Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

[Ailchu]

From my own data of WHGs like Loschbour, La Brana, Cheddar Man, Ranchot. But we only had Cheddar Man last time. Everybody can download the Data from European Nucleotide Archive.
Lets take a look at WHG trait SNP data merged from all WHG labled samples I have in my database:

Swede 82%
European 79%
Dravidian 76%
Basque 75%
Middle East 73% Northern South Asian 73%
Khanty 72%
Aboriginal Australian 68% Papuan 68%
Iberian 64%
East Asian 63%
Native American 62%
Bantu 60%
Bedouin 51%

The problem with ancient and modern DNA data is till today the often low quality of samples. Many of the datasets used for those expert or hobby analysis are not based on whole genome sequencing data. Many samples are lacking significant trait SNPs to determine their look for example too.
But whole genome sequencing is mostly not really the whole genome, often people find that in their whole genome sequencing data SNPs are missing.

The question is what data is used for an analysis, which algorithm.

I also read 5 years ago as I started with the hobby a critical book about population genomics and all the strange things that happened at the beginning of commercial analysis and wrong results that where brought to the customers. It was also a critical book about Haplogroups and the psychological effect they often have on people and their identity.
Multiple cases where demonstrated where DNA analysis created more uncertainty then before.

I am personally always septic about any big analysis and deep down I know that many things that we believe about this topic can be wrong. This is because the data we have is limited and the technology we are using is designed to get the results we are awaiting.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.11.439381v4.full

Just think about all the calculators on Gedmatch and what kind of strange different results they can create in terms of components of ancient populations. One calculator says that you are of over 40% WHG ancestry, the other one only 20%? Is this really realistic? I think not. It is only true in the sense of which samples where used and which algorithm and from what company you imported your data.

There will be also always questions that cannot be answered by population genetics, because of the “simple” nature of human genetics in general. And there is also a limit of time. It is unlikely that fossils 100.000 years old will have a large amount of intact DNA. So topics like out Of Africa or what was the real ancestor of modern humans will maybe never be answered and stay a field of discussion forever.
Fossils and skull metrics may be nice ideas, but they can also be totally wrong and lead to a false direction of interpretation, because all other data is missing.

The problem is that ancestry is for many people a fundamental term to their identity. For example Cheddar Man is a social nuke and created much controversy. There are different social movements that want to claim him to demonstrate a kind of ancestral right to live where he now lives.

Some weeks ago I was in a conversation with people and someone said that a politician that is against migration should note that Europe was dark skinned 8000 years ago. I told him that this is not true and that Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers also had alleles for light skin and blue eyes and that they where also present in Anatolian Farmers. The answer of this person was: “We should stop talking about history!”

People are using this data to create or heat up social conflicts and build expectations. But it is nothing new, it has also happened in the ancient past. May be there is no way to stop this. But in this conflict, the truth will die. Just for the benefit of one of the counter parties.

i'm not really convinced of your data to be honest. but if your data is true, you give distances for WHG and certain modern europeans that are even bigger than those between dravidians or aboriginal australians and WHG. so it is not really clear if those WHG's were looking that european even based on your data.

what are the %-values for modern populations if you use swedes or european as a target instead of WHG?

 

[Doggerland]

You did not understand what I am doing in my analysis. This is not a PCA or ancestry calculation.
I directly compare the SNPs of two samples (For example Swede and WHG or Northern Sout Asian and WHG) for eye, hair and skin color, the facial morphology for nose, facial breadth, forehead, eye distance, eye socket form, ear morphology, and some more things.
The SNPs I am using are the ones from the no more available gedmatch eye color prediction, studies on the internet about facial morphology and the ones that can by found in studies about facial morphology on the GWAS catalog.
The SNPs where selected to be the ones that got the highest accuracy scoring on GWAS and availability in ancient and modern samples.

