The Full study of the ancient 4000 year old Kadruka specimen, genome wide data.
4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists
- Thread starter Abdirazaq
- Start date
The alchemist
VIP
Oh, actually confirms my idea of rapid migration (not gradual) and a theory of extra diversity remnant from pre-historic Nile Valley which we associate with Mota-like ancestry.
From study:
The high affinity of the Kerma period individual from Kadruka 1 with Neolithic pastoral groups far to the south, and genetic indistinguishability of their sequenced DNA, would be consistent with this sample representing a possible genetic source population for the earliest eastern African pastoralists who settled in the Rift Valley. This in turn would point to a high degree of mobility of pastoralists between the Middle Nile Valley and present-day Kenya, potentially before or around the Pastoral Neolithic. It would imply that the southward dispersal of pastoralists from the Middle Nile Valley did not involve genetic exchange with pre-existing human groups along the migration route, particularly local foragers, and may therefore have been relatively rapid.
Some text from me:
Natufian-like peoples, the Epipaleolithic Nile Valley groups of the mainly Eurasian persuasion were not completely Natufian+Iberomaurusian-like, the area might have housed some that were slightly shifted toward Ancestral East African DNA that came from the same/similar stock as the rest of the Nilotic-like Somalis carry. Furthermore, our Mota-like DNA might not come from the Horn of Africa. Just think about it, we’re assuming we understand the genetic diversity of the peoples of the Nile Valley by our current demographic outlook. However, it is very possible that pockets of small fragmentary populations of Mota-like peoples lived in Sudan and even Egypt. Hunter-gatherers had a very wide-ranged network of migratory connections with their movement stretching long distances; those peoples had very high concept of geographic sophistication (for example, Somali Stone Age lithic industries sourced their stuff from the Ethiopian hinterland). To illustrate this in an African context, you can see how much Mota-like DNA influenced all types of hunter-gatherers all the way to central and southern Africa. In another respect, we also know for a fact that Natufian samples are proven to carry minor Mota-like DNA. So, now we already have evidence that some hunter-gather DNA similar to the Ethiopian-forager existed very far north. Furthermore, it’s not crazy to say that, Mota and its genetic cluster of extinct closely-related populations had its geographic existence further north, given that it has this strange OOA-like ANA reading at ~30%. And it seems that me, and something I have told Apollo in the past, that our Mota might be ANA enriched. ANA, in this case, is just a loose label, basket case, for every strange reading of intermediate, fluctuating the space between African deep drift and Eurasian-ish – paleo shit.
Chad Rohlfesns’ model showcased to us that the Early Kenyan Pastoral Neolithic samples did not need Mota whatsoever. At first, this seemed strange to me because clearly, they had tremendous DNA from what we assumed matched Mota and its broader southward shifting East African hunter-gathering clusters. But there can be a possibility that much of that stuff already was in their genes, to begin with. I remember the study of those samples claiming that they hypothesized they might have mixed on arrival, and then did not come into contact with the foragers genetically in any capacity the many thousand years later. What’s strange is, that the two samples from Prettejohn’s Gully, that I assume to be the Early Kenyan Pastoralist, are considered as outliers with their earlier data and increased MENA ancestry, totally rejecting the three-way modeling including even Pastoral Neolithic samples, and this is indeed maybe a strong indication that the Mota type ancestry they carried were not from the Horn proper. Because Mota was part of the modeling and it was rejected.. Now, I don’t know much about the technical aspects of it, or the particular fine-tailed methodology that govern the statistical computation, but to me, when these things get rejected it is because there are apparent incompatibilities to some respect that can be interpreted in various ways. And in this way, it seems that the DNA assumed to be absorbed in the Horn, was possibly not even from there. And it really goes back to why Chad Rohlfens’ admixture model, illustrated clearly, with Mota included, never showed a direct connection between the Ethiopian hunter-gatherer and the Early Kenyan Pastoralist. This basically means it is not derived and not needed to be fractionary. Those models don’t take unnecessary steps, so it seems the genetics was self-contained enough. Again, I think it strongly points out that there was some other diversity in Northeast Africa we have to be aware of. Our assumptions might have been too limiting when literally a Levantine hunter-gatherer all this time showed signature of similar ancestry from 13 thousand years ago.
