First Genome of Ancient African Suggests Eurasian Stream Into Africa

Don't forget the Milankovitch cycles for climate change.

Every 20,000 years the Sahara and the Middle east turned green for 5,000 years. The last time the Sahatra and Mid East was green 5,000 years ago i.e. 3,000 BC. From 8,000 BC to 3,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green. Before that 28,000 BC to 23,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green and before that 48,000 BC to 43,000 BC then 68,000 BC to 63,000 BC. This is the series.
 
Eurasians are the ancestors of Africans.

But only of one particular (and rather small) group of Africans, not of all or even most of Africans.
 
There's been a correction to the Mota paper:
http://www.nature.com/news/error-found-in-study-of-first-ancient-african-genome-1.19258


"Pontus Skoglund, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, says that he was surprised by the claim that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants. But after obtaining the Mota man’s genome from Manica’s team, he and his colleague David Reich carried out their own comparison and found no evidence for that conclusion. They informed Manica’s team, who then discovered the processing error.


“Almost all of us agree there was some back-to-Africa gene flow, and it was a pretty big migration into East Africa,” says Skoglund. “But it did not reach West and Central Africa, at least not in a detectable way.” The error also undermines the paper’s original conclusion that many Africans carry Neanderthal DNA (inherited from Eurasians whose ancestors had interbred with the group)."

If Mota shows Eurasian influence, then that will affect the percentages of Eurasian ancestry in East African populations that can be held to have derived from post-Mota migrations.
 
Thanks Angela,

It seems that errors happen in such studies, not just in autosomal but also uniparental stuff.

For example Mathieson et al. wrongly described ESP14 as R1b, while in fact it was R1a-M198*:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...sation-as-well?p=474921&viewfull=1#post474921

Smal from Anthrogenica says that it was not R1b. According to Genetiker it was R1a-M198*.

I think they are both right in this case.

RISE1 - also described as R1b in one paper - is too low coverage to say anything other than R or R1.

He is a similar case as Iberian ATP3, for which Genetiker claims R1b-M269, but it is very low coverage.
 
Pontus Skoglund, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, says that he was surprised by the claim that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants. But after obtaining the Mota man’s genome from Manica’s team, he and his colleague David Reich carried out their own comparison and found no evidence for that conclusion. They informed Manica’s team, who then discovered the processing error.

This new conclusion means that agriculture was invented in Central Africa independently, rather than spreading there from Eurasia.

By some Proto-Bantu ancestors of the Bantu, perhaps (?).

Or - alternatively - agriculture could get there from north of the Sahara, but through a cultural transition, without any gene flow.
 
The error also undermines the paper’s original conclusion that many Africans carry Neanderthal DNA (inherited from Eurasians whose ancestors had interbred with the group)."

I've been very curious about this lately. When Neandertal admixture was confirmed as likely for non-Africans, it was thought that the vast majority of SSAs had none. Now we're seeing some low Neandertal ancestry is some eastern African groups, but why didn't we find this earlier? Why was the conclusion over the past several years that SSAs didn't have any?

I'm sure there's a simple answer. Lack of coverage?
 
Here is the link to the actual erratum:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26978112/Erratum with figures.pdf

This probably means we're back to the conclusion that there's no Neanderthal in West Africans.

It also means it's a good idea, in my opinion, to use SSA based on West Africans when trying to estimate "African" gene flow.

@Tomenable:
There's nothing to indicate that farming was invented independently in Central Africa. I don't think this affects the gene flow down from Eastern Africa, although it might change percentages slightly.
 
There's nothing to indicate that farming was invented independently in Central Africa.

Really? It seems that they domesticated totally different plants / crops than farmers up north:

http://apworldipedia.com/index.php?...c_Revolution_and_Early_Agricultural_Societies

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Centres_of_origin_and_spread_of_agriculture_v2.svg

[/COLOR]http://www.oxfordbibliograp.../obo-9780199846733/obo-9780199846733-0115.xml

29f7765ffa61b1529d0d4dbcb8c21c82.jpg
 
It remains unclear whether Sub-Saharan agriculture developed independently or was imported. Genetic evidence may be conclusive in determining what happened, and if there was no or just very little gene flow, then apparently they developed it independently:

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5462e/x5462e0e.htm

The origins of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa remain unclear. Vegeculture was probably practiced on the northern margins of the tropical forest as long as 7000 years ago but the beginning of cereal cultivation is less clear. Sub-Saharan Africa had a limited range of crops when Europeans first arrived in the 15th century, the most important being sorghum Sorghum vulgare and several millets. In parts of West Africa indigenous yams, rice and banana were grown. New food crops, including cassava and maize, were introduced after the discovery of the Americas.

The first cattle entered Africa through Egypt about 7000 years ago. The plough, by then present over most of the Old World, did not reach Africa until the 19th century except in Ethiopia.

Unlike Asia, animal and arable agriculture were generally separate in Africa and could have been a barrier to early intensification.

Even domesticated cattle could be local, because genetic evidence seems to suggest it is of a distinct strain than Eurasian cattle:

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846733/obo-9780199846733-0115.xml

Early farming and pastoralism, or food production, in Africa can be separated into several categories: animals, grains, and tropical plants, all of which prevailed in different places and at different times.

Animal domestication is the earliest recorded, but is highly disputed. Large cattle bones found in Egypt dated to the 10th millennium BP are deemed to be domestic on the basis that they could not have survived without human intervention and were found associated with pottery. The alternative view is that the timing is such that these cattle were wild, and that domestic cattle that arrived in the 8th millennium BP were derived from different Levantine stock. The waters are further muddied by the genetics of African cattle suggesting an independent strain, but this also has its critics.

With the general drying of the Sahara around 5000 BP, herders and their cattle and small stock moved south with the tsetse belts into West and East Africa, and by 2000 BP had reached Southern Africa. The question of hunters becoming food producers without apprenticeship is debated, as is the concept of a Stone Age pastoral or agricultural “Neolithic” in Africa. Although winter rainfall crops, such as wheat and barley, were used in Dynastic Egypt, domestication of grain outside the Nile Valley was considerably later than that of animals, only occurring in the Sahel c. 3800 BP, although wild grains most probably had been collected by herders long before this. The beginnings of tropical plant domestication are more difficult to see, as preservation has made the plant residues hard to find. These plants include yams, rice, and oil-bearing trees. Often, environmental change, such as forest clearing, has to be used as a proxy for farming activities in tropical zones. In addition, the development of iron technology is closely correlated with the spread of farming societies in sub-Saharan Africa after 3000 BP. The history of food production in Africa lags somewhat behind the research done in the Near East and Europe, but genomic work on modern Africans has started in parallel with advanced linguistic work. Ancient DNA will be the next technological input now that the problems of contamination have been successfully addressed.
 

This thread has been viewed 16817 times.

Back
Top