I will give you a short cutout from my SNPs list as an example. These SNPs are for nose, mouth position, lips and some are also for chin morphology:

Swede

rs7325564 CC
rs4787778 AG
rs2058742 GT
rs2045323 GG
rs17640804 TT
rs3751074 GG
rs3920540 TT
rs6414928 GG
rs1404872 GG
rs9567488 CC
rs1027479 TC
rs3827760 AA

Northern Sout Asian

rs7325564 CC
rs4787778 AG
rs2058742 GG
rs2045323 GG
rs17640804 TT
rs3751074 GG
rs3920540 TT
rs6414928 GG
rs1404872 GG
rs9567488 CC
rs1027479 TT
rs3827760 AA

WHG (Merged from Loschbour, Ranchot, La Brana and Cheddar Man)

rs7325564 TC
rs4787778 AA
rs2058742 GT
rs2045323 GG
rs17640804 TT
rs3751074 TG
rs3920540 TG
rs6414928 GG
rs1404872 GG
rs9567488 CT
rs1027479 TC
rs3827760 AA

And now you can compare how many alleles are matching between the populations.

Northern South Asian + WHG 17/24

Swede WHG + 19/24

If you have done this for all traits, you can calculate the percentage of matching between the two samples.
This is not a method that is made to create a PCA, but to find out how people looked and how similar they are in their optical traits.
And you are right in one thing, modern populations of people are often (Not always) matching much more in traits then ancient ones and modern ones.

I will post some examples of modern ones:

All Africans + Swede 71%
All Africans + Middle East 80%
All Africans + All Asians 73%
All Africans + Andaman 65%

Andaman + Aboriginal Australian 72%
Andaman + Indian 72%
Andaman + Bantu 62%

All Asians + Swede 70%
All Asian + Middle East 73%

Ashkenazi + African 73%
Ashkenazi + Middle East 90%

NorthernSouth Asian + African 74%
Northern South Asian + Middle East 88%
Northern South Asian + Andaman 64%
Northern South Asian + Aboriginal Australian 70%
Northern South Asian + All Asians 76%

These are my own highest modern populations:

Ukrainian (74%)
United Kingdom (73%) Middle East (73%)

My wife:

Swede (82%)
Netherlands (81%) United Kingdom (81%)

I hope that people now understand how the percentages where generated and why they seem strange for many.

 

[MOESAN]

To make comparisons we would need a more complete set of features markers ; and a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock.
Apparently, spite not homogenous, a lot of our paleo-mesolithic ancestors showed some ancestral features that put them closer to other not "europoid" pop's, as primitive southern Asia ones, in some part; but there were/is no identity;
are we even sure that same features are always ruled by the very same markers?
&: ASI pop of today is very multiform for phenotypes, BTW; someones show very europeanlike features in the sense of gracilised europoid (except partly pigmentation) when other stayed in a very old phenotypical stage.

 

[Doggerland]

If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.

I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.

 

[real expert]

If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.

I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.

I personally appreciate your effort to show us your phenotype analysis of ancient people. It's actually good to have a comparison between phenotype predictions from geneticists and amateurs.

By the way, here's a modern European man that resembles pretty much the Cheddar man.

These guys look rather like La Brana.

So, the WHG-looks still show up in some Europeans.

 

[Ailchu]

If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.

I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.

well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.

would be nice to see europeans compared to other populations, there seem to be massive differences in your calculator depending on which populations you take even if they live relatively close. would also be interesting what the values between CHG/ANF/WHG/EEF are.

 

[kingjohn]

posted by user (adamm) from anthrogenica :

interesting to see facial reconstruction of those ancients

https://ancestralwhispers.org/reconstructions

 

[Angela]

Yes, I saw that. I'm suspicious. There's no way, for example, that British Mesolithic looked so much like modern people from the British Isles. Their percentage in modern Brits is very small.

This is what most people do when "reconstructing" appearance from skulls; they are influenced by the appearance of modern people from the era.

The only ones I give much credence to are the ones which are based on contemporaneous paintings and/or sculptures, or death masks etc.

 

[Angela]

well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.

would be nice to see europeans compared to other populations, there seem to be massive differences in your calculator depending on which populations you take even if they live relatively close. would also be interesting what the values between CHG/ANF/WHG/EEF are.

I think this is the second time I've agreed with you. I should mark it on a calendar.

 

[Angela]

I think davidski has a crystal ball
Or he saw this paper above
His commnt on eurogenes :
@Luuk
Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia.
Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.
But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.
It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry.