--
Another note I took. I just dump it here for convenience if someone is interested in a short read:
There might be a further cline that went into Sudan, most definitely. Another perspective is parts of Mota existed in Northeast Africa, in the Nile Valley very early in the stone ages. Looking at it from that point of view, having a few components represented by various populations, exchanging genetics differentially might seem like a fully Mota-like, while in actuality it might be a mix of one very Northern cline placement of a paleolithic hunter-gatherer lineage, while also a mixture of something later that looked totally like Mota with a few northern adjustments. If you look at Cushites, and Somalis specifically as an example, you can have Mota as a source sample to represent something extra with a dominant South Sudanese element, but if you remove the Mota, the fit doesn’t get very worse. We can deduce that whatever lends percentages to Mota proxy is an approximation that is already extremely similar to a chunk, or substructure within the broader real Ancestral East African from Nile Valley, which the extant South Sudanese mostly lack in direct signal form through various demographic changes and population drift. In that sense, including this knowledge that there is overlapping ancestry of similar frequency wavelengths, the Mota-like ancestry, which to this point by most has been interpreted as an in-situ indigenous Ethiopian branch that shared a similar cline with paleolithic hunter-gatherers of Southeastern Africa and thus anchored it as a demic admixture reference, was perhaps not justified enough to be thought of as a source of derivative for everything of such part-signature interpretive caliber.
I have for a long time said that Somalis lack true Mota ancestry that is represented by various populations in various proportions in Ethiopia, especially in the southern parts. I might have said that whatever the Somalis have was definitely not Mota proper as a tight DNA cluster, but might have sourced it from another place, and I somewhat indicated an emphasis that it might have been from the now long gone hunter-gatherers that existed in the broader Somali region, such as those found in Buur-Heybe. That certainly was an attractive alternative, a convenient take almost 4 years ago. But that does not need to be the case for the reasons I put above, meaning that all of that type of ancestry might have come from pre-Horn of Africa migration for Somalis (direct ancestors). And I will go as far as say, Kenyan Early Pastoralists, had their Mota-like ancestry overstated tremendously. Much of their Mota-like ancestry – in fact – the far majority might be not from post-migration admixture. I think the later Pastoral Neoltihics (all the cultures that form a genetic cluster), might have gotten additional Mota ancestry in minor form only. You can see that the earlier samples, although assumed by the authors that sequenced them to have been a post-migration admixture event, tried to model those people similar to what worked for the later PNs, and it was actually rejected.
--
By the way I wrote these paragraphs many months ago quickly, I was just too lazy to post and forgot about it kind of, since I have been pre-occupied with other matters. It's patchy and shit and can't be bothered to fix this text -- I'm sure some of it might overlap and even seem redundant at times (from different angles, kind of), but it was from different context, mind you.
From study:
The high affinity of the Kerma period individual from Kadruka 1 with Neolithic pastoral groups far to the south, and genetic indistinguishability of their sequenced DNA, would be consistent with this sample representing a possible genetic source population for the earliest eastern African pastoralists who settled in the Rift Valley. This in turn would point to a high degree of mobility of pastoralists between the Middle Nile Valley and present-day Kenya, potentially before or around the Pastoral Neolithic. It would imply that the southward dispersal of pastoralists from the Middle Nile Valley did not involve genetic exchange with pre-existing human groups along the migration route, particularly local foragers, and may therefore have been relatively rapid.
