XenophobicPrussian
10-27-2017, 09:16 PM
Finally autosomal DNA from the much conspiritarded about Canary Island Guanches. We already had some y-dna of pre-conquest Guanches, but the presence of some R1b and I2 kept the Nordic theory going for awhile longer.
Just goes to show most historical accounts cannot be trusted as literal. Some ancient swarthy guy sees a person with shiny dark brown hair in the sun and calls it "blonde". Take that shit with a grain of salt.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31257-5
PCA on page 4 here, ADMIXTURE runs on page 5:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(17)31257-5.pdf
Other genetic news I haven't seen covered on TA:
Ancient East Africans -
1) Basal Eurasian admixture is present as early as 5600 BC as far south as Malawi, at low amounts(around 5%).
2) No Basal Eurasian in South African Hunter Gatherers around the time of Christ.
3) A Somali/Ethiopian-like population existed as far south as Tanzania in 1100 BC.
4) By 400 AD, the Basal Eurasian admixture is lower and Tanzanians resemble the modern Hadza and Kikuyu people.
5) The lone late Tasmanian sample from 1400 AD is a pure Bantu identical to modern West Africans such as the Yoruba, which supports the Bantu migration theory, as modern Tasmanians/Kenyans have less Basal Eurasian admixture than Hunter Gathers in said countries such as the Hadza and Maasai.
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5
Ancient North Africans/Morroccans - Neolithic Morrocans(6k BC, IAM samples) were even more SSA than their modern counterparts, later mixed with Iberian/European farmers by the late neolithic(4k BC, KEB samples) where they had less SSA than modern North Africans. Goes well with the theory that SSA in modern North Africans is both ancient and from modern slavery, not one or the other.
Some people are trying to argue the IAM samples are some "Para-Eurasian" population not related to anyone, certainly not with SSA. They're looking too much into it. K=2 and K=3 runs clearly show some form of SSA-like component, just like in modern North Africans, it's likely just very diverged from modern SSAs.
Link - go to Petalpusher's thread on this paper in the DNA Scientific Papers section, for the relevant ADMIXTURE runs which actually include SSAs in them, page 56 here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/09/21/191569.DC1/191569-1.pdf
Just goes to show most historical accounts cannot be trusted as literal. Some ancient swarthy guy sees a person with shiny dark brown hair in the sun and calls it "blonde". Take that shit with a grain of salt.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31257-5
PCA on page 4 here, ADMIXTURE runs on page 5:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(17)31257-5.pdf
Other genetic news I haven't seen covered on TA:
Ancient East Africans -
1) Basal Eurasian admixture is present as early as 5600 BC as far south as Malawi, at low amounts(around 5%).
2) No Basal Eurasian in South African Hunter Gatherers around the time of Christ.
3) A Somali/Ethiopian-like population existed as far south as Tanzania in 1100 BC.
4) By 400 AD, the Basal Eurasian admixture is lower and Tanzanians resemble the modern Hadza and Kikuyu people.
5) The lone late Tasmanian sample from 1400 AD is a pure Bantu identical to modern West Africans such as the Yoruba, which supports the Bantu migration theory, as modern Tasmanians/Kenyans have less Basal Eurasian admixture than Hunter Gathers in said countries such as the Hadza and Maasai.
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5
Ancient North Africans/Morroccans - Neolithic Morrocans(6k BC, IAM samples) were even more SSA than their modern counterparts, later mixed with Iberian/European farmers by the late neolithic(4k BC, KEB samples) where they had less SSA than modern North Africans. Goes well with the theory that SSA in modern North Africans is both ancient and from modern slavery, not one or the other.
Some people are trying to argue the IAM samples are some "Para-Eurasian" population not related to anyone, certainly not with SSA. They're looking too much into it. K=2 and K=3 runs clearly show some form of SSA-like component, just like in modern North Africans, it's likely just very diverged from modern SSAs.
Link - go to Petalpusher's thread on this paper in the DNA Scientific Papers section, for the relevant ADMIXTURE runs which actually include SSAs in them, page 56 here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/09/21/191569.DC1/191569-1.pdf