ANAs were basically SSAs, lets not mince words
- Thread starter Shimbiris
- Start date
The alchemist
VIP
My theory was: that ANA is something similar to West And East African, mixing with some early OOA type population that received very little Eurasian drift and also an endemic very drifted North African component that could represent why ANA simulated coordinates have a considerable shift away from the broad African cluster, harboring a Ghost drift of some sort.
A Yoruba is really majority East African-like, to be honest. It just has some added hunter-gatherer drift with some additional general divergence directional drift. There is a reason why a Dinka is provincially close to West Africans. It's because 80-60% of West Africans are a sibling branch/es to whatever is the bulk in the Sudanic lineages.
So perhaps we're looking at a North African expansion of a lineage that split from the common ancestors of AEA and Whatever is in Yoruba (minus the West and Central hunter-gatherer + "archaic"), receiving admixture from some very old remnants of Aterian peoples (after all, Aterian lithics ended when Iberomaurusian started indicating a material continuity all the way to the Aterian period by these ANAs that came in direct contact of the northern expansion), and a western expansion of a northeast peripheral group we can consider proto-OOA but was really not yet in Eurasia-proper, yet carried parts of that directional drift. Even if it was in Eurasia, it would have been in West Asia for a few thousand years.
Mixing all of that some 50,000 years ago, and genetic isolation for 25,000 years, including genetic drift, we have what we consider ANA. We lack resolution for this ANA population but I doubt we're looking at a single lineage beyond 50,000 years ago,
I think Aterians had Mbuti-level unique drift that really shifts ANA into a separate category of African ancestry. It is for sure very non-Eurasian. Even the Eurasian is probably just an early capture point of drift of a northeast African population that expanded west when to-be Eurasians went east. I don't think anything about ANA is necessarily Eurasia. Furthermore, drift within Africa has always been differential. A Dinka will be nearly as close to a Eurasian than to a Central African hunter-gatherer. I really rarely use SSA these days without the "SSA." It's really an unserious nonsensical term applied by ignorants who want to spread certain fixed agendas. They cannot fathom how a population like Somalis is entirely Saharan. I don't need to get more into that since we know the deal. You will struggle to define much of human variation in Africa without Sahara. Outside the sub-Saharan hunter-gatherer cline, much of the East and West and North African diversity is of the Sahara. I don't even think 60-90% of the ancestry of West Africans is derived from West Africa. That stuff stayed in the western Sahara and the adjacent Sahel until it spread into West Africa after 7-8kya.
People don't understand that Africa had several drifted populations whereas ANA just looks like one minor form of that. Genetic distance between groups would be larger during 50,000 years ago. Most of those lineages have become a homogenized mosaic that all humans carry. This SSA basket case for every "black" African group and describes what is endemic to North Africa as proto-Eurasian to me is foolish. Eurasians are the bottlenecked Africans, not the other way around, so a remnant of that would still be expressed by populations in Africa. In this case, I don't see how ANA can be entirely a pre-proto OOA. It is only an undefined part of it, not the entire lineage. That drift is just too severe. Mota is more OOA drifted than ANA in its bulk lineage form. Meaning, it is more related to OOA entirely as one single lineage, minus some substructure.
There is something that happened 50,000 years ago that created a regionalization throughout the African continent. I think less long-distance movements and such.
If you check ANA discrete admixture models, it is always some severe difference. It either is represented as an East African OOA-related population. Or it is some very divergent hunter-gatherer depth. I think my hypothesis captures the reason. It depends on how you define ANA. These models selectively draw from its substructure that is not well defined. Overall it fits its own position in African diversity shown in the PCA, but it is for sure correct to say ANA is undoubtedly an African population on the same line as any other African population. The people who want to make it on the Eurasian side of things have a very Eurasian-specific agenda, in the same way they would define Iberomaursuan as West Eurasian. Ask them if they consider northeast Africans West Eurasians and you will get a different answer. It's just to capture North Africa as a separate African process that aligns more with Eurasia which is just wrong on so many levels.
The Ghost population in Mota likely captures one of ANA's very deep substructures. And I speculate that Ghost is what was present in those Middle Stone Age populations in the northern Somali peninsula, but we're going into something far off-topic here, lol.
A Yoruba is really majority East African-like, to be honest. It just has some added hunter-gatherer drift with some additional general divergence directional drift. There is a reason why a Dinka is provincially close to West Africans. It's because 80-60% of West Africans are a sibling branch/es to whatever is the bulk in the Sudanic lineages.