Some text from me:
Natufian-like peoples, the Epipaleolithic Nile Valley groups of the mainly Eurasian persuasion were not completely Natufian+Iberomaurusian-like, the area might have housed some that were slightly shifted toward Ancestral East African DNA that came from the same/similar stock as the rest of the Nilotic-like Somalis carry. Furthermore, our Mota-like DNA might not come from the Horn of Africa. Just think about it, we’re assuming we understand the genetic diversity of the peoples of the Nile Valley by our current demographic outlook. However, it is very possible that pockets of small fragmentary populations of Mota-like peoples lived in Sudan and even Egypt. Hunter-gatherers had a very wide-ranged network of migratory connections with their movement stretching long distances; those peoples had very high concept of geographic sophistication (for example, Somali Stone Age lithic industries sourced their stuff from the Ethiopian hinterland). To illustrate this in an African context, you can see how much Mota-like DNA influenced all types of hunter-gatherers all the way to central and southern Africa. In another respect, we also know for a fact that Natufian samples are proven to carry minor Mota-like DNA. So, now we already have evidence that some hunter-gather DNA similar to the Ethiopian-forager existed very far north. Furthermore, it’s not crazy to say that, Mota and its genetic cluster of extinct closely-related populations had its geographic existence further north, given that it has this strange OOA-like ANA reading at ~30%. And it seems that me, and something I have told Apollo in the past, that our Mota might be ANA enriched. ANA, in this case, is just a loose label, basket case, for every strange reading of intermediate, fluctuating the space between African deep drift and Eurasian-ish – paleo shit.
Chad Rohlfesns’ model showcased to us that the Early Kenyan Pastoral Neolithic samples did not need Mota whatsoever. At first, this seemed strange to me because clearly, they had tremendous DNA from what we assumed matched Mota and its broader southward shifting East African hunter-gathering clusters. But there can be a possibility that much of that stuff already was in their genes, to begin with. I remember the study of those samples claiming that they hypothesized they might have mixed on arrival, and then did not come into contact with the foragers genetically in any capacity the many thousand years later. What’s strange is, that the two samples from Prettejohn’s Gully, that I assume to be the Early Kenyan Pastoralist, are considered as outliers with their earlier data and increased MENA ancestry, totally rejecting the three-way modeling including even Pastoral Neolithic samples, and this is indeed maybe a strong indication that the Mota type ancestry they carried were not from the Horn proper. Because Mota was part of the modeling and it was rejected.. Now, I don’t know much about the technical aspects of it, or the particular fine-tailed methodology that govern the statistical computation, but to me, when these things get rejected it is because there are apparent incompatibilities to some respect that can be interpreted in various ways. And in this way, it seems that the DNA assumed to be absorbed in the Horn, was possibly not even from there. And it really goes back to why Chad Rohlfens’ admixture model, illustrated clearly, with Mota included, never showed a direct connection between the Ethiopian hunter-gatherer and the Early Kenyan Pastoralist. This basically means it is not derived and not needed to be fractionary. Those models don’t take unnecessary steps, so it seems the genetics was self-contained enough. Again, I think it strongly points out that there was some other diversity in Northeast Africa we have to be aware of. Our assumptions might have been too limiting when literally a Levantine hunter-gatherer all this time showed signature of similar ancestry from 13 thousand years ago.
--
Another note I took. I just dump it here for convenience if someone is interested in a short read:
There might be a further cline that went into Sudan, most definitely. Another perspective is parts of Mota existed in Northeast Africa, in the Nile Valley very early in the stone ages. Looking at it from that point of view, having a few components represented by various populations, exchanging genetics differentially might seem like a fully Mota-like, while in actuality it might be a mix of one very Northern cline placement of a paleolithic hunter-gatherer lineage, while also a mixture of something later that looked totally like Mota with a few northern adjustments. If you look at Cushites, and Somalis specifically as an example, you can have Mota as a source sample to represent something extra with a dominant South Sudanese element, but if you remove the Mota, the fit doesn’t get very worse. We can deduce that whatever lends percentages to Mota proxy is an approximation that is already extremely similar to a chunk, or substructure within the broader real Ancestral East African from Nile Valley, which the extant South Sudanese mostly lack in direct signal form through various demographic changes and population drift. In that sense, including this knowledge that there is overlapping ancestry of similar frequency wavelengths, the Mota-like ancestry, which to this point by most has been interpreted as an in-situ indigenous Ethiopian branch that shared a similar cline with paleolithic hunter-gatherers of Southeastern Africa and thus anchored it as a demic admixture reference, was perhaps not justified enough to be thought of as a source of derivative for everything of such part-signature interpretive caliber.
