I've read the paper a few times now and ngl all of the stuff is things we already knew.
Though mota deriving ancestry from a ghost branch rather than a south African source is good to see on a peer reviewed paper. They also had weird modelling of nilotic populations but now we wait for Buur Heybe.
Any chance Buur Heybe’s peoples were heavily Mota-related ?
View attachment 90952
View attachment 90953
Look at the models they have for Agaw and Mursi. A super deep split is probably them trying to make up for some Basal human ancestry present in Proto-Nilotic peoples.
Can you expound more on this basal human ancestry?A super deep split is probably them trying to make up for some Basal human ancestry present in Proto-Nilotic peoples.
Can you expound more on this basal human ancestry?
Doesn’t the mursi have recent omotics input though?Something split off early and may have contributed to Nilotic people. Kinda clueless myself right now though.
"Admixture graph with Mursi in place of Agaw (930k SNPs covered). We locked the non-African-related dummy admixture into Shum Laka at 1.1% to match the value from our primary model. Branch lengths (in units of squared allele frequency divergence) are rounded to the nearest integer. All f-statistics relating the populations are predicted to within 3.2 standard errors of their observed values (2.3 excluding two statistics involving Neanderthal and chimpanzee). Mursi is modelled as admixed with 24% Mota-related ancestry. The deep modern human admixture source is inferred to split (slightly) before the Central African hunter-gatherer lineage."
This is what they had to say about Nilotic ancestry in Mursi.
Doesn’t the mursi have recent omotics input though?
Do you believe that the deep human ancestry could’ve been MWI_Fingira_2500BP related?The deep modern human admixture source is inferred to split (slightly) before the Central African hunter-gatherer lineage."
Do you believe that the deep human ancestry could’ve been MWI_Fingira_2500BP related?