Oh, please. What else would they be???

We've been saying this for 10 years.

 

[kingjohn]

Oh, please. What else would they be???

We've been saying this for 10 years.

so you say it pretty predictable
what y haplogroups he say he saw ?
i understand
i still want to share it
because i do believe he has connection to someone in those labs
who leak information to him
so time will tell

 

[Angela]

To make comparisons we would need a more complete set of features markers ; and a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock.
Apparently, spite not homogenous, a lot of our paleo-mesolithic ancestors showed some ancestral features that put them closer to other not "europoid" pop's, as primitive southern Asia ones, in some part; but there were/is no identity;
are we even sure that same features are always ruled by the very same markers?
&: ASI pop of today is very multiform for phenotypes, BTW; someones show very europeanlike features in the sense of gracilised europoid (except partly pigmentation) when other stayed in a very old phenotypical stage.

I keep on saying it, but it never seems to register; these traits are determined by multiple snps working together. It is cumulative. I doubt we have identified all the snps for even one trait yet.

Analyses like these can lead to the conclusion that a population 80% Anatolian Neolithic and 20% WHG, with a description which is basically that of Alpine people, could be found most commonly in the British Isles.

It's not a question of building a better calculator. The method and the assumptions which underlie it are faulty.

More importantly, as you state: "a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock."

 

[Doggerland]

well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.

Ancestry calculators use patterns of SNPs for prediction of components.
But this is ignoring many traits. Single trait SNPs are not the target of the creators of ancestry calculators and this would not make a sense, because they cannot predict ancestry (Dark skin doesent make you African, blue eyes not a Swede)

For example WHG gets high results for Finnish, Swedes or Blatic ethnicities in modern calculators. But how can that be, if they appear some part ASI/Aboriginal Asutralian/Dravidian? They where dark skinned, no Scandinavian is this today.

Why doesn't Angela asks the creators of this calculators for pictures of Dark Skinned Finns with curly hair?

Then I must argue the same way you did and say this calculators on Gedmatch are all a flaw, how can be someone with Scandinavian ancestry like WHGs be dark skinned? Why don’t Oceanian components appear, ah, those scammers!
But it is nonsense to say such things, because they are not made to predict traits, only ancestry components.

Why are WHG far away from Iberians but close to Europeans and Aboriginal Australians based on my prediction?

Simple answer: WHG shares more of the selected traits with Swedes and Aboriginal Australians, as with Iberians.

But that does not mean all traits in whole.

I will take a rough look for this at Cheddar Man:

Similar traits to Aboriginal Australians:
Eye distance, some lip morphology, eye lids, some nose morphology, chin morphology, some ear, some skull, all skin color, hair color, hair structure, spine, hands, arms.

Similar traits to Europeans:
Eye to nose distance, lip morphology, forehead, facial breadth, chin morphology, some nasal morphology, mouth position, some ear morphology, many for eye color, half of the ones for skin color, hands and arms.

Similar traits to Iberians:
Nose to lip distance, some for lip morphology, some skull morphology, some eye color, some teeth, some hair color.

Europeans share a common ancestry, but that doesn't mean that they share the same traits in eye color, hair structure, facial features and so on.

 

[MOESAN]

If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.

I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.

Don't take my post as a personal critic of your tries. It's just that it's difficult to be completely accurate in the representation of genetical distances based on pheno/genotypical markers, as yourself wrote in some way, concerning incomplete data. Your work deserves respect.
ATW the results, even if accurate, doesn't check the allover genetic distances and doesn't reveal the pathes taken by our diverse ancestral groups, when taken at the averages levels. I'm interested in what you do here, don't feal offenced.

 

[Doggerland]

Honestly the discussion here brought me some new ideas. Instead of comparing the whole sample list of trait SNPs, it would be more useful to compare specific kinds of optical traits, for example the nose morphology, the eye color, the skin color, forehead and so on separately.

For example a description could be then similar to this:

The eye color matches Swedes and Danes.

The skin color matches Aboriginal Australians, South Indians.

The forehead matches Middle East, Northern South Asians and Europeans.

The hair structure matches Aboriginal Australians.