I have for a long time said that Somalis lack true Mota ancestry that is represented by various populations in various proportions in Ethiopia, especially in the southern parts. I might have said that whatever the Somalis have was definitely not Mota proper as a tight DNA cluster, but might have sourced it from another place, and I somewhat indicated an emphasis that it might have been from the now long gone hunter-gatherers that existed in the broader Somali region, such as those found in Buur-Heybe. That certainly was an attractive alternative, a convenient take almost 4 years ago. But that does not need to be the case for the reasons I put above, meaning that all of that type of ancestry might have come from pre-Horn of Africa migration for Somalis (direct ancestors). And I will go as far as say, Kenyan Early Pastoralists, had their Mota-like ancestry overstated tremendously. Much of their Mota-like ancestry – in fact – the far majority might be not from post-migration admixture. I think the later Pastoral Neoltihics (all the cultures that form a genetic cluster), might have gotten additional Mota ancestry in minor form only. You can see that the earlier samples, although assumed by the authors that sequenced them to have been a post-migration admixture event, tried to model those people similar to what worked for the later PNs, and it was actually rejected.
--
By the way I wrote these paragraphs many months ago quickly, I was just too lazy to post and forgot about it kind of, since I have been pre-occupied with other matters. It's patchy and shit and can't be bothered to fix this text -- I'm sure some of it might overlap and even seem redundant at times (from different angles, kind of), but it was from different context, mind you.
What do you make of the proto-Mota coordinates that having been floating around somewhat recently. They produce far more accurate results than just Dinka does for Horn African runs. Compare below (Ancient Levantine = PPNB + Natufian, just for less of a clutterf***):
If you pay closer attention to the run, you also see that the SNP, without proto-Mota, have their Mota balloon where Somalis have Dinka increase 5-fold. Sounds like a decent candidate for the AEA-like you refer to that likely was present in Awoowe Natufian however many thousands of years ago. But it gets better...
Turns out that proto-Mota also serves as a proxy for proto-Nilotic - Nilotic without the crypto West African, that is. See here:
Crypto-WA is not best modelled as Bantu, admixture event is likely very, very ancient (AHP likely). I figure that the crypto-WA is proto-Kordofanian/AHP offshoot of NC (pre-A-B split) that migrated east into proto-Mota territory rather than Sudanics having migrated from any further west than Chad and Darfur. Mostly due to lack of Sudanic genetic input in NC-A-B speakers.
Now, for when proto-Cushitics got our proto-Mota/proto-Nilotic, it would likely have been 1; we get the pulse of true Dinka at 5 while SPN get their true Mota at 6. This is ofc, if we are to take the G25 results at face value. I'm all ears (eyes?), what do you reckon?
Garaad diinle
So what your say is that Mota had a larger geographic spread than we previously thought and that it might have intermix with many more population supplementing their dna indirectly to some cushuites. That being said i remember reading that Iberomaurusian can also be modeld for having a hazda like ancetry. Does this mean that not only Mota but also hazda had a larger geographic spread. Both the kerma culture and south cushites were agro-pastoralist interesting.
From what you wrote it wouldn't be farfetched to assume that somalis had also a rapid spread
from north sudan without intermixing with population along the way other than the native
hunter gatherers of the horn.
Assuming that somalis got all their ancestry including the hunter gatherer of the horn in north sudan it would be possible granted we find an extractable sampel that their is a person that is geneticly speaking near identical to somalis.
Last edited:
Garaad diinle
The study said that they were indistinguishable from the sample they found in kerma and
that it rapidly spread without intermixing with any other population. Does this mean that
the kerma culture didn't speak a beja like language rather they spoke a south cushitic
language. How many cushitic languages were spoken in ancient sudan and when did they split.
