Any info on haplogroup L4b2a2?

[The alchemist]

Woah, I was so certain I replied to this like last month, no wonder I didn't get any more alerts, my bad. But thank you so much! Your knowledge is always invaluable. I know it doesn't have any stake on our lives now, far from it, but it's always so fascinating to learn about the groups we descend from and the ways they lived, etc.

No problem, it happens. Yeah, it is fascinating.

Oh okay, that definitely comes as a shock to me then. I figured pretty much everyone in the Great Lakes region - at least Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania has some level of Cushitic admixture, even if very minutely, barring groups like myself who are primarily/overwhelmingly Nilotic. But that's definitely interesting. I guess maybe it's just been overrepresented to me.

Ah, you meant those other groups? I thought we were specifically talking about your people. Yes. There is substantial Cushitic ancestry amongst the people you referred to. Because there were Cushities that mixed with Nilotics and Bantus so they are mixed.

The fact that you made those associations is interesting. I already mentioned how your ancestry could have been accompanied by a Southern Cushitic migration pattern, toward Kenya. It was a bit confusing how those Hima/Tutsi folks entered Rwanda, and Uganda though.

 

[Ayen224]

No problem, it happens. Yeah, it is fascinating.

I'm curious, is this something you study as a career or just a field you're very invested in just to study as a hobby?

Ah, you meant those other groups? I thought we were specifically talking about your people. Yes. There is substantial Cushitic ancestry amongst the people you referred to. Because there were Cushities that mixed with Nilotics and Bantus so they are mixed.

The fact that you made those associations is interesting. I already mentioned how your ancestry could have been accompanied by a Southern Cushitic migration pattern, toward Kenya. It was a bit confusing how those Hima/Tutsi folks entered Rwanda, and Uganda though.

Ah okay got it, yeah I thought as much. And just lastly, to clarify, this potential ancestry is something that can only be surmised due to my maternal haplogroup and the historical/genetic context around it, even though there's no hints of it in my autosomal DNA at all, correct? Which 100% makes sense to me by the way, I totally understand how that works, just very fascinating is all, because it made me think about if the 12.8% East African Pastoralist on the HG/Farmer calculator on illustrativeDNA may have been onto something then. Although, I would assume that calculation is based off autosomal DNA, so it kinda falls apart there. And I guess 12.8% is probably too large a figure for something so distant in the past and not a part of my own current genetic makeup. I'm more inclined to believe that may just be an error on their platform, cause I think I've seen others take issue with the update somewhere else before.

Actually, one super last question if you don't mind me asking, cause I've always been somewhat confused about this. So I'll use the hypothetical maternal haplogroups of L1abc and L1abcde (lmao and then it turns out they're actually real ones). And let's say they're very localised haplogroups, the first one being concentrated in some region in Tanzania for example, and the other being concentrated in some region in Senegal. And these are two entirely different groups in every way, very distinct genetics, etc. And then throwing in my haplogroup, L4b-(etc.,). So because those two former haplogroups both share *L1abc*, they are then closer in relation to each other, at least as far as maternal ancestry, than I am to either of them? Or is the assignment of haplogroup names a bit arbitrary? I only ask because sometimes I'll see very similar haplogroups belonging to two entirely different groups that appear to have nothing in common. But I guess if they do have meaning, then it just means the common maternal ancestor between the two groups is more recent, the obvious assumption ofc. Just wondering what you think.

 

[NidarNidar]

Nvm I’ve gotten something lol

Cushites had a thing for Tall ebony women.

 

[The alchemist]

I'm curious, is this something you study as a career or just a field you're very invested in just to study as a hobby?

This is purely interest-based.

Ah okay got it, yeah I thought as much. And just lastly, to clarify, this potential ancestry is something that can only be surmised due to my maternal haplogroup and the historical/genetic context around it, even though there's no hints of it in my autosomal DNA at all, correct? Which 100% makes sense to me by the way, I totally understand how that works, just very fascinating is all, because it made me think about if the 12.8% East African Pastoralist on the HG/Farmer calculator on illustrativeDNA may have been onto something then. Although, I would assume that calculation is based off autosomal DNA, so it kinda falls apart there. And I guess 12.8% is probably too large a figure for something so distant in the past and not a part of my own current genetic makeup. I'm more inclined to believe that may just be an error on their platform, cause I think I've seen others take issue with the update somewhere else before.

Illustrative DNA uses broad-based models that do not discriminate the needed tailored source input to accurately assess the specific ancestry profiles and does not give the right interpretive feedback when things out of line present themselves.

You lack the sufficient Eurasian DNA that is required to account for 12% of Cushitic ancestry. It's very clear and simple. What you might overlap on is the aspect of AEA on a specific signature basis. Again, it is hard to say without knowing what the source samples were for IllustrativeDNA; it could simply be an overfit artifact because that model could have given narrow dimensions for the Nilo-Saharan ancestry, with your sample merely bearing similar ancestry from the Cushitic side.

Actually, one super last question if you don't mind me asking, cause I've always been somewhat confused about this. So I'll use the hypothetical maternal haplogroups of L1abc and L1abcde (lmao and then it turns out they're actually real ones). And let's say they're very localised haplogroups, the first one being concentrated in some region in Tanzania for example, and the other being concentrated in some region in Senegal. And these are two entirely different groups in every way, very distinct genetics, etc. And then throwing in my haplogroup, L4b-(etc.,). So because those two former haplogroups both share *L1abc*, they are then closer in relation to each other, at least as far as maternal ancestry, than I am to either of them? Or is the assignment of haplogroup names a bit arbitrary? I only ask because sometimes I'll see very similar haplogroups belonging to two entirely different groups that appear to have nothing in common. But I guess if they do have meaning, then it just means the common maternal ancestor between the two groups is more recent, the obvious assumption ofc. Just wondering what you think.

The vernacular follows the order and form of the list you follow and it is very consistent across the decades when dealing with mtDNA, from what I gather (we follow the current and here the a-b-c and 1-2-3 matter very much of phylogenic tree with some sequential caveats). In this case, anyone under L1a is going to be closer than anything under L4, and you would be closer to anything under L4 than anything under L1,2,3 and 5. Now, the question of, whether L5 is closer to L4 rather than L3 is a bit tricky because dating mutations that have deep time depth that transformed within the same kilo years causes problems. I think L5 is older than L2, lol. So these mutations are tricky when we're talking deep traces. The question you asked about within is such that L1abc is much, much closer to L1abcde than anything under L4, let alone your sub-clade.

Other conditions exist but they are the exception.