being incorporated into their empires.

    For that matter, the Middle East may have also received influential African immigration even long after the time of the Natufians. Genetic data indicates the introgression of African ancestry into populations in Armenia around 3800 BC. It is around this same time period that linguists believe the Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, and ancient Phoenician) would have appeared in the region. Since we know that Semitic is one branch of the larger “Afroasiatic” language phylum which first emerged in Northeast Africa, it seems likely that ancestral Semitic’s development in the Middle East is linked to the contemporaneous influx of additional African ancestry as far north as Armenia. In other words, it would have been yet another wave of Africans who brought the progenitor language of Semitic there.

    And then, of course, there’s the historical incorporation of the Syro-Palestinian coast into two African empires, those of ancient Egypt and its Sudanese neighbor Kush.

    All this history is important not only for its potential use for trolling white supremacists and eugenicists. It also attests to a little-appreciated influence of African people on the cultures of ancient Europe and the Middle East. Too often, Eurocentric accounts of history have regulated Africa and its indigenous peoples to the sidelines of importance, with one of the few exceptions being a de-Africanized misrepresentation of Egypt. The knowledge that Africa was not only the birthplace of all humankind, but also a major influence on the so-called cradles of Western civilization, should be one of many reasons to push it back into the spotlight of history that it deserves.
    It seems like you welcome constructive criticism, which is good First of all, don't believe everything you read. What's more, some of it (the first half?) looks like it has been taken from articles written by people who don't understand population genetics. It happens a lot in journalism. The Natufian stuff is good, and the debate rages on about Afro-Asiatic, Semitic etc, but: ''Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years'' makes all the rest look dubious-for many reasons. It even smells a bit of having its own agenda for some of it's wording.

    Firstly, tens of thousands of years of genetic drift outside Africa would mean that what was originally African became something else. If we really want to go back far enough, then we have to call everything African and it becomes a bit silly. The genetic drift and subsequent mutations are a good line in the sand here.

    It's the accrued genetic drift that matters-the changes and adaptations to different climates and environments. Not to mention the breeding with different species such as Neanderthals after OOA. Who knows how much Denisovans influenced the eventual genetic makeup of East Asians, for example? 55,000 years is a long, long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    In addition, African genetic haplogroups pop up quite often in some European populations. For example, almost 25% of Greek men carry the originally African Y-chromosomal haplogroup E.
    Some people in the Sahel (Fulanis) carry the Y-Haplogroup R1b, which is strongly suspected to have arisen in Eurasia. First of all-there are many subclades of R1b, just as there are of E. It's a beginners mistake of thinking that just because it's the same letter, there's no difference. There is a huge difference. And apart from that, there would now be a vanishingly small amount of Eurasian autosomal signature left, after presumably 8000 years. That's what happens-it gets diluted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    It's possible that some information in it is a few months out of date, but I believe the general thesis still holds up
    The thing here is, that the information isn't just a few months out of date...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    In 2012, a population genetics blogger with the pseudonym “Ethio Helix” ran the ancestry of almost 3,000 individuals around the world through the program ADMIXTURE, measuring how much of their ancestry was of relatively recent African origin versus how much of it descended from the initial “Out of Africa” migration. His results revealed that between 28–29% of his European subjects’ ancestry was of recent African origin. This held true for European nationalities as different from one another as the Spanish, Italians, French, Slovenians, Lithuanians, and White American citizens from Utah.
    This needs to be more specific. What is 'recent African origin'? Because in 2018, no scientific paper is proposing 28-29% of European ancestry is of 'recent African origin'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    More recently in 2005, C. Loring Brace claimed that the remains of a prehistoric Middle Eastern people called the Natufians — among the immediate predecessors to the first farmers in the Fertile Crescent and then Europe— showed “unexpected ties” to African populations.
    Well, given that the Near East is on the doorstep of Africa, it isn't really 'unexpected'.There is conflicting information about SSA in Natufian, some have claimed that it can be seen in formal stats/PCA while other data contradict the same thing. The latest genetic data on this matter was from a few weeks ago: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/20/423079

    "Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."