The mouth morphology mostly matches Europeans.

And so on. This would be easier to imagine and would need no percentages.
But the problem with this will be that some samples, modern and ancient ones, will not be usable for this, because some SNPs are missing. And some samples will likely have no matches in some or many traits.
This would lead to fewer samples, but better accuracy.

 

[Doggerland]

After experimenting around I come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to search for population specific trait patterns to compare single optical traits. The reason for this is following: For example there is a specific pattern for eye color in the population of Swedes. But that doesn't mean that this predict the color. It only says that Swedes share a specific pattern of eye color alleles. But traits that where often caused by single SNPs like blue eyes or red hair, vary and are not the same in every individual of the population.

When you compare the eye color SNPs to search for a matching population to an ancient sample and finally you say: “The eye color matches mostly Swedes” most people will think that they had blue eyes, but you have to look also at the SNPs for blue eyes to see if this is true.
Blue eyes doesn't make you Swede, but being Swede also doesn't make you blue eyed.

For example WHG doesn't display the pattern for Scandinavian eye color heritage, but has the blue eye alleles.

Another problem is for example nose shapes. When you look at the single specific nose shape SNPs you can make a prognosis how the nose might be shaped. But when you use population patters and comparing two samples, you will get a message like this: “The nose matches Middle Eastern” Ah ok, but what Middle Eastern nose? There are different types of noses, even in the Middle East. So it is useless to look for population specific patterns, because they cannot predict single traits, only shared trait ancestry.
To clear this specific question you would need data from a genetic study about different nose shapes of the Middle East.

To differentiate traits between populations you would need much more SNPs for traits, but to find these, the population specific studies first had to be done. After that those SNPs must be tested regularly in consumer and academic DNA test too.

If one wants to know how an ancient individual may looked like, searching for single trait SNPs and making a prognosis is a better way.
This would change, if much more SNPs for complex traits like facial features would be known and are available in DNA samples.

But I will post a graph that shows trait SNP related allele sharing of modern populations, compared to Pygmy:

https://ibb.co/8zNWjBR

I find it interesting, that Han Chinese is near the Africans. The reason for this is on the one side that they are a very inbreed population and almost homomozygote, but also share this homozygote alleles with them.
I personally would speculate if this traits where introduced to Africa by an early migration wave from Asia. There is also this story about Chinese seafarers but I don’t think that they had such a big impact and can be accounted for this.
“Out of Africa” would be also an answer for those, who think that it is the right theory of modern human origin. Maybe it is shared Archaic Human ancestry.
I checked all my Han Chinese files for a mistake, but they all had typical admixture, no outliers. East Asians as a whole population, do not share so much trait alleles with Pygmy, its only the Han.

And a graph for ancient populations and trait allele sharing with Neanderthals. I also included the Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, that was discussed in this thread as an ancestor of the Sumerians (Crescent Neol.):

https://ibb.co/d5cGjQ4

 

[kingjohn]

After experimenting around I come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to search for population specific trait patterns to compare single optical traits. The reason for this is following: For example there is a specific pattern for eye color in the population of Swedes. But that doesn't mean that this predict the color. It only says that Swedes share a specific pattern of eye color alleles. But traits that where often caused by single SNPs like blue eyes or red hair, vary and are not the same in every individual of the population.

When you compare the eye color SNPs to search for a matching population to an ancient sample and finally you say: “The eye color matches mostly Swedes” most people will think that they had blue eyes, but you have to look also at the SNPs for blue eyes to see if this is true.
Blue eyes doesn't make you Swede, but being Swede also doesn't make you blue eyed.

For example WHG doesn't display the pattern for Scandinavian eye color heritage, but has the blue eye alleles.

Another problem is for example nose shapes. When you look at the single specific nose shape SNPs you can make a prognosis how the nose might be shaped. But when you use population patters and comparing two samples, you will get a message like this: “The nose matches Middle Eastern” Ah ok, but what Middle Eastern nose? There are different types of noses, even in the Middle East. So it is useless to look for population specific patterns, because they cannot predict single traits, only shared trait ancestry.
To clear this specific question you would need data from a genetic study about different nose shapes of the Middle East.

