You may have a point about the sampling bias, honestly. I find it hard to fathom that they're usually even finding people less proto-Nilotic than Copts. That makes no sense. Copts have no West-African ancestry. The non-Eurasian elements in them (excluding ANA) appear 100% proto-Nilotic like what's in Somalis and Habeshas so how does that jibe? They couldn't really have gotten that from the slave-trade. It would at least carry West-African admixture within it or they'd have West-African admixture outside of it like the Muslims do.
I think they probably are biasing their sampling toward more markedly non "Negroid" looking samples and sites and, as I've heard, maybe even dismissing anyone with too much of a "Negroid" slant as "Nubian". It is hard to fathom, even for some of the biggest anti-"SSA" racists in the anthro community that at least
SOME people in places bordering Nubia like Luxorians didn't have at least some elevated proto-Nilotic like 10-20% or more.
Yes. Some believe in a later hypothesis that they are in fact Natufian admixed or what have you but that is anachronistic. If you observe their global PCA positioning it fits too well with the original paper's claim that they're about 40-50% non-Eurasian:
Just past Tigrinyas who are 50% Eurasian and 50% non-Eurasian according to
formal stats. Fits too perfectly with the proposition that they are around 45% non-Eurasian. Then there's the smoking gun Y-DNA wise; E-M35. It's closest relatives are all in Africa like in Mota and West-Africans.
E itself may have been a back-migration or a cut-off from the proto-Eurasians before they left Africa around 50kya but it's definitely been a mostly non-Eurasian lineage for the last 50,000 years at minimum. So 100% non-Eurasian Y-DNA and Eurasian maternal lineages + the PCA position and the original paper's stats modeling them as 45% non-Eurasian which fits with the PCA position perfectly? Works too well for me, saxiib.
I think future data will vindicate the following though I'm interested in seeing otherwise:
- ANA population exists along the Maghreb and maybe across North Africa
- This is an non-Eurasian group that did not participate in the Eurasian bottleneck
- Though their predecessors may have been early close relatives of the proto-Eurasians
- Sometime probably before the Kebaran, Dzudzuana (Anatolian) type HGs expand into North Africa and mix with ANAs
- A basically 50:50 population in terms of auDNA arises but ANA Y-DNA is dominant while Anatolian type mtDNA is dominant
- The descendants of this group, Iberomaurusians (IBMs) expand eastwards into the Levant and are why Natufians and the like have E-M35 lineages
- Then there is another migration out of the Levant due to the spreading of animal and plant domestication, and whatever, probably intermediate between IBMs and Natufians, group living in Egypt gets admixed into with new Anatolian and maybe a little bit of Iranian and Caucasus HG elements due to this and these are the core MENA ancestors of Egyptians, Sudanese, Horners and other East Africans
You have questions about some of the more nitty gritty details involving the archaeological cultures involved like in the Maghreb but I honestly can't go too much into that with any certainty until we have more data. But I do think the expansion into West Asia from North-Africa by IBM types is probably marked by the Kebaran.
en.wikipedia.org