I agree! If you go back to my post, no where did I state that Eurasian admixture was somehow absent in NE Africa. Quite the contrary, in my opinion, besides it limitations, Tishkoff et al. 2009 provided the most reasonable and realistic results, primarily due to the overwhelming emphasis of African genetic diversity. As previously stated in my response to Karl Zimmerman, Tishkoff et al. identified moderately sized Eurasian admixture in parts of NE Africa, in particular the Eastern Sudan and Ethiopian highlands, i.e. Eritrea and Ethiopia. The Egyptian-Eastern Sudanese-Eritrean Beja for example were approximently 1/3 Western Eurasian, while the Beta Israel were closer to about 1/4 Western Eurasian. But in respect to more inland, lowland Cushitic speaking groups like the Oromo and Rendille (a group closely related to the Somali) that Western Eurasian fraction dropped to approximently 1/8 in the Rendille and even less in the Oromo, Burji, and Konso who are all inland Afroasiatic speakers. These aforementioned numbers are pretty significant; the Afroasiatic cluster in Tishkoff et al. didn’t overestimate African admixture in Arabia or elsewhere, indicating that it’s not a “mixed” cluster as is the case with the “Southern” or “Red Sea” component from Dodecad for example. The Yemeni Jews, Bedouins, and Palestinians were only about ~10% East African according to the global run, the Mozabite were about 30% African; the aforementioed figures could be in fact underestimates, I’ve seen slightly higher numbers in the past.

Your right about the Eurasian parental lineages as well, no disagreement here; in my previous post I incorporate those various lineages in what I believe, based on the evidence that I’ve seen, happened in NE Africa, i.e. 3 seperate episodes of Eurasian gene-flow into NE Africa. The first one was likely associated with lineages like M1, U6, (in addition to other notable mtdna lineages) and ydna T, in addition to African E-M78, by way of Egypt, the second one seems to be exclusively derived from the Arabian Neolithic (ydna J1 is key candinate, alongside some other important mtdna lineages), and lastly the introduction of Semitic, while less successful also played a role.

R1 seems to have been introduced after the split within the Erythrean (ex. Omotic) sub-moiety of the Afroasiatic phylum; R1 would’ve been incorporated into a Northern Erythrean group (Berber-Chadic, Egyptian, Semitic0, in contrast to a southern (i.e. Cushitic). But while modern Chadic speakers possess high frequencies of the R1 marker, a relic of their Northern Erythrean origin, they possess little to no autosomal Eurasian admixture due to extensive mixture with Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian speakers in the region. The aforementioned would have took place immediately after the split between Berber and Chadic as the latter expanded into the territory of indigenous Nilo-Saharan speakers, starting from what is now southern Libya.

The Maasai for example are about ~50% NE Afican; but they descend from southern Ethiopian groups like the Oromo and not people like the Tigray for example. Therefore, the fact that they’re only about ~50% “Oromo-like” or even “Somali-like” wouldn’t translate to any notable Eurasian component among them, i.e. very low legitimate Eurasian signals for groups like the Maasai and Samburu.

Again, we honestly don’t really even disagree with one another. imho Low-(Dominant-Moderate) Eurasian admixture is evident among Berbers (2/3rds – 1/half), Delta Egyptians (2/3rds), Riverine Nubians and Sudanese Arabs (1/3rd or less), Ethiopian Highlanders (1/3rd or less), and Cushites (on average at about 1/8th). No to mentioned the exceptional Wodaabe and other Eastern Fulanis who among the former in particular are on average 1/4 Western Eurasian (although they do vary, some of the Cameroonian Fulanis for example lacked NW African admixture). That’s pretty significant.

Lets leave Ancient Egypt to the egyptologists. lol

First of all, Ethiopians look generally very mixed although their admixture to my eyes looks very old – because a local homogeneous Etiopian component shows up at some point, however it is intermediate between Tropical Africans and West Eurasians by Fst.

Then we have all that haploid genetics in East and Central Africa that must have arrived from Eurasia at some point in prehistory: mtDNA M and N/R, Y-DNA R1b and T…

And finally the Maasai and similar populations show a reduced fraction of the Ethiopian kind of admixture very insistently in all studies at all K-levels. Also in your link when populations other than Africans are considered that happens as well.