If they spoke a beja like language why are south cuhites often times suggested to belong to
the lowland east cuhitic rather than north or central cushitic. Did they language shift when they
came across a lowland east cushitic language that spread into kenya and tanzania.
Are south cushitic theoretically the best model we have of the cushites that lived in north sudan since their spread was rapid. The fact that the south cushities where speaking a cushitic language means that kerma culture 4000 years ago didn't language shift into nilotic yet. What triggered the rapid spread was it perhaps the end of the green sahara period.
that it rapidly spread without intermixing with any other population. Does this mean that
the kerma culture didn't speak a beja like language rather they spoke a south cushitic
language. How many cushitic languages were spoken in ancient sudan and when did they split.
If they spoke a beja like language why are south cuhites often times suggested to belong to
the lowland east cuhitic rather than north or central cushitic. Did they language shift when they
came across a lowland east cushitic language that spread into kenya and tanzania.
Are south cushitic theoretically the best model we have of the cushites that lived in north sudan since their spread was rapid. The fact that the south cushities where speaking a cushitic language means that kerma culture 4000 years ago didn't language shift into nilotic yet. What triggered the rapid spread was it perhaps the end of the green sahara period.
Interesting. When and where is the question. Where would this proto-ELC sample be? What culture would it likely be associated with? Gash? Jebel Mokram?
Garaad diinle
I don't know this is just a thought experiments to prove or disprove this
It might very well not be the case. Though it would be interesting if it were true. I'm not very familiar with neolithic sudan and it's culture. If we're talking about time it would be ideal to say between 5000-4000 years bp not to far back. Before the proliferation of various nilotic group i'd guess.
Last edited:
The alchemist
VIP
The simulated proto-Mota coordinate, as I recall, was a Mota extraction that removed the Southern African forager-related (and other Central African HG) DNA and the Eurasian (I'm unsure what this means -- did they remove the putative OOA artifact with a presumably later NA admixture?), not West African-like ancestry. What does this mean? Well, might we assume that differentiation was the CA/SA HG, that somehow took monopoly of ~30% signature West African ancesty. And when they removed the Southward forager clines, the majority of WA ancestry in Nilo-Saharan completely convert affinity with Ancestral East African ancestry. In the text above, in my own convoluted way, I sort of explain how the true pivot between Ancestral East Africa and Mota-like ancestry was very cline like on majority basis, kind of like how you illustrated on G25. In fact I think Ancestral East Africa was Mota-like in some respect (maybe the tail end substantial portion) on models but that only reflects, not necessarily a direct influence from Mota, because of lack of shared ancient differentiated substructure (shown in the divergence rate (fit) between the real Mota sample and the simulated one, both relative to Sudanese7), and that You can see how Somalis that eat up a bit of Mota, including myself, changes the fit almost to no meaningful extent when you remove it. This means two things, the Ancestral East Africa had likely a converging variable, a cofounder of Mota structure that is of similar source (in the very simple model way, I have no idea how the true picture played out) instead of Mota ancestry proper needed for explanatory scope.
If this is not the case, maybe the guy wrote it wrong or I had a wrong interpretation of it. I found it strange he did not mention any removal of WA signal on the coord, so I went and just theorized from that.
Man, sometimes Mota can eat up shit tons of SSA ancestry on inconsistent basis, which tells you have much it overlaps with Ancestral East African to a large extent. The proto-Mota simulation was a good hypothetical to measure up against.
The Kordofanian linguistic aspect, I have no knowledge about, to be honest. I know the Sahelian belt was good potential facilitating ground during the humid period, mentioned in the L2a haplogroup paper. I think it mentioned that the area became a corridor for migration after the Late Glacial Maximum (of course, before as well) – and who knows, maybe that migration (not saying the Kordofanian linguistic phenomenon is from that early point, of course, only that it can be descendants of the variegated ranged of migrational movements/or at least, it set an explanatory precedent that the various humid periods set conducive conditions to motivate people for demographic expansional waves).
