A close friend and his cousins from Sudan got T-L208!

[The alchemist]

what about the European like ancestry that was detected in the tobou?

The above stuff was strictly Zaghawa.

Toubou are a different group that got considerably more ancient North African-like DNA. But those people's DNA is mostly of pre-Iberian Neolithic or just pre-/Neolithic DNA that was more south and east of where the genetic diffusion of Iberian took place. They have very slight Steppe here and there, but that can be explained by later admixture, a negligible portion if at all, need I remind you. Their DNA is of a more ancient stock since they prefer Taforalt heavily and something pre-historic southwest Asian that probably is in Natufian (also Northeast African kind). Their DNA is of a quintessential East Central Saharan variation, not some direct northwest African extraction.

 

[Step a side]

The above stuff was strictly Zaghawa.

Toubou are a different group that got considerably more ancient North African-like DNA. But those people's DNA is mostly of pre-Iberian Neolithic or just pre-/Neolithic DNA that was more south and east of where the genetic diffusion of Iberian took place. They have very slight Steppe here and there, but that can be explained by later admixture, a negligible portion if at all, need I remind you. Their DNA is of a more ancient stock since they prefer Taforalt heavily and something pre-historic southwest Asian that probably is in Natufian (also Northeast African kind). Their DNA is of a quintessential East Central Saharan variation, not some direct northwest African extraction.

Oh yeh I confused the two groups my bad.
Toubu genetic makeup sounds complicated . So from what I understood we are looking at European like ancestry that predates EEF Shouldn’t their European derived ancestry be similar to what’s found in Amazigh people?

Could the European like people depicted in this Saharan cave paintings of tassili n’Ajjer be from these early Europeans? The people depicted looking very much European with brown-blonde hair.

 

[Nilotic]

Thanks for your info, since your probably are Nilotic, I would like to ask you this question.

He said to me his from Dafur and that Zaghawa do live in South sudan such as darfur. His ethinic group believe they are Arab Sudanese but he believes his Nilotic along the ethinic groups that resides with him like Masalit and Fur. I have many Zaghawa friends, some of them look like Massai others like Fur and Masalit all believed to be Nilotic groups. Physical appearance and Zaghawa language are thought to be Nilo saharan or songhay saharan. So could they be admixture of Nilotic and afro asiatic Saharan along Fur and Masalit? Also would they be considered Afro Asiatic, if so which group, cushatic/bereber/Semitic?

I've never come across Zaghawa that claim to be Arab, so that's a bit odd; every Zaghawa I've interacted with was firmly entrenched in their true identity.

I think that the Darfurians did experience some level of admixture with Cushites and Berbers; I don't really know much about this subject beyond that.

 

[Nilotic]

Oh I see it on the map. He most likely similar to Masalit and Fur I believe but @Nilotic and @Nilote know better I believe. They Saharan with a touch of AA ancestry and Nilo Saharan but I could be wrong and feeling too lazy to check kkk

View attachment 284607

AA ancestry?

Both of us are Nilotes from Africa; I'm from the homeland and my bro is from Kenya.

 

[SuperBantuWeyne]

I've never come across Zaghawa that claim to be Arab, so that's a bit odd; every Zaghawa I've interacted with was firmly entrenched in their true identity.

I think that the Darfurians did experience some level of admixture with Cushites and Berbers; I don't really know much about this subject beyond that.

He might be admixed with neighboring arabs, for example the current chadian president is paternaly Zaghawa(Idriss Deby) and maternaly arab

 

[Step a side]

AA ancestry?

Both of us are Nilotes from Africa; I'm from the homeland and my bro is from Kenya.

No I meant the zaghwe group

 

[The alchemist]

Oh yeh I confused the two groups my bad.
Toubu genetic makeup sounds complicated . So from what I understood we are looking at European like ancestry that predates EEF Shouldn’t their European derived ancestry be similar to what’s found in Amazigh people?

Could the European like people depicted in this Saharan cave paintings of tassili n’Ajjer be from these early Europeans? The people depicted looking very much European with brown-blonde hair.

That's not what I said at all.

Their proportions are not of the common North African Berber as it is stabilized today. A model where a direct extraction from that signature composition will not describe the non-East African DNA of the Toubou. I am saying, and substantiated from their DNA, besides some admixture here and there with Libyans, that the DNA of Toubous reflects their own pre-historic regional genetic interaction. That region was its distinct process that needs its centering.

The rock art was made by pastoralists around 7 thousand years ago. They had nothing to do with Iberian European farmers. It is extremely unlikely they had any blonde hair or red hair because those traits are not endemic in the southwest Asian nor North African DNA pre-European contact. That type of hair was also not common even among the European Neolithic farmers and increased in frequency with the Bronze Age in Europe. If you look at the art itself, that color was even used for their skin which was pretty bronze/brown throughout. You also have to think about possible artistic coloring, changes of colors through time, and of course, possible hair coloring they did as well. But red hair or blonde would not be something pastoralists from northeast Africa carrying heavy Natufian and Levantine ancestry and likely African had.

