How do you explain why the papers I posted were able to use EEF rich sources as a source of our ancestry? Im not saying that they are the best representatives of our Eurasian-like ancestry but we do show EEF-like ancestry in some studies.
What do you think about this?
I must say you raise a good point about the presence of EEF in the Sudanese and Tobu an G25 being able to pick up on it. I'm on the fence about this whole issue at this point.
Not all studies are infallible, there are studies that claim all the eurasian ancestry in the Horn arrived 3000 years ago.I don't think we should accept their conclusions at face value just because it is a published paper.I haven't read the paper you mentioned in depth but I am skeptical as I doubt they used the Natufians and it probably pre-dated when those IBM samples were published.
We would need samples from BA Sudan (Nile Valley) ofcourse but I don't see how BA Sudan is relevant to the genetics of Somalis for example.Yes Somalis carry at very high frequencies a BA Sudanese/Egyptian lineage but it seems to be just a founder effect.Whomever this lineage arrived with imo didn't have an impact on the Somali genepool, we are primarily descendants of proto-cushites who left NE Africa a lot earlier than BA Sudan.
The Beja who have a decent proportion of Nubian Nile Valley ancestry also carry Barcin ancestry but at lower levels compared to modern Nubians.Clearly there is a continuum from the Nile Valley Nubians to the Eastern Desert Beja & Northern Horner Eritreans
Target: Beja_Hadendowa
Distance: 4.4992% / 0.04499189 | |
|---|
| 55.0 | Natufian |
| |
| 39.4 | South_Sudanese |
| |
| 3.8 | Anatolia_N_Ceramic_Barcin |
| |
| 1.8 | Morocco_UP_Taforalt_(Iberomaurusian) |
| |
Target: Beja_Beni-Amer
Distance: 4.6612% / 0.04661198 | |
|---|
| 61.4 | Natufian |
| |
| 35.0 | South_Sudanese |
| |
| 3.6 | Anatolia_N_Ceramic_Barcin |
| |
Target: Eritrean
Distance: 4.5814% / 0.04581434 | |
|---|
| 59.8 | Natufian |
| |
| 38.8 | South_Sudanese |
| |
| 1.4 | Anatolia_N_Ceramic_Barcin |
| |
