if it’s arguable, it’s not undisputed in any case, it could be introgression, admixture, or convergence. the genetic architecture of the traits isn’t ta complicated.

the ss-african component is clear and distinct. the “european” element is more confused, because you can’t always differentiate it from “european” in some near eastern populations. IOW, it might not be a legitimate signal of “european” ancestry as such (though i suspect it is, because you see north africa in spain and sicily).

It’s also a shame that more Berber populations were not included. I think including Riffis and Kabyles in particular would be helpful. We know both populations have lower recent Sub-Saharan admixture than the Arab-speaking populations in Morocco and Algeria respectively. If their European admixture was appreciably lower, then most of “Arab” north African genetic component from Europe was probably historically recent, from the Mediterranean slave trade in the middle ages. If, in contrast, they also display high European values, then the European admixture is probably from late antiquity. The two Berber populations I mentioned above would be the most ideal to examine this because they are coastal, and presumably their ancestors lived in the same regions, and were under Roman rule.

Of course, as the paper says, it’s also possible Qatar wasn’t the best comparison. I wonder which would be best, however. Jordan? Palestine?

Also, I find it interesting the Fula show a significant Maghrebi component. It’s been noted that many Fulani are light for Sub-Saharan Africans, looking somewhat similar (in terms of skin tone) to the average African-American, and often having a somewhat near-eastern cast to their features. Given the recorded history of the Fula is so bound up with Islam, it’s perhaps not surprising that they would have more of a North African genetic influence than their neighbors, although it’s possible they absorbed this component earlier (maybe through links with the Tuareg, who really should be in this study as well).