It's irrelevant to talk about European DNA when referring to these people besides the Berbers. These Toubou people have considerable DNA deeply related to our DNA in the non-East African (and parts of East African, which of course is its own conversation and has its complexities), although what that means is a separate conversation that I am not willing to expand towards at this moment. That's all I am going to say about this matter.

 

[Step a side]

That's not what I said at all.

Their proportions are not of the common North African Berber as it is stabilized today. A model where a direct extraction from that signature composition will not describe the non-East African DNA of the Toubou. I am saying, and substantiated from their DNA, besides some admixture here and there with Libyans, that the DNA of Toubous reflects their own pre-historic regional genetic interaction. That region was its distinct process that needs its centering.

The rock art was made by pastoralists around 7 thousand years ago. They had nothing to do with Iberian European farmers. It is extremely unlikely they had any blonde hair or red hair because those traits are not endemic in the southwest Asian nor North African DNA pre-European contact. That type of hair was also not common even among the European Neolithic farmers and increased in frequency with the Bronze Age in Europe. If you look at the art itself, that color was even used for their skin which was pretty bronze/brown throughout. You also have to think about possible artistic coloring, changes of colors through time, and of course, possible hair coloring they did as well. But red hair or blonde would not be something pastoralists from northeast Africa carrying heavy Natufian and Levantine ancestry and likely African had.

It's irrelevant to talk about European DNA when referring to these people besides the Berbers. These Toubou people have considerable DNA deeply related to our DNA in the non-East African (and parts of East African, which of course is its own conversation and has its complexities), although what that means is a separate conversation that I am not willing to expand towards at this moment. That's all I am going to say about this matter.

I think this confused me.

it’s from this study I believe

Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations - PMC

Understanding human genetic diversity in Africa is important for interpreting the evolution of all humans, yet vast regions in Africa, such as Chad, remain genetically poorly investigated. Here, we use genotype data from 480 samples from Chad, the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[The alchemist]

I think this confused me.

View attachment 284812

it’s from this study I believe

Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations - PMC

Understanding human genetic diversity in Africa is important for interpreting the evolution of all humans, yet vast regions in Africa, such as Chad, remain genetically poorly investigated. Here, we use genotype data from 480 samples from Chad, the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I used the supplementary data from that study to make claims on the Y-DNA discussions from earlier and it is roughly correct on the haplogroup R1b. Those particular uniparental claims coincide with the incursion of pastoralists, highly correlated with the Chadic linguistic group directly or in the dynamic influx of migrational capacities flowing into similar spatio-temporal dimensions.

The autosomal claim about 30% European DNA is ridiculous. The study from 2016 that I need to mention has absolutely no signature resolution and did not overemphasize European affinity, majorly highlighted Near Eastern association, and laid weight on bottlenecks deep in history synonymous with the Horn of African groups, despite it only being a considerable broad perspective.

The LBK European Neolithic farmer affinity was only using ancient samples from Europe-proper. The f3-statistic used difficult but interesting reference sample sets, and you had Amhara getting way stronger results of that kind. Are Amharas over half European Neolithic farmer now? Let’s move on from this and stop taking anything pertaining to autosomal DNA from Wikipedia referencing studies at face value when they go against basic common sense.

I don’t want or need to get into the technicalities of the f3-statistics since it goes into separate things that entail other deeper affinities given the constraints compensating alignments into deeper drift and different layers of affinities, but ultimately the study never claimed what you quoted, and on top of the study lacked the information I do have today.

I've already stated what they contained and the study literally agrees with me within the limits of what it knew at the time giving broad associations with a lot of constraints, at the same time no actual resolution, which I stated to you (that region) had its own regional-local highly ancient endemically differentiated genetic process, separate from Berbers or any of that northwest African while at the same time carrying interesting affinity with northeast Africans with ultimately having a deep relationship to the tapestry indirectly (interesting association with northeast Africa, so directly but not so obvious) of the two sides in a very non-straightforward way, but again, a respective region in that conversation where extrapolating is a false model that does not reflect the deep formations there.

Now that you are less confused, I would appreciate you re-read my material and trust it since I am getting a little annoyed you treated some made-up Wikipedia post that has no grounding in reality as possibly symmetrically true as my posts thinking I waste time writing to you or you're trolling me entailing you're neither thinking my posts are serious enough for consideration which is just insulting weighing some random ignorant claim from Wikipedia that goes against what I time and time again said, which really indicates on what scale my post lies in your value-chain in a discussion you pretend at least on the surface to value my input, yet all along bellow that of made up rubbish Wikipedia sentences. Don't do this next time.

I am going to assume the best of you and just think you did have no idea about the topic itself, despite me telling you information contrary to that quote and you pretending to follow along (to some extent rubs me kind of the wrong way too). But anyway, I have answered your question and would like to move on from this topic. I could have responded with a laughing emoji and moved on without a response but I gave you the courtesy of responding back so next time this does not happen. Consequentially this is an insult to me because that last post of yours basically tells me you wasted my time.