So perhaps we're looking at a North African expansion of a lineage that split from the common ancestors of AEA and Whatever is in Yoruba (minus the West and Central hunter-gatherer + "archaic"), receiving admixture from some very old remnants of Aterian peoples (after all, Aterian lithics ended when Iberomaurusian started indicating a material continuity all the way to the Aterian period by these ANAs that came in direct contact of the northern expansion), and a western expansion of a northeast peripheral group we can consider proto-OOA but was really not yet in Eurasia-proper, yet carried parts of that directional drift. Even if it was in Eurasia, it would have been in West Asia for a few thousand years.
Mixing all of that some 50,000 years ago, and genetic isolation for 25,000 years, including genetic drift, we have what we consider ANA. We lack resolution for this ANA population but I doubt we're looking at a single lineage beyond 50,000 years ago,
I think Aterians had Mbuti-level unique drift that really shifts ANA into a separate category of African ancestry. It is for sure very non-Eurasian. Even the Eurasian is probably just an early capture point of drift of a northeast African population that expanded west when to-be Eurasians went east. I don't think anything about ANA is necessarily Eurasia. Furthermore, drift within Africa has always been differential. A Dinka will be nearly as close to a Eurasian than to a Central African hunter-gatherer. I really rarely use SSA these days without the "SSA." It's really an unserious nonsensical term applied by ignorants who want to spread certain fixed agendas. They cannot fathom how a population like Somalis is entirely Saharan. I don't need to get more into that since we know the deal. You will struggle to define much of human variation in Africa without Sahara. Outside the sub-Saharan hunter-gatherer cline, much of the East and West and North African diversity is of the Sahara. I don't even think 60-90% of the ancestry of West Africans is derived from West Africa. That stuff stayed in the western Sahara and the adjacent Sahel until it spread into West Africa after 7-8kya.
People don't understand that Africa had several drifted populations whereas ANA just looks like one minor form of that. Genetic distance between groups would be larger during 50,000 years ago. Most of those lineages have become a homogenized mosaic that all humans carry. This SSA basket case for every "black" African group and describes what is endemic to North Africa as proto-Eurasian to me is foolish. Eurasians are the bottlenecked Africans, not the other way around, so a remnant of that would still be expressed by populations in Africa. In this case, I don't see how ANA can be entirely a pre-proto OOA. It is only an undefined part of it, not the entire lineage. That drift is just too severe. Mota is more OOA drifted than ANA in its bulk lineage form. Meaning, it is more related to OOA entirely as one single lineage, minus some substructure.
There is something that happened 50,000 years ago that created a regionalization throughout the African continent. I think less long-distance movements and such.
If you check ANA discrete admixture models, it is always some severe difference. It either is represented as an East African OOA-related population. Or it is some very divergent hunter-gatherer depth. I think my hypothesis captures the reason. It depends on how you define ANA. These models selectively draw from its substructure that is not well defined. Overall it fits its own position in African diversity shown in the PCA, but it is for sure correct to say ANA is undoubtedly an African population on the same line as any other African population. The people who want to make it on the Eurasian side of things have a very Eurasian-specific agenda, in the same way they would define Iberomaursuan as West Eurasian. Ask them if they consider northeast Africans West Eurasians and you will get a different answer. It's just to capture North Africa as a separate African process that aligns more with Eurasia which is just wrong on so many levels.
The Ghost population in Mota likely captures one of ANA's very deep substructures. And I speculate that Ghost is what was present in those Middle Stone Age populations in the northern Somali peninsula, but we're going into something far off-topic here, lol.
Last edited:
I plan to do an exploration of African genomics post at some point in the future. I'm gonna use that post as an opportunity to familiarize myself with Admixtools. Apparently Admixtools 2.0 runs in R and since I'm pretty well-acquainted with R, as you can see, it shouldn't be difficult to run it at all. Just need to get Linux set up on my laptop, install a few things and get the hang of it. Shouldn't keep being dependent on David's G25. Time to generate unique PCAs and f-stats.
I've since lost the plot but years ago I got David to create an SSA specific PCA and kept more blatantly admixed groups like us out of it and immediately noticed Africa's structural patterns once things are no longer skewed by the presence of Eurasians and their bottleneck. Something akin to the Pan-West-Eurasia plot formed and I recall some of the patterns I saw being similar to some of the things you're espousing and musing about here.
I do generally think that where each SSA population was "pulling" represented "Ghost" populations we have yet to discover similar to the strange "Eastern pull" of West-Eurasians turning out to be ANE, the "Southern" pull turning out to be part Basal and part ANA and so forth. PCAs are beautiful, intuitive things, honestly. They catch a lot of patterns that end up being confirmed in more detail by ancient DNA; ADMIXTURE as well, to be honest. About time someone started running SSA groups in the absence of Eurasians to see these patterns, insha'Allah.