To differentiate traits between populations you would need much more SNPs for traits, but to find these, the population specific studies first had to be done. After that those SNPs must be tested regularly in consumer and academic DNA test too.

If one wants to know how an ancient individual may looked like, searching for single trait SNPs and making a prognosis is a better way.
This would change, if much more SNPs for complex traits like facial features would be known and are available in DNA samples.

But I will post a graph that shows trait SNP related allele sharing of modern populations, compared to Pygmy:

https://ibb.co/8zNWjBR

I find it interesting, that Han Chinese is near the Africans. The reason for this is on the one side that they are a very inbreed population and almost homomozygote, but also share this homozygote alleles with them.
I personally would speculate if this traits where introduced to Africa by an early migration wave from Asia. There is also this story about Chinese seafarers but I don’t think that they had such a big impact and can be accounted for this.
“Out of Africa” would be also an answer for those, who think that it is the right theory of modern human origin. Maybe it is shared Archaic Human ancestry.
I checked all my Han Chinese files for a mistake, but they all had typical admixture, no outliers. East Asians as a whole population, do not share so much trait alleles with Pygmy, its only the Han.

And a graph for ancient populations and trait allele sharing with Neanderthals. I also included the Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, that was discussed in this thread as an ancestor of the Sumerians (Crescent Neol.):

https://ibb.co/d5cGjQ4

still appreciate your work
can you have a look on individual I2085 he belonged to haplogroup e1b1b1 from this paper
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB32466?show=reads
i mean what were his facial features
nose , face shape , forhead ?
hair color, skin coulour ?

p.s
i do wonder
did he was like the natufians in his facial features
or he had the phenotype more simlar to the iranian farmers
hawk nose and stuff ?

 

[adian808]

HI people
you can' t understand the fact that african and australoid and dravidian peoples and sumerian peoples have different genes but come from a same family because you don' t take them as member of same family : you know in a same family the brothers have not the same genes but they have genes in common or come from the same family
that's that about sumerians , dravidians, australoids and africans

it is proved dravidians and australoids have M haplogroup and come from L4 haplogroup from Africa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)
and we know australoid/ dravidian people are the first people of middle east and india as show this map of australoid/dravidian/veddoid presence 50000 years ago
qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
and sothe ancestors of ubaidians were australoid/veddoid/ dravidian folks and the sumerians were so australoid/veddoid/ dravidian people
even bible can certify it because the first people of irak region was Nimrod people
Hellanicus also saw long haired blacks called cephenes by the greeks on the euphrates , so he was not wrong

We can also call those people arabian veddoid
About them we know this:
Ancient Vedda-like type of the Arabian Peninsula and South Iran, often heavily mixed. Found in the Mehri of South Oman, around Hadramaut in Yemen, Iranians of Susa, Makran, and Socotrans. Sometimes in Mesopotamia and even Nubia. This type could be linked to the ancestral Arabian population as well as the Dravidians of India. Physical Traits:

Dark brown skin, curly (ringlet) black hair, rather short, macroskelic, endomorph to ectomorph. Meso- brachycephalic, very small-headed, mildly hypsicranic with a mildly leptorrhine and low nose. Deep set eyes, beard strong, and prognathism only mild.
Literature:

Coon humanphenotypes.net/links.html#C39, who named the type, linked it to Veddoids of Sri Lanka.Wissman humanphenotypes.net/links.html#W41 and Grohmann humanphenotypes.net/links.html#G63 called it South Arabian race, based on material of H. Pöch. Lundman humanphenotypes.net/links.html#l67 reports it in ancient Elamites.Field humanphenotypes.net/links.html#F49 recognized it in Iraq, Eicksted humanphenotypes.net/links.html#E34 humanphenotypes.net/links.html#E52 in South Iran and Hadramaut. Biasutti humanphenotypes.net/links.html#B67 mentioned a "Dravidoid" type from Hadramaut.

one interesting case; joshuaproject.net/people_groups/10380/ym

The Akhdam are a marginalized group in Yemen. In fact, though their name means "servant", they prefer to call themselves "Al-Muhamasheen" -- "the marginalized ones."

