North African GEDMATCH kits?

[Lucas]

I will maybe post other results later.

I am not kabyle, Im from NorthWestern Algeria, a small Berber Arabophone tribe related to Moroccan Riffians.

Thanks for info. From what calculators are your results? Eu k13?

I think the lowest I saw is from a former Riffian member here (around 12/13%)

Also in what calcs?

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

Im not disagreeing with what Eurogenes says, im disagreeing with the interpretation you make of K36. You re just spreading the SSA everywhere at this K, in West Africa, NE Africa, N.Africa, Near eastern, Arabia,.. It can give interesting clues about where it was picked up but it doesn't make people magically 5 times less SSA.

What do you disagree with of the things that Chad Rohflsen said on Anthrogenica? Or basically anyone that has studied Natufians for example. Admixture shows them as being 10%+ SSA, but everyone today knows they have no African, it's Basal Eurasian, and the reason there still aren't calculators that include Basal is because we still don't have their genomes, they're a ghost population.

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

I will maybe post other results later.

I am not kabyle, Im from NorthWestern Algeria, a small Berber Arabophone tribe related to Moroccan Riffians.
Kabyles have similar results than other northern Algerians from what I saw, their genetic differences are a myth.
The main differences for NorthWest Africans is the more you go to the south, the more the SSA admix is important, the more you go to north, the more you score "northern components" (lets call it that way).
Moroccans and NorthWestern Algerians tend to score more WestMed while Eastern Algerians (including kabyles) and Tunisians score way more EastMed.

The average Northern Moroccan/Algerian/Tunisian score between 14 and 21% (hidden or not) SSA.
Depends of your region and how mixed your family is.
When you go more south, its higher.
I think the lowest I saw is from a former Riffian member here (around 12/13%)

Out of curiosity, have you done the Eurogenes Basal-rich K7? Or know some person close to you or a Riffian that has done it? What did they score?

[Lucas]

What do you disagree with of the things that Chad Rohflsen said on Anthrogenica? Or basically anyone that has studied Natufians for example. Admixture shows them as being 10%+ SSA, but everyone today knows they have no African, it's Basal Eurasian, and the reason there still aren't calculators that include Basal is because we still don't have their genomes, they're a ghost population.

We know also now that Ancient Egyptians had minmal SSA in comparison to modern ones. In case of Berbers their distance to Negroid population was bigger and they didn't have Nile as a route to north.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...-more-sub.html

ancient Egyptians basically lack SSA affinity beyond other Eurasians until Roman times.

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

We know also now that Ancient Egyptians had minmal SSA in comparison to modern ones. In case of Berbers their distance to Negroid population was bigger and they didn't have Nile as a route to north.

Yes Ancient Egyptians seem to indeed have practically no SSA, which is interesting. But maybe they'll find a tiny bit, as there was actually a tiny period of time where contact was possible between the Middle Eastern-like peoples and SSA's. History of the Sahara:

A timeline of Sahara occupation:

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.
7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

[Petalpusher]

What do you disagree with of the things that Chad Rohflsen said on Anthrogenica? Or basically anyone that has studied Natufians for example. Admixture shows them as being 10%+ SSA, but everyone today knows they have no African, it's Basal Eurasian, and the reason there still aren't calculators that include Basal is because we still don't have their genomes, they're a ghost population.

Where have you seen that?!

Im quoting him but i could tell you the same

Those calculator results mean nothing as they're based on modern clusters. There's no African in Natufians. Formal stats show that. You should go by those and not a calculator.

He was answering someone running Natufians (who are 12K old) with a modern based calculator, which people should understand, doesn't really work. We can anyway verify ourself, as the vast majority of Europeans, including northern Euro who score more than 30% Natufians (something basal rich in reality) don't show SSA at any K even K3. N.African don't score that much Natufians, i think many Euro score more and yet they show SSA, there s no overlap at K6 for example, the SSA doesn't decrease because of the Natufian, it stays the same.

The Basal rich of K7 was a mishmash of plenty of things, Davidski said it himself, people are scoring different things, and yes for some it was sucking some SSA and some other not. As long as we don't have a genome it's experimental.


Have you seen the next K8Q?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1956803379


Usual SSA values here, even with highly basal clusters (Iran_N / Levant_N)

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

Where have you seen that?!

Im quoting him but i could tell you the same

He was answering someone running Natufians (who are 12K old) with a modern based calculator, which people should understand, doesn't really work. We can anyway verify ourself, as the vast majority of Europeans, including northern Euro who score more than 30% Natufians (something basal rich in reality) don't show SSA at any K even K3.

I've seen that at Anthrogenica and at the comments of the Eurogenes blogs by people like Simon_W and others. Everybody says Natufians have no actual African.

He was answering that in the context of saying that not only Natufians but also North Africans are less SSA than modern calculators give them.

Have you seen the next K8Q?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1956803379

Usual SSA values here, even with highly basal clusters (Iran_N / Levant_N)

I don't know what calculator that is, but testing Iran_N with a Iran_Neolithic component is obviously gonna make them score a lot in the Iran_Neolithic component, and even still they show 3% SSA (obviously the SSA there is modern day SSA's as usual). If you took out the Iran_Neolithic component, they would score a lot more in SSA, same thing happens with North Africans.

It also doesn't attempt to isolate the Basal Eurasian component as the Basal-rich K7 did, so it's two different calculators made for different reasons.

[Petalpusher]

I've seen that at Anthrogenica and at the comments of the Eurogenes blogs by people like Simon_W and others. Everybody says Natufians have no actual African.

He was answering that in the context of saying that not only Natufians but also North Africans are less SSA than modern calculators give them.

That's why im running them on ancient calculator, not modern and K58, it's useless and indeed give them more if we were to recover every bits from every scores (so the contrary to what people think..)

I agree they don't, i ran the genome myself in formal stats, Natufians don't have African affinity, at all. It was even surprising as they don't show a closer relationship to Africans than EHG for example (Only WHG-SHG "beat" them). Natufians are highly "Basal Eurasian" but with something else ancestral to WHG, that "basal" is more difficult to tell and a makeshift job to recreate something that looks like them as Eurogenes did with K7br, as long as we don't have a genome it's speculation. We would need to also define what is that "Basal", or what we are looking for exactly, is it really the old first split OOA, the split with ENA, something more recent etc.. There s little chance we ll recover something 50ky old in that region in good condition so we ll have to settle for something more recent in any case.

I don't know what calculator that is, but testing Iran_N with a Iran_Neolithic component is obviously gonna make them score a lot in the Iran_Neolithic component, and even still they show 3% SSA (obviously the SSA there is modern day SSA's as usual). If you took out the Iran_Neolithic component, they would score a lot more in SSA, same thing happens with North Africans.

It also doesn't attempt to isolate the Basal Eurasian component as the Basal-rich K7 did, so it's two different calculators made for different reasons.

You mean N.Africans would score even more than they already score? Moroccans and Algerians score 20-25% here, which is the normal thing. But maybe yea if we were to remove the two highly basal Iran_N and Levant_N they would show a K3 level (more 25 than 20). I don't see why Iran would score significant SSA, they don't usually, the average must be around 1%, and 2 outliers i guess with Gulf ancestry.

I m trying to be reasonnable, let's say a K3 can inflate their score a little, but it's not possible anymore at K10, K12, K15 based on ancient dna. If most W.Eurasians (they are pred W.E as well) score 0% and they score 20%, they have that 20% something, wether old or more recent it's there. No one would argue an European who has a Japanese grandparent and score 25% E.Asian, is a 25% mistaken for something else. Admixture is not 0.1% perfect but it's absolutely not mistaken of 20-25%.

[Numidia]

Interesting why Iberian in North Africans?

north africans are not iberians genetics tests companies have many samples for europeans but almost nothing for north africans
gedmatch is only a calculator it's not accurate too, from what I've seen north africans appear anormally mixed

[Lucas]

I received some North African K36 results

Kabyles