GENETICS Later Stone Age human hair from Vaalkrans Shelter, Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, reveals genetic affinity to Khoe groups

Apollo

Staff Member
@Adeba

Yep, also see this study and thread:



 

Apollo

Staff Member
Somalis maxed out in the Cushitic cluster, lol.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

The modern Nama also not having Bantu admixture is shocking. Maybe it is only that specific Nama community they sampled:

 
@Adeba

Yep, also see this study and thread:



Thanks for the link and your useful contribution 👍
 
Somalis maxed out in the Cushitic cluster, lol.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

The modern Nama also not having Bantu admixture is shocking. Maybe it is only that specific Nama community they sampled:

Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?

I can make a guess to reconcile this and say that the paleo Somali and AEA might carry excessive ANA-like variety, messing with the calculator ascertainment values. This ANA split can be explained as an earlier split than the ANA we see in IBM groups in NW Africa, but later than Mota, who also carried 30% ANA in a model. Maybe another model is that there could be a basal population (ghost modern) from, who knows where with similar qualities which affected East Africa in ways that are seemingly confusing because of assumptions and lack of general information.
 
Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?

I can make a guess to reconcile this and say that the paleo Somali and AEA might carry excessive ANA-like variety, messing with the calculator ascertainment values. This ANA split can be explained as an earlier split than the ANA we see in IBM groups in NW Africa, but later than Mota, who also carried 30% ANA in a model. Maybe another model is that there could be a basal population (ghost modern) from, who knows where with similar qualities which affected East Africa in ways that are seemingly confusing because of assumptions and lack of general information.
By ANA, do you mean Ancient North African?

I thought the Somali Eurasian component was Neolithic Levantine.
 
By ANA, do you mean Ancient North African?

I thought the Somali Eurasian component was Neolithic Levantine.
ANA is Ancient North Africa, yes. I specified more what I meant by ANA in our case by talking about the split time in comparison to other groups in the deep past. In regards to this, I only talked about our "SSA" side, not the Eurasian.

The Eurasian, in my opinion, is a mix of local Northeast African and Levantine. I don't believe Egypt was empty when the Levantine agriculturalists came.
 
ANA is Ancient North Africa, yes. I specified more what I meant by ANA in our case by talking about the split time in comparison to other groups in the deep past. In regards to this, I only talked about our "SSA" side, not the Eurasian.

The Eurasian, in my opinion, is a mix of local Northeast African and Levantine. I don't believe Egypt was empty when the Levantine agriculturalists came.
So like a Iberomaurasian type group (like this one) living in Egypt mixed with Levantines/Anatolian migrants and then proceeded to mix with archaic nilotes and indigenous horn hunter-gatherers to create Cushites?
 
So like a Iberomaurasian type group (like this one) living in Egypt mixed with Levantines/Anatolian migrants and then proceeded to mix with archaic nilotes and indigenous horn hunter-gatherers to create Cushites?
The ANA type thing: If we accept the [ANA+Eurasian= IBM] to be true, then I mean the nature of ANA (but only in how they split, not matching intrinsic signature necessarily), not Iberomarusian. And this component was only discussed within the SSA component/s.

The northeast Africans on the Eurasian side would be more like Epipaleolithic Natufian-type hunter-gatherers/semi-sedentary (not Iberomaurusian types) with early farmers (the descendants of the Natufian Levantines). Somalis, I think, lack the other components that came later from Iranian-related and Anatolian-related that seemed to affect the later Levantines, so I don't think Anatolian was part of this mix.
 

Apollo

Staff Member
Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?
Those were automated results from a computer program structuring groups based on autosomal allele similarities. I don't think they manually set groups as references like 23andMe and for-profit companies do (unscientific). Those autosomal clusters produced differ per study due to different pools of samples. I never consider any results produced from these type of studies as set in stone because they continue to change depending on which modern and ancient populations are included. I don't think Ethiopians except perhaps some East Oromos have Paleo-Somali ancestry.

I can make a guess to reconcile this and say that the paleo Somali and AEA might carry excessive ANA-like variety, messing with the calculator ascertainment values. This ANA split can be explained as an earlier split than the ANA we see in IBM groups in NW Africa, but later than Mota, who also carried 30% ANA in a model. Maybe another model is that there could be a basal population (ghost modern) from, who knows where with similar qualities which affected East Africa in ways that are seemingly confusing because of assumptions and lack of general information.
Hmm, interesting takes.

no motherfucker, its the other way round. Khoisan lived closer to Ethiopia and then about 2000 years ago migranter southwards. proto-faraax didnt settle Cape Town lmao
The oldest Khoisan remains do not carry any Cushitic affinity (see this chart, especially focus on the righthand side).

Only the later ones when domesticated animals like goats show up in Southern Africa have some Cushitic affinity. The modern Khoisan today with the highest ancient Cushitic affinity are the Nama and they are the only/one of the few modern Khoisan that have led agropastoralist lifestyles since the Europeans came in contact with them and documented it. The others like the Ju/'hoansi and Xun remained hunter-gatherers into the modern era.
 

Trending

Top