    Again,'recent' African admixture in Early European Farmers as you stated is actually neither recent nor direct. It's by way of the Natufians who lived some 5000 years earlier than EEF. And they weren't transplants from SSA either. To add, the sizeable chunk of Basal Eurasian spent way too much time outside of Africa. Again, we come back to the first sticking point-separate drift. If we could see formal stats and PCAs where not only ancient Europeans, but also Modern Europeans clustering/having affinity with African contemporaries, we would definitely be talking about something real. D-stats will help here for example. But D-stats don't show this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    All this history is important not only for its potential use for trolling white supremacists and eugenicists. It also attests to a little-appreciated influence of African people on the cultures of ancient Europe and the Middle East. Too often, Eurocentric accounts of history have regulated Africa and its indigenous peoples to the sidelines of importance, with one of the few exceptions being a de-Africanized misrepresentation of Egypt. The knowledge that Africa was not only the birthplace of all humankind, but also a major influence on the so-called cradles of Western civilization, should be one of many reasons to push it back into the spotlight of history that it deserves.
    No matter how bigoted some people are, history should never be used as a weapon to 'troll' anyone. That way lies chaos because it invites others to do the same in return. Endless cycle of throwing mud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    ...should be one of many reasons to push it back into the spotlight of history that it deserves.
    Secondly, history is what it is. Nobody, 'deserves' any special place just because of ethnicity...i mean, isn't that in itself prejudice?

    All in all-yes, there is fairly recent African admixture, almost exclusively in Southern Europe and I would say it would max at around 10% in some regions. But there just isn't evidence of almost 'one third' of European ancestry being African. Drift means that what was African turned into other things. And on top of that, those people interbred with other Hominins. I will go with whatever formal stats say. The problem is, it just doesn't say anything like this.
    Last edited by Bas; 10-11-2018 at 01:45 AM.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bas For This Useful Post:

     JosephK (10-11-2018),  Michał (10-11-2018)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,069
    Sex
    Omitted

    I think the two-pronged approach to 'basal' ancestry in West-Eurasia is becoming ever more likely.
    I'm essentially convinced Levant_N are basically Anatolians + ~10.31% of a very divergent lineage...
    With F3 outgroup stats (Row, Ust_Ishim, MbutiDG), non-basal Eurasians have a drift value of about 0.2300, Barcin_N is 0.2202, Levant_N 0.2120, Taforalt, 0.1787, Mota 0.1007.
    This divergent lineage in pure form would be 0.1505 for perspective
    The connections with North Africa leading up to that period present an obvious time and place for that to have come.
    With Dzudzuana however pushing basal ancestry in the Near East back to at least 26,000bp, we need another explanation in addition to some E-M35 carrying Kebarans or what-have-you
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, or f3-outgroup nmonte models. Looking for: KEB-IAM-TOR in plink/eigenstrat 1240k panel

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Eihwaz (10-11-2018),  palamede (10-14-2018)

  17. #10
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    LEVENTINE = LEV =RIW /RW = THE SUN

    The Sun is a symbol of Knowledge ,Wisdom , Intelligence Hence only a LEW /REW/RW /RV / has the knowledge to write the LAW

    ARAB = ALAV / ALEW / EREV / ( meaning the intelligent one from the EAST aka The Wise from the Point of the Raising SUN)

    LEVI= Understand , know , have knowledge, Comprehend R´W (THE SUN) a Archaic symbol of Knowledge shared by all Humans since modern humans have the same source of Origin.

    It is these Reverence of Knowledge symbolized by the Sun that defined humans as species ,the self reverence the I AM , I Know, I CAN I understand and i can explain...

    EREVU or WEREVU https://glosbe.com/sw/en/werevu (INTELIGENCE ) the power to create out of Imagination. KU OTA (the power of Imagination)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 03:52 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2016, 06:28 PM
  3. African admixture in ancient Europeans
    By sciencediver in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 04:34 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2015, 12:51 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-18-2015, 02:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •