No, here i just used Somali as a proxy for their South Cushitic ancestry
The similarities between Somalis and Fulani people.
- Thread starter Nin123
- Start date
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
A
“Most recent studies based on the genome-wide variability suggested that the origin of the non-sub-Saharan ancestry of Fulani traces back to relatively recent times (1800-300 BP), after admixture events between a western African and northern African/southern European source [15,18,37,38].”
The study was more focused on the ancient part of the fulani which is shaped by western African and berber like population.
“This finding has been explained suggesting that the European lactase persistence haplotype was first introduced in northern Africa and then in the Fulani population by “recent” admixture with a northern African population about 2000 years ago”
And even a lot of fulanis will point out recent amazigh figures in their family I remember my fulani friend had a tunisian great grandmother and another guy on reddit said that he has a malian amazigh grandfather and so on. And a lot of fulanis end up with recent north african haplogroups.
So the latest admixture of fulanis with north africans is 300 years ago.
“We inferred the time of admixture in Fulani genomes based on patterns of linkage disequilibrium decay [45], with a generation time of 29 years [46, 47], and found evidence for two admixture events between groups with West African and European ancestries (Additional file 1: Table S2). The first admixture event is dated to 1828 years ago (95% confidence interval (CI): 1517–2138) between a parental population/s related to the West African ancestry groups in our dataset (Jola, Gurmantche, Gurunsi and Igbo) and a parental population carrying European ancestry (related to North-Western Europeans (CEU), Iberians (IBS), British (GBR), Tuscans (TSI), and Czech&Slovaks (CS) in our dataset). The second admixture event is dated to more recent times – 302 years ago (95% CI: 237–368) – and occurred between a West African group, with broadly similar ancestries compared to the first admixture event, and a European group. However, this European group is more related to present-day southwestern Europeans (Iberians (IBS) and Tuscans (TSI)).”
2000 years admixture would have never appeared in their autosomal dna cuz autosomal dna only shows u ur recent ancestry. And pre Amazighs didn’t have southern european at all their ancestry wz fully northern african. And gere are some results of fulani autosomal dna…
their iberian part is usually like 1% or 2% up to 3%
So fulani dna relationship with amazigh is so strong coupled by different admixture events the first one which is the oldest 2000 years ago the recent one is the 300 years ago.
So here is the pre berber dna:
As u can see its 100% north african compared to the fulani results which has a lot of eurasian like the modern day berbers:
as u can see the modern day fulani at least 10 anatolian which the preberber didnt have but modern day moroccans have, not just the anatolian but the zagrosian and european hunter gatherer so here is the modern day moroccan results:
Now if u compare the fulani result with the modern day moroccan here us wt u get:
So with the fulani one on the right and the modern moroccan on the left lets see:
-Anatolian present in both
-north african present in both
-zagrosian present in both
-european hunter gatherer present in both
-subsaharan african present in both
So the only difference between the fukani the modern day moroccan(amazigh) results other than the percentages is the “caucasus hunter gatherer” and why is that? It’s because the berbers have it in low percentages so its watered in the fulani results.
and thanks
ct actually fulanis have strong ties with north african dna in the fulanis autosomal dna you would find no less than 5% north african and autosomal dna shows u the the recent ancestors it goes back only 5 to 6 generations and just like the modern north afticans fulanis tend to have dna from the iberian peninsula aka spain, portugual so it means that they have the dna of modern north africans and thats wt the study u posted the last paragraph from. Fulanis had two north african admixture events basically, the older one shaping their origin which is the berber like and then a recent one with the modern day berbers aka amazigh. Fulanis have high levels of anatolian dna which is present in modern day amazigh aka berber but not present in ancient or pre amazigh at all which means that the fulani got their Anatolian admixture from the recent berber populations.
“Most recent studies based on the genome-wide variability suggested that the origin of the non-sub-Saharan ancestry of Fulani traces back to relatively recent times (1800-300 BP), after admixture events between a western African and northern African/southern European source [15,18,37,38].”
The study was more focused on the ancient part of the fulani which is shaped by western African and berber like population.
“This finding has been explained suggesting that the European lactase persistence haplotype was first introduced in northern Africa and then in the Fulani population by “recent” admixture with a northern African population about 2000 years ago”
And even a lot of fulanis will point out recent amazigh figures in their family I remember my fulani friend had a tunisian great grandmother and another guy on reddit said that he has a malian amazigh grandfather and so on. And a lot of fulanis end up with recent north african haplogroups.
So the latest admixture of fulanis with north africans is 300 years ago.
“We inferred the time of admixture in Fulani genomes based on patterns of linkage disequilibrium decay [45], with a generation time of 29 years [46, 47], and found evidence for two admixture events between groups with West African and European ancestries (Additional file 1: Table S2). The first admixture event is dated to 1828 years ago (95% confidence interval (CI): 1517–2138) between a parental population/s related to the West African ancestry groups in our dataset (Jola, Gurmantche, Gurunsi and Igbo) and a parental population carrying European ancestry (related to North-Western Europeans (CEU), Iberians (IBS), British (GBR), Tuscans (TSI), and Czech&Slovaks (CS) in our dataset). The second admixture event is dated to more recent times – 302 years ago (95% CI: 237–368) – and occurred between a West African group, with broadly similar ancestries compared to the first admixture event, and a European group. However, this European group is more related to present-day southwestern Europeans (Iberians (IBS) and Tuscans (TSI)).”
2000 years admixture would have never appeared in their autosomal dna cuz autosomal dna only shows u ur recent ancestry. And pre Amazighs didn’t have southern european at all their ancestry wz fully northern african. And gere are some results of fulani autosomal dna…
So fulani dna relationship with amazigh is so strong coupled by different admixture events the first one which is the oldest 2000 years ago the recent one is the 300 years ago.
So here is the pre berber dna:
-Anatolian present in both
-north african present in both
-zagrosian present in both
-european hunter gatherer present in both
-subsaharan african present in both
So the only difference between the fukani the modern day moroccan(amazigh) results other than the percentages is the “caucasus hunter gatherer” and why is that? It’s because the berbers have it in low percentages so its watered in the fulani results.
and thanks
Attachments
Also in the paragraph u provided it simply says “cannot be ONLY explained” so they used the word only which means they are saying “the non subsaharan in the fulani is somehow from a recent admixture but the recent one cannot explain everything cuz there is ancient too” but if they meant “sub saharan in the fulani is not recent and only from an ancient source” they would have excluded the word only and just said “subsaharan in fulani can not be explained by a recent admixture” but the word only here changed the meaning into “yes fulanis do have a recent admixture but that doesn’t explain it all cuz they also have an ancient one too” using the word only here is like its not only recent but there are other sources too for that admixture, but doesn’t deny the fact that there is a recent otherwise they would have excluded the word only. Instead of saying “can not be explained” they said “can not ONLY be explained”. Ex: “Its not me who robbed your house” vs “its not ONLY me who robbed your house”
As u can see the first sentence I denied robbing ur house and that I DIDNT do it at ALL, but in the second sentence I denied being the ONLY one to rob ur house cuz there are people who were with me too.