Step a side
VIP
There was an earlier expansion in to Africa from Arabia that predates the Iron Age expansion of Semites into the Horn. Those E-Z830 carrying south cushites represent those earlier pre- historic expansion into Africa from Arabia. This is why they also lack J1 and the CHG/INF which entered Arabia and the Horn way after
So that means somalis are 65-70% SSA then
Was getting tired of all these types dancing around ANA clearly being "SSA" in genetic structure and groups like Natufians thus clearly being SSA admixed and made a short treatise on the matter:
Iberomaurusians descend from a unique Sub-Saharan African lineage: Ancestral North African (ANA)
I've been away for some time but one thing that's always stuck with me are the results of the Iberomaurusian (Taforalt) samples from th...anthromadness.blogspot.com
Feel free to send that to any NaTuFiANs WuZ PurE EuRAsiaNs ninjas and while I love any discussion on the forum, please feel free to comment and stir shit up in the comments. I've stopped moderating comments and it would be nice if the AM comment section turned into Eurogenes for African and MENA anthro and pop-gen subjects but no worries if not.
@The alchemist @Xareen @Step a side @Yami
How on earth did I not know you were the guy behind anthro madness?
Last edited:
Garaad Awal
War is coming.
The average is 60% SSA. 70% SSA is definitely someone that has foreign admixture from Bantus or Borana Oromos.
Does it really matter.dark day for the dark nn niggas, more like awoowe SSA
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
It is hard to break it down but I'll try to expand on it, I like the big picture sometimes.
In 2005, a team led by Tunisian geneticist Rym Kefi studied the DNA of 31 ancient skeletons found in a cave called "Grotte des Pigeons" in Taforalt, Morocco. These skeletons were between 23,000 and 10,800 years old. Later, more precise dating showed that the culture associated with these remains (called Iberomaurusian) existed in Taforalt around 22,000 to 21,400 years ago.
In 2016, Kefi updated her research and included 8 more skeletons from a similar site in Algeria called Afalou, which dated between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago. The DNA analysis revealed that 23 of the Taforalt individuals belonged to a maternal genetic group called U6 entering NA as early as 30 KA , as well as other groups (H, U, R0) that are linked to Eurasian origins. The Algerian Afalou skeletons showed maternal groups like JT, J, T, H, R0a1, and U. Martiniano et al. (2022) later reassigned all the Taforalt samples to haplogroup E-M78(fig. 3)
This suggests that there was genetic exchange between North Africa and the southern Mediterranean(fig.1) region as far back as the Epipaleolithic period (around 22,000 to 11,000 years ago), showing early connections between these areas, approximately 11 KA, much of the Sahara was extremely dry and largely uninhabitable prior to the African humid period. The region experienced hyper-arid conditions, similar to what we see today, with limited vegetation and water sources, This made it difficult for humans and large animals to survive in the region.(fig.2)
Basal Eurasians are hypothesized to have split from other non-African populations shortly after the Out-of-Africa migration (70,000–50,000 years ago). This divergence occurred before the ancestors of West Eurasians and East Eurasians separated from each other in the middle east.
E-M78 is the father of E-V12 which E-V32 is a subclade downstream of it. (fig. 4)
Eurasian mtDNA groups were precent as far back as 30 KA in NA, E-M78 Ibermaursian intermixed with these groups which shifted to 50/50 SSA and Basal Eurasian, I wouldn't be surprised E-Z827 which E-M123 is downstream intermixed with before leaving Africa for the levant.
In the case of NA more Eurasian admixed people migrated during the neolithic increasing this ancestry among the location population meanwhile, Cushites migrated south for better pastures due to the drying of the Sahara.
fig.1
fig. 2
fig. 3
fig 4
Doesn't this imply then that the proto afroasiatic speakers were also 50/50 ?
Also something I was confused about was why the later waves of eurasian migration if they were so large only seemd to affect north africans and eygptians and then I did some digging and looked at the geography. In reality like 80% of north africans and eygptians live within 300km of the Mediterranean coast. This is about the distance from berbera to buhoodle.
I'm still strugling to understand, all you seem to be explaining is the fact that eurasian admixture exists in North africa and the horn of africa , I thought this was well established?
Trending
-
-
-
GENETICS ANAs were basically SSAs, lets not mince words- Started by Shimbiris
- Replies: 32