 

[Step a side]

I used the supplementary data from that study to make claims on the Y-DNA discussions from earlier and it is roughly correct on the haplogroup R1b. Those particular uniparental claims coincide with the incursion of pastoralists, highly correlated with the Chadic linguistic group directly or in the dynamic influx of migrational capacities flowing into similar spatio-temporal dimensions.

The autosomal claim about 30% European DNA is ridiculous. The study from 2016 that I need to mention has absolutely no signature resolution and did not overemphasize European affinity, majorly highlighted Near Eastern association, and laid weight on bottlenecks deep in history synonymous with the Horn of African groups, despite it only being a considerable broad perspective.

The LBK European Neolithic farmer affinity was only using ancient samples from Europe-proper. The f3-statistic used difficult but interesting reference sample sets, and you had Amhara getting way stronger results of that kind. Are Amharas over half European Neolithic farmer now? Let’s move on from this and stop taking anything pertaining to autosomal DNA from Wikipedia referencing studies at face value when they go against basic common sense.

I don’t want or need to get into the technicalities of the f3-statistics since it goes into separate things that entail other deeper affinities given the constraints compensating alignments into deeper drift and different layers of affinities, but ultimately the study never claimed what you quoted, and on top of the study lacked the information I do have today.

I've already stated what they contained and the study literally agrees with me within the limits of what it knew at the time giving broad associations with a lot of constraints, at the same time no actual resolution, which I stated to you (that region) had its own regional-local highly ancient endemically differentiated genetic process, separate from Berbers or any of that northwest African while at the same time carrying interesting affinity with northeast Africans with ultimately having a deep relationship to the tapestry indirectly (interesting association with northeast Africa, so directly but not so obvious) of the two sides in a very non-straightforward way, but again, a respective region in that conversation where extrapolating is a false model that does not reflect the deep formations there.

Now that you are less confused, I would appreciate you re-read my material and trust it since I am getting a little annoyed you treated some made-up Wikipedia post that has no grounding in reality as possibly symmetrically true as my posts thinking I waste time writing to you or you're trolling me entailing you're neither thinking my posts are serious enough for consideration which is just insulting weighing some random ignorant claim from Wikipedia that goes against what I time and time again said, which really indicates on what scale my post lies in your value-chain in a discussion you pretend at least on the surface to value my input, yet all along bellow that of made up rubbish Wikipedia sentences. Don't do this next time.

I am going to assume the best of you and just think you did have no idea about the topic itself, despite me telling you information contrary to that quote and you pretending to follow along (to some extent rubs me kind of the wrong way too). But anyway, I have answered your question and would like to move on from this topic. I could have responded with a laughing emoji and moved on without a response but I gave you the courtesy of responding back so next time this does not happen. Consequentially this is an insult to me because that last post of yours basically tells me you wasted my time.

The ancient European related ancestry in the tobou according to that study is what confused me at the very start. This confusion had nothing to do with you.

 

[The alchemist]

The ancient European related ancestry in the tobou according to that study is what confused me at the very start. This confusion had nothing to do with you.

Are Amharas half European-related (shows double the affinity in the study)? Are you going to say Somalis are half Nordic-related if we only use Nordic samples (worse in the study since the paper used f3-statistics with Yoruba as 'reference 2' within a limited sample dataset to ancient DNA from Europe-proper)... Having a conversation about the subject wasting my time holding comical views and telling me it had nothing to do with me while asking me questions pretending to follow along while reading time and time again how those views were wrong and telling me at the end that he never reconsidered the views in light of being told it was wrong. And now says, "According to that study," when I corrected that error of the study never claiming 20-30 European-related DNA, showing how he did not even process anything of what I said above in good faith.

This guy... I even did the homework for you and made it simple for you to digest when you never showed any respect and you don't even have the decency to process that because of silly ego. I'm out.

 

[Step a side]

Are Amharas half European-related (shows double the affinity in the study)? Are you going to say Somalis are half Nordic-related if we only use Nordic samples (worse in the study since the paper used f3-statistics with Yoruba as 'reference 2' within a limited sample dataset to ancient DNA from Europe-proper)... Having a conversation about the subject wasting my time holding comical views and telling me it had nothing to do with me while asking me questions pretending to follow along while reading time and time again how those views were wrong and telling me at the end that he never reconsidered the views in light of being told it was wrong. And now says, "According to that study," when I corrected that error of the study never claiming 20-30 European-related DNA, showing how he did not even process anything of what I said above in good faith.

This guy... I even did the homework for you and made it simple for you to digest when you never showed any respect and you don't even have the decency to process that because of silly ego. I'm out.

Again you made this about you when I told you that “my confusion” about the tobou has nothing to do with you. Neither did I say you was wrong. Once again, I was just pointing out where the confusion came from. Again for the last time this has nothing to with you.