The people are shorter and darker than typical Yemenis. A study found they were more apt to have sickle-cell anemia, a characteristic attributed also to the Veddoids of South Asia.

 

[Doggerland]

HI people
you can' t understand the fact that african and australoid and dravidian peoples and sumerian peoples have different genes but come from a same family because you don' t take them as member of same family : you know in a same family the brothers have not the same genes but they have genes in common or come from the same family
that's that about sumerians , dravidians, australoids and africans

When people are brothers or sisters, they would share the same kind of genetic patterns that mark them as “siblings”
For example the people of the northern hemisphere like Nenets or Chuckchi. Another example would be Polynesian people.
But I think you mean that in a more religious/social/political way.

I can understand that people search for communion and we live in a time where many people lost the connection to their families and also their cultural and biological heritage.
But I don’t think that it has a positive intention to unite people, that are not really related and create an origin story, that has no support in reality.

You can find always similarities with people because you have a shared social or religious intention, but that doesn't mean that you must be of the same biological kind.

In the past ideas like white, red, black and yellow race where spread, but this ideas where build on social ideas, not science.
And humans tend to search for their social ideas in science, not the other way round.
With the anthropology of the last century, the diversification of racial classification took place and finally lead to the complex systems of today, that can differentiate more accurate.
The stuff Coon did, is outdated today and no more really accurate. This is like doing planting crops today with the technology of the middle ages.

There are many Indians, Australians and Middle Easterns who would disagree with your idea that they are all part of the “Black” movement.
But there are also people that would agree, because they hope for asocial advantage because of a unity of people who share the same skin color. Or they are like you and believe in the mythology of the idea of an ancient black world.

In many parts of the world people still believe that they are all descended from two people in the middle east, also a weird idea in my opinion, but it is an emotional thing, in my country such ideas are protected by law. But that doesn't make them real.

When I would have to say what are the brothers and sisters of the ancient Sub Saharan Africans, I would say the archaic humans of Eurasia. They have the ancestral African ancestry components, they looked similar to them in many traits from what can be seen in the DNA data. They where also Hunter Gatherers, but we don’t know how exactly their culture was like.
In that sense Europe and whole Eurasia was once black, because it was populated by those archaic people.

Indians or Australians are in my view based on the data I have seen, different people to the Sub Saharan Africans. They don’t share large amounts of genetic components, so they are not their brothers and sisters. They where a long time isolated from them, like many other ethnic groups and have their own history.
Haplogroups and mtDNA are an indicator for kinship, when they are of the same subclade, but often are just traces of male dominance and conquest, or a relic of early migration. The autosomal DNA, that defines how you look, that also can be used for kinship detection, can differ from the population that once brought the Haplogroups into the population, or founded it. The most haplogroups can be found in different ethnicities and are not limited to only one kind of people.

For example many people of African origin in the US have European Haplogroups. Does that make them white in the view of the social ideas of the USA?

But I don’t think that we discuss anymore about genetics. We discuss here about a social idea, a kind of mythology, an idea that once divided people into 4 races and now into two (White VS POC) and wants to create a worldwide social conflict. Everything that challenges this view of dividing people into 2 categories, must be eliminated, because it challenges the idea of “White VS POC”, it makes the whole conflict obsolete.
This has nothing to do with brotherhood, not with science, but with hate.
While the scientific view of ethnicity has diversified, the social and political views are impoverished.

I am personally cautious when someone calls me brother, often people do this, because they have an agenda and want to instrumentalize you.

You always repeat what you did I the 3 posting before, I always try to show you facts that Sub Saharan Africans and Sout Asians are not the same ethnicity, but you stay at your view point, they are ancient brothers. I stay at mine, they are not. There's no need to discuss anymore, because this will lead to nothing.

 

[Doggerland]

still appreciate your work
can you have a look on individual I2085 he belonged to haplogroup e1b1b1 from this paper
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB32466?show=reads
i mean what were his facial features
nose , face shape , forhead ?
hair color, skin coulour ?

Sadly the sample is too small in size to carry enough data for comparing traits. Only admixture can be determined. Its only 28MB. 250MB or more, at best 40GB would be needed to find the relevant SNPs.