I don’t know what’s the issue with pretending that “races” are closed boxes and that clines are unreal: clines do exist and there is African blood in West Eurasia (Europe included) and West Eurasian blood in Africa South of the Sahara. It may be not much but it is.

Re. the panel you just showed, I would have to see an original photo: it’s too easy to recolor things so they appear the way one wants and the Internet is full of cheaters and manipulators. In fact a quick search shows several versions of the same panel or cut versions of it with totally different shades for Egyptians particularly (but also for Asians and even Nubians). However we do have a host of actual trustable images of Ancient Egyptians made by Ancient Egyptians. They have diversity of shades, possibly depending on the region or even artist’s preferences.

Whatever the case the color of the Puntites (better than “Puntians” I guess) is clearly black/brown to me, not “Arab white”, whatever that is (there are very light and very dark Arabs in fact).

“Regardless, the Western Fulani, in particular the Wodaabe, are an exception in West/Central Africa, minus of course the Moors and Tuareg.”

I meant to say Eastern Fulani.

@ Maju

“Other images of Puntians (example 1, example 2, example 3) also show them brown to dark brown, very different shades as used by Egyptians to depict themselves, West Asians or Berbers.”

Interestingly enough, while the Ancient Egyptian artistic depictions of themselves, in terms of phenotypic expressions, varied, to an extent, throughout the dynastic period, the standard mold closely…

http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/16608.jpg

…resembles Egyptian depictions of the Ancient Puntites (this has been previously noted by various archeological experts in the field), who according to modern research would have been from the area of what is now Eastern Sudan and Eritrea. While I wouldn’t make any assumptions based on eyeballing ancient art, the aforementioned supports the increasingly obvious likelihood that the Ancient Egyptians, at least in appearance (and in turn biologically), where more Afroasiatic East African than anything else. People tend to disregard the fact that the majority of the Ancient Egyptian population, throughout the dynastic period, were resident in between what is now Aswan (Nubia) and Luxor in southernmost Egypt; with a minority in Lower Egypt proper, i.e. the area just south of Cairo in the Fayuam region, while the Delta was only sparsely populated, possibly by peoples outside the Egyptian cultural continua. Today, Delta Egyptians make up approximately 65% of the population, while the historically dominant Aswani-Luxorians make up only about 6% of the population. So even without foreign admixture, modern Egypt is definitely not representative of Ancient Egypt; modern Aswani-Luxorians are still more “African” appearance, yet they’re the minority in their country, while persumingly the majority of Egyptians descent largely from people who were on the fringes of Ancient Egypt, outside it’s northern core population center south of Cairo.

Besides the Puntites, Egyptians also resembled certain riverine Nubians and Libyans. In respect to the first case, Nubians tended to vary significantly, while some riverine Nubians resembled the Egyptians and likewise the Puntites, others possessed features that were more “Nilotic” in nature; modern Nubians and Sudanese Arabs possess the same variety of features, a testimony to the fact that they’re a mixture between Nilo-Saharans and Afroasiatics. Secondly, Egyptians also resembled southern Libyans from the southern Sahara; who were these people? Tebu?

The link # 8 posted is from Tiskoff et al. 2009…

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/04/30/1172257.DC1/Tishkoff.SOM.pdf

The “Western Eurasian” admixture detected in the 9 Dogon samples from the aforementioned study is a likely error, on the part of the researchers; since Tishkoff, we’ve obtained other Dogon samples, and as expected they’re genetically similar to other closely related West African groups like the Mandenka and lack the Eurasian component mistakenly detected by Tishkoff. The Hausa too, don’t possess any legitimate Eurasian admixture, they’re largely West African, in addition to a minor Nilo-Saharan component. The Baggara and Kanembou both, according to the aforementioned study, are admixed populations (but they tend to lack blatant Eurasian admixture to any significant degree); the aforementioned two groups possess West African, Nilotic, and Cushitic admixture.

The genetic profile of the Henn et al. Fulanis are representative of Eastern Fulanis, in particular the small nomadic Wodaabe; and so while Western Eurasian via North African admixture has been therefore confirmed in this particular Fulani subgroup, we (as in the scientific community) haven’t had the opportunity to analyze the genetic affinities of the Western core Fulani groups (the Fulani only relatively recently expanded eastwards from their place of origin in the Senegambian region). If these Western Fulanis also possess similar amounts of North African admixture, that would suggest that the Fulani assimilated the Zenaga at an early stage of their ethnogenesis, but if they don’t, the most likely scenario would be Tuareg admixture. Regardless, the Western Fulani, in particular the Wodaabe, are an exception in West/Central Africa, minus of course the Maurs and Tuareg.