Yeah, I think I get it. Thanks, very informative.
The alchemist
VIP
Likely a Paleolithic thing, sxb. I think there were, as shown in the material culture through lithic industry and occupational cultural signifiers in different archeological recongitions, that the Nile Valley had an interesting past before the time-frame we often focus on that is from the 11000 year mark and in to the Neolithic. Although I think there was a chance some clustural cline of various related Africans lived on the Nile Valley before some type of reduction of diversity, and that some of that ancestry survived that bottleneck, likely what you have is a pre-Cushitic signature that was not a later additive, post Cushitic split (either way, conceptually/model based, it was within our SSA diversity, to some extent. A later model of gene flow, although perhaps possible, is likely not needed). Before that, shit was pretty interesting, and it might hold fascinating new information for us. Read this paper:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.607183/full
^This a nice very nice article you should not miss.
Oh and yeah, if this is the case, then Somalis are even more pristine than we even currently assume. If we are fortunate, we might find genetic data of diversity that explains a lot of our DNA. We require human remains for it, though. We are not wholly reliant on it, since other indirect, and/or related ancestry will fill the picture as we have methodologically moved so far. I think sequencing the C-Group and Pan-Grave horizons will yield proximate results.
Read this as well:
Nubian identity in the Bronze Age Patterns of cultural and biological variation
Nubian identity in the Bronze Age Patterns of cultural and biological variation
www.academia.edu
Last edited:
The alchemist
VIP
I think the dude need genotype information and convert that through his system. I know Max Planck Insitute were the ones who did this research and I think they have a history provide the information, so we might likely receive the sample in coordination form soon.
Yeah, the data is available and has been since June is the problem. The initial ENA archive post had the files ready to download so I thought that if it were possible, it would have been done by now. We don't even have uniparentals so who's to say G25 conversion will work? I don't know how this works at all lol
The alchemist
VIP
I tought the data infrastructure only was given out post official publishment. Providing the information in full, letting random people (including people within the discipline in similar pursuits) read the data itself and mapping out sort of takes away from the novelty of the researcher's right to be the ones that get the first mover credit for those set parameter objectives. The data itself is not an issue, as expressed in the paper:
We find the standard errors of Sudan_Kadruka1_4000BP to be relatively small compared to overall genetic variation within Africa, which gives us confidence that the location calculated from the full data (Fig. 2a) is robust.
And I think we have worked with samples that yielded way worse SNP levels. There have been issues in the past regarding the specific tools used by the researchers that were not directly convertible to the Davidski processing methods. But like those modern Sudanese samples, that too can now be circumvented, as demonstrated by the technically apt Anthrogenica folks.
It's too bad we couldn't capture the neolithic samples or uniparentals. But beggars can't be choosers, right? Lol
I thought the same but under data availability it just refers you back to the ENA project page that is without an update since June.
Beyond that, there’s the Revoiye article that aimed to use the available files along with some people using Y-STR predictors for some R1a subclade. Clearly whatever was available from June was useful to some capacity.
Thanks for clearing up the validity of the sample, though. I’ll be asking around to see if it will be possible. If not, I think I have an idea of how to get K36 simulated coords.
The alchemist
VIP
I think the guy's calculations were off by a fair margin that leads me to question his methodology pathway, and if it reflects another form of data processing, which it likely was, differing from the Davidski one. If you check the PCA on this article and what the guy calculated to be the proxy ancient Levantine levels, it's not concordant. Observe his PCA, it's too sub-Saharan African shifted. It's nowhere near the KEN_MoloCave_1500BP in actuality.
This is more of what you need for this type of endeavor: https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen...le-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data
Yeah, I knew it was off from my first read. The weird proxies, the weird proportions of LSA in known SPN samples… yeah, it was fishy from the jump.
