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.

 

[The alchemist]

I ran a sample from Tanzania (Zanzibar) from 1300 BP that has L4B2a2c. Genetics and dating fit in with the hypothesis of post-herder introduction:

It has Cushitic ancestry (VV is Somali) and Taforalt.

To substantiate further, here is one with L4ba2 from a 400-year-old, Kenya-situated individual:

Let me clarify, I am not modeling for precision, the attempt here is to reveal the correlations, so excuse the distance.

Same mitochondrial DNA clade, again showing food-producing ancestry:

Interpreting the results added with previous consistent evidence, southeastern foragers/hunters received Cushtitic ancestry through female mediation, underscoring a harmonious rationale for the flexible L4 subclade appearance in various non-Cushitic contexts.

This is not the case for incidents like Southern African hunter-gatherer descendant herders that altered their economies through contact. Resource-based economic strategy change accompanies male mediation, chiefly pertinent to pastoralist adaptation and maintenance of such specific survival types. Assimilation towards new living ways (in ancient context) was a female process when geneflow dynamics between foragers and herders transpired.

 

[Ayen224]

I ran a sample from Tanzania (Zanzibar) from 1300 BP that has L4B2a2c. Genetics and dating fit in with the hypothesis of post-herder introduction:
View attachment 346017

It has Cushitic ancestry (VV is Somali) and Taforalt.

To substantiate further, here is one with L4ba2 from a 400-year-old, Kenya-situated individual:
View attachment 346018

Let me clarify, I am not modeling for precision, the attempt here is to reveal the correlations, so excuse the distance.

Same mitochondrial DNA clade, again showing food-producing ancestry:
View attachment 346019

Interpreting the results added with previous consistent evidence, southeastern foragers/hunters received Cushtitic ancestry through female mediation, underscoring a harmonious rationale for the flexible L4 subclade appearance in various non-Cushitic contexts.

This is not the case for incidents like Southern African hunter-gatherer descendant herders that altered their economies through contact. Resource-based economic strategy change accompanies male mediation, chiefly pertinent to pastoralist adaptation and maintenance of such specific survival types. Assimilation towards new living ways (in ancient context) was a female process when geneflow dynamics between foragers and herders transpired.

Wow, once again, thank you for how thorough you always are with this information. I know just researching and looking back at all the sources you've gathered over the years takes time out of your day, so I'm definitely very grateful for that. Sorry for not responding sooner, I just have a horrible habit of completely forgetting about the site each time I reply. But I really do appreciate it. In the periods where I am on the site, I often look back over even your oldest replies and the previous information you've shared with me. Especially as I build my pool of knowledge on this topic over time as well, so there a things you've said that I might not have really grasped upon previous reads that will suddenly make sense to me at a later time. So even though this thread spans across so many replies and such a long time, I'm still always learning from even what you've shared long ago.

Also, I got a match for Kenya on 23AndMe with an update late last year, so that I'm thinking might tie into that theory of my MtDNA, although I do appreciate that you've said previously not to really give 23AndMe too much stock as far as their ethnicity breakdowns when it comes to most Africans. And more than likely it's probably just due to the Luo population there that I imagine I match super closely with and probably have a few distant relatives within. Regardless, I was still super keen to see an actual country match though lol, as I never had one prior.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what are the actual implications of someone who receives a very detailed ethnicity breakdown from 23AndMe, sometimes even down to the city and beyond, vs someone like me who has just a lot of general regions. Which I'm sure the latter is actually the norm anyway. But so for example, someone who receives an ethnicity breakdown right down to their parents' ethnic groups. The only variable that really jumps out at me right now, and probably the most obvious, is sample size. Because of course naturally, if there are less samples overall for a particular region/group, it'd be virtually impossible to confidently tie anyone with them. What do either of these things usually say about someone's genetic makeup, their ethnic group, etc? Are there any other things that might factor into this?