@ Razib! Your next project could be retrieving a Western Fulani sample from the likes of Guinea or Senegal.

In respect to East Africa, the Western Eurasian component peaked in the Beja (i.e. Beni-Amer and Hadandawa) from SE Egypt, Eastern Sudan, and Eritrea, who are genetically similar to the Tigray and Amhara of Ethiopia, at a frequency of 32-33%. It subsequently drops to a frequency of 27% among the Beta-Israel, and then the Rendille (the Rendille are very closely related to the Somali and their language is part of the Macro-Somali linguistic phylum) at a frequency of about 10%, the Oromo (Borana, Gabre, and Watta) at about 5%, the Konso and Burji (from southern Ethiopia) are also about 5% or less Western Eurasian; but from there the Western Eurasian component plummets to the likelihood of noise. Nilo-Saharans, Bantu speakers, and admixed (with Afroasiatic) SE Africans like the Maasai and Sandawe lack the Western European at any significant levels; the Sandawe component is partially NE African, not “Western Eurasian”.

I disagree, SE Africa was likely primarily inhabited by Khoisan-like hunter-gatherer populations who were subsequently assimilated by waves of Nilo-Saharans and Afroasiatics from Southern Sudan and the Horn of Africa. These populations were then themselves assimilated by Bantu-speaking Central Africans by way of the Congo. Among SE African Bantus, there seems to be some genetic division between Great Lakes Bantus like the Luhya and Luo who are about 1/4 Nilo-Saharan and Savanna Bantus who are significantly Afroasiatic (the Kikuyu for example are 1/3 Afroasiatic). The aforementioned correlates with geography, since the Great Lakes are immediately south of South Sudan and the savannas are just south of southern Ethiopia and Somalia.

The “red” component is Nilotic, the “burgundy” component is Chadic, and the “light brown?” component is Central-Sudanic; together they collectively signify gene-flow from South Sudan and are associated with the Nilo-Saharan phylum. It’s not Western Eurasian admixed at all, regardless of being closer to Western Eurasia than they’re West African or hunter-gatherer counterparts.

ADMIXTURE and the like are insufficient when it comes to detecting admixtures from ancient periods. We are in an age in which new methodologies are being introduced every year, but you are still advocating the outdated admixture estimation methodologies of ADMIXTURE and the like. The newer methodologies are the results of years of refinement on the previous methodologies; they did not come out of nowhere. They are certainly much better at detecting ancient admixtures and, as a result, at measuring amounts of admixtures than ADMIXTURE and the like.

As for ancient admixture, we still have haploid DNA. In fact I would have not mentioned the Chadic peoples would not be for this one. In any case here the claim being made is of RECENT admixture, as recent as the Pyramids… go figure!

Dating of admixtures is still problematic. But I think in the near future much more accurate and problem-free admixture dating metodologies will be developed.

West/Central Africa: Admixture seems to be limited to Dogon, Baggara, Fulani, Kanembu, and possibly the Hausa. In all cases (except the Dogon, which is just screwy) the reasons for admixture can be easily understandable. The Baggra are Afro Arabs, the Fulani mixed with Berpers, and the Kanembu and Hausa were part of “Sudanic” Islamic states which engaged in trade with north Africa.

East Africa: Every single population shows a West Eurasian component, minus the Hazda and Sawande, as previously noted. Niger-Congo show the least, since these populations are either Bantu, or (like the Luo) heavily influenced by Bantu. Nilo-Saharans show more, and Afro-Asiatics show even more yet. And this is an underestimate, as the Sandawe “brown” component is part West Eurasian as well. What I would conclude here is both the elevated AA levels and the depressed NC levels are due to intrusive elements. The population substrate prior was “Nilo Saharan” in genes if not language throughout East Africa, and contained a small admixture of a West-Eurasian-like component.