There was also someone else who tried to convert the BAM files into G25 coordinates and yeah… let’s just say the Theophilephiles had fun with it lol (turned out 50% West African 50% modern Turkish; obviously something went awfully wrong in the process of conversion).
Yeah, that’s ideal but Reich Labs didn’t work on this one… which idk I feel is kinda a good thing considering how long we’ve been waiting for the Danubian Limes dataset. That 105CE, E-V32, L2a1j Nubian everyone just forgot about lol.
Damn I missed this thread.
@The alchemist Is this sample representative of the Kerma culture? How about A-Group culture Near Qustul or Aswan? What can this tell us about them?
Additionally, could Halfans be an IBM-like people but with their ANA being Mota?
Someone should fetch Tariq Moses.
@The alchemist Is this sample representative of the Kerma culture? How about A-Group culture Near Qustul or Aswan? What can this tell us about them?
Additionally, could Halfans be an IBM-like people but with their ANA being Mota?
Someone should fetch Tariq Moses.
The alchemist
VIP
Turkish and West African, what a great pair of proxies.
Yeah, true. I just wanted to point toward the dataset-files types. The Roman Serbian papers should be around the corner. It's a time for them to publish, giving us blue balls for no reason. I'm greatly looking forward to seeing that Nubian legionary stationed at Viminacium.
I wonder if he had elevated Cushitic ancestry, Egyptian with slight increase of IBM type of DNA. I remember they autosomally designated the sample with a special color of MENA origin, yet different from the West Asian portion, as an additional thing. Rather than a computational coloring mistake, I think it can be a real Taforalt-like substructure? I think gray might represent IBM, since purple is Anatolian Neolithic:
It can also be another stabilized Northeast African DNA distinct from Anatolian Neolithic that carries a portion of IBM within it as a signature, since Anatolian DNA might not account for all the MENA, if their calculators were a bit more sensitive.
From supplementary:
Only one 1-way model worked for this individual (P-value = 0.134), having ancestry related to 8th-9th century individuals from Northern Sudan (Sudan_EarlyChristian) (Sirak et al., in review). This model points to a clear Northeastern African origin of this individual, consistent with the historically and archaeologically well-documented interactions between the Early Roman Empire (Table ST1) with its African territories and foreign kingdoms such as Nubia or Meroe 63
The alchemist
VIP
We can strongly infer it represents a portion, in the extreme conservative estimates. We don't have the data to say that they were all similar to this guy. But this guy, and Cushitic like peoples C-group and Pan-Grave were people living in that area. Although they tried to distinguish themselves, it seems the Kerma people had the same cultural origins as the C-group people. You can see it in their material traditional expressions and burial practices which later over time changed. Furthermore there is connections between the C-Group and Kerma people to the A-Group people. The A-Group were not ancient Egyptians, by the way. Cultural connections are established through archeology and its discipline interpretation. There is some morphological metrics that show A-Group was more genetically close to Kerma than C-Group. I don't know how reliable that is, though. Read the content on this link address.
I can't strongly state things on the Halfan culture. A wild guess is, majority Nile Valley genes of the Northern East African type of the time (distant ancestors of Ancestral East Africans and the genetic diversity of the time (includes Mota-like, minus southern forager shiftedness), with substantial ANA. With some deep Dzudzuana genetic ancestral source present. It's hard to speculate on this. I just know ANA will be present, and a lot of Paleolithic northern East African stuff. I think dead-end differentiated people (that interacted with each-other when the environment was not too arid (at times people likely lived in refugia lakes and could not walk freely in the dry desert)) of a completely different gene flow history existed in Northeast Africa, because we know non-Africans had a very early back-migrations. Interestingly, even if much genetic diversity did not pass on, majority of East African ancestry, no matter where on the PCA, are deeply related to the people in the Halfan times and prior. From one point of view, Afro-Asiatic language family is the surviving baby of a long-gone age. I believe the original proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers carried something with substantial ANA.
Trending
-
-
-
Guy that mocked somali girls infront of my face has been arrested- Started by pinkyandthebrain
- Replies: 68