 

[The alchemist]

Wow, once again, thank you for how thorough you always are with this information. I know just researching and looking back at all the sources you've gathered over the years takes time out of your day, so I'm definitely very grateful for that. Sorry for not responding sooner, I just have a horrible habit of completely forgetting about the site each time I reply. But I really do appreciate it. In the periods where I am on the site, I often look back over even your oldest replies and the previous information you've shared with me. Especially as I build my pool of knowledge on this topic over time as well, so there a things you've said that I might not have really grasped upon previous reads that will suddenly make sense to me at a later time. So even though this thread spans across so many replies and such a long time, I'm still always learning from even what you've shared long ago.

It's all good. As long as you read what I write.

Also, I got a match for Kenya on 23AndMe with an update late last year, so that I'm thinking might tie into that theory of my MtDNA, although I do appreciate that you've said previously not to really give 23AndMe too much stock as far as their ethnicity breakdowns when it comes to most Africans. And more than likely it's probably just due to the Luo population there that I imagine I match super closely with and probably have a few distant relatives within. Regardless, I was still super keen to see an actual country match though lol, as I never had one prior.

You should send a non-creepy private message to inquire directly.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what are the actual implications of someone who receives a very detailed ethnicity breakdown from 23AndMe, sometimes even down to the city and beyond, vs someone like me who has just a lot of general regions. Which I'm sure the latter is actually the norm anyway. But so for example, someone who receives an ethnicity breakdown right down to their parents' ethnic groups. The only variable that really jumps out at me right now, and probably the most obvious, is sample size. Because of course naturally, if there are less samples overall for a particular region/group, it'd be virtually impossible to confidently tie anyone with them. What do either of these things usually say about someone's genetic makeup, their ethnic group, etc? Are there any other things that might factor into this?

People who get regions indeed get it through sample size and reported familial origin. The designation by 23andMe users of where their grandparents are from, and what ethnic group they belong to is very important to fixing sub-structure to geographic region, overtime when the sample size grows, statistical measures can widen spatial-genetic resolution.

It's a bit more methodological. They use the data they have to train the system to set parameters, with new users then fitting into that, and/or bettering the needed calibration as well. Yes, they used machine learning for this. Because they use aggregate systems recognition through PCA and a fancy process they call "Uniform manifold approximation and projection," which is basically a way to average clusters into uniform placements, they can conceptually build relational and associative landscapes for genetics to fit dimensions. Added with this: "which, when paired with survey data and analyzed jointly with the well-curated external reference panels, enabled us to define our 45 reference populations and flag outliers for removal" as mentioned in their White Paper, they can reliably build a well-functioning system. They use additional signifiers that also goes beyond geography sometimes, "Free-text responses on grandparental national, ethnic, religious, or other identities enabled us to construct reference panels for populations not defined by specific geographic regions (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews)."

The fact of the matter is, that Sudanese populations are very undertested. Kenyan population has formal studies that were used to define the parameters, so they are already in a better position. But I have seen northern Sudanese barely get different scores from South Sudanese for the majority of their ancestry which is weird. Clearly, this is caused by a lack of data streams through the user base and a dearth of formal studies used.

So they can ascertain "Kenya", within the broader Southern East African or "Oromo region" within Ethiopia and Eritrea because they have stronger associative power to fix substructure relations to those places for aspects of the ancestry base of an individual. This Kenyan individual is for sure from Kenya and carries ancestry specifically acquired in the historical Kenyan population gene flow.

If this person has Luo from the Kenyan side, then the very high Sudanese can be that they received recent ancestry from somewhere you're from. As far as I know, if the Kenyan is not strictly limited to someone with high Bantu ancestry, then that individual should be more Nilo-Saharan than the average Luo Kenyan.

I don't remember exactly what 23andMe said about your ancestry, but I think it might be more accurate than what a Nubian would score, lol. Sometimes people might get "Khartoum" as an indication of the Nubian ancestry. That is a very loose term.

One study claimed that riverine Arabs and Nubians related more along geography instead of ethnic group. What amounts to shifts is a proximal thing as I know most Nubians and riverine Arabs carry most of the same type of substructure, with fluctuating values. So althoguh the study was right, it could not mean a Nubian in Wadi Halfa is considerably different than an individual from Central Sudan. We do have samples that debunk this.