The “red” component is also interesting to me, as it’s mainly found in Nilo-Saharan populations, as well as Chadic-speaking ones. I can’t help but wonder if this is another compound of West Eurasian with something else (probably East African), as it would explain how the Chadic populations ended up Afro-Asiatic speaking without any immediately detectable West Eurasian admixture.

As for ancient admixture, we still have haploid DNA. In fact I would have not mentioned the Chadic peoples would not be for this one. In any case here the claim being made is of RECENT admixture, as recent as the Pyramids… go figure!

What is your evidence for the claim that the degree of West Eurasian admixture decreases to near zero beyond the Maasai and Chadic peoples? ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE analyses do not constitute evidence in this regard, as they are not good at detecting ancient admixtures.

Just because someone “find” something doesn’t make it true, specially if it seems inconsistent with previous evidence (exceptional claims require exceptional evidence). It is important to address each problem critically from different angles and to test the “findings” by means of replication. I think that in Pickrell’s own paper the results are contradictory in the matter at hand, so nothing conclusive, certainly not “genes” being right nor wrong.

#24 “i don’t have any ax to grind”

Glad to read that and my apologies if I understood otherwise.

Notice that I do think that there is a West Eurasian inflow in Tropical Africa via the Red Sea and the Nile. There’s clear evidence in this regard but the degree of admixture rapidly decreases to near zero as we pass the Maasai or the Chadic peoples, so I feel that the Hadza/Sandawe “find” is quite suspect because these are very ancient rather isolate peoples.

Pickrell would have been of more use if he used other East Africans like Maasais, Ethiopians, Luhya, etc. for contrast instead of just the Dinka. Maybe it is that the Dinka are not the right comparison point?

My apologies Razib! I certainly don’t see myself as an “authority”, I do humbly consider myself knowledgeable on the subject, but I’m justifiably quick to criticize individuals who intentionally hijack studies like these to further their agendas. I have another blogger in mind who unfortunately by name dropping your name in a recent post on this particular study made you guilty by association.

@ Maju, I don’t have any particular source or study which outlines the various points made in my aforementioned post, but my position on the subject is supported by an ample of evidence from a variety of different anthropological fields , from genetics to linguistics to archeology.

Can I get quick links to this evidence? It’s not that I don’t believe you (It seems the most likely explanation to me actually). There’s certain people on a different site that I’ve been discussing this with that have trouble believing it.

The big flaw I see in a lot of archaeogenetic work is the failure to appreciate the importance of corroboration of an interpetations from multiple independent lines of evidence (e.g. archaeological pots and bones as well as genetics). If the two lines of evidence can’t be harmonized, then something in the model is broken.

So you’re blowing these two blue ink marks out of proportion. Totally so. I beg caution.

2) we have people with deep knowledge of very powerful analytic methods

Statements of the latter are more valuable for me than statements of the former. I prefer one single genetic meaurement to lots of informed speculations. The hardest thing is the interpretation of the measurements (=conversion of the digital measurement values to the analog real world); it is where most of the dispute occurs.

1) we have people with deep thick knowledge of many facts

vs.

2) we have people with deep knowledge of very powerful analytic methods

i don’t count myself in either camp, but i really wish that some people in #1 would chill on the arrogance. yes, we don’t know shit. so do you just want us to not talk about this, period?

Consider me schooled. It looks like my first scenario was more right than the second I posited.

I do have a few thoughts though.

1. While I agree that a migration of Cushitic speakers from Egypt into Ethiopia makes the most sense, there is the issue of Nilo-Saharan being in the way. The most divergent languages are along the Ethiopia-Sudan border, and it appears that at least some of the lower portions of the Nile have been always outside of the Afro-Asiatic sphere. Thus traveling up the Blue Nile into Ethiopia seems unlikely, meaning a migration along the arid coastal route. Not impossible of course, but migrating through the Afar Depression seems a lonely route to take.

2. I’m unsure if the third and fourth point need to be viewed as separate migrations. It may be that the entire area was influenced by a Semetic influx, but the population in the areas which didn’t see language shifts had slightly less Semites, so instead of the conquered taking on a new language the Semite “lords” acclimated. In addition, mixing between all ethnic groups (and entire communities shifting linguistic affiliations) in the Ethiopian highlands has been fairly common in recently documented history, which could have helped smooth out initially more dramatic differences between populations. The difference between the Tigray and the others looks to be due to “a bit more” rather than “a bit more and something different” after all.