Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

[kingdavid]

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.

Bummer
Maybe one of those can fit for anlaysis ?
(They fall on rare branch under e-m123*
They are indo-aryan or indo-iranian from north pakistan iron age )

I1799, I1985, I3262, I6197, I6899, I6900; ~1500-800 BC; Udegram, Swat Valley, Pakistan; SPGT; E-Y31991>FT179548>FT377116

They are all in the same paper from the same link above

 

[adian808]

this is not mythology, this is reality, sumerians are blacks !!!!!!!

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The stuff Coon did, is outdated today and no more really accurate.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.

it is not a mythology , it's a reality as said in this site worldatlas.com/articles/who-are-the-australoid-race.html and in this Masaman video youtube.com/watch?v=slTy8MvLQ4U which says australoid come from africa ,and by Bernard sERGENT of french CNRS clio.fr/bibliotheque/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_des_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp
which says australoid and dravidians comes from africa
and this site cosmosmagazine.com/history/archaeology/dna-confirms-aboriginal-australian-origins/ which says aboriginals come from africa
also the phenotype of veddas people the veddoid phenotype is found in arabs from yemen to irak and in vedda people , dravidians and india's australoid meaning an ausrtraloid people like veddas known to be blacks predate arabs in irak , bahrein and qatar
and we know australoid genes people were the first people of irak 50000 years ago as show this map and that 50000 years ago blacks of M haplogroup out from L3 haplogroup to occupy coastal arabia, irak , iran and india and we know tamils and australoids were of M haplogroup, so the ubaidians the ancestors of sumerians which were the first to occupy irak were of australoid genes same as dravidians and australoids, so they were blacks !!!!!!!
Greejs already know this truth: haven' t they said there's two kind of blacks the curly and the long haired ones respectively in africa and asia ?
hasn' t Hellanicus a greek met blacks along Euphrates in today's modern irak ?
Remember sumerians call themselves sag gig ga which is fakely translated as black haired when we know word for hair in sumerian is kezer , and top of head is ugudili meaning sumerians doesn' t talk about their top of heads' but of their whole head and we also know sag means head and person as in sumerian dictionary psd.museum.upenn.edu/nepsd-frame.html saĝ [HEAD] wr. saĝ "head; person; capital" Akk. qaqqadu; rēšu
and we know to make a people to be born is sagdu in sumerian which literrally means produce a head/person and we know the colour of the head of the baby is the color of the whole baby so we can guess when sumerians say they are sag gig ga they are black heads meaning they are black people and we also know the translation of sag gig ga is zalmat qaqadu which means in akkadian the translation of the black race the adamu race of the sumerians the first race created by annunakis, and kings of the other peoples kings like Sargon, Assourbanipal, Nabuchodonosor and Cyrus always call sumerians by this name( see persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0301-8644_1902_num_3_1_6078 )so sumerians were blacks , australoid people, long haired blacks of greek authors !!!!!!!!!

 

[Doggerland]

Bummer
Maybe one of those can fit for anlaysis ?
(They fall on rare branch under e-m123*
They are indo-aryan or indo-iranian from north pakistan iron age )
I1799, I1985, I3262, I6197, I6899, I6900; ~1500-800 BC; Udegram, Swat Valley, Pakistan; SPGT; E-Y31991>FT179548>FT377116
They are all in the same paper from the same link above

I1985

More round faced, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
A long, slim nose with hooked nose bridge.
Small mouth, thin lips.
Likely brown eyes.
Dark Hair, Dark Brown or Black, curly or wavy.
Light brown skin.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 54%
Natufian 66%
Iran Neolithic 78%

I3262

More round face, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
Long, slim, hooked nose with downtuned nosetip.
Small mouth.
Brown Eyes.
Light brown skin.
Brown, wavy Hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 58%
Natufian 67%
Iran Neolithic 94%

I6900

Medium face lenght, broad forehead.
Long, slim nose.
Large mouth.
Heterozygote for the EDAR gene variant that is associated with Asian teeth and hair structure.
Too few eye color SNPs, but the present ones suggest mixed eye color, maybe hazel/green.
Brown skin.
Black, straight or wavy hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 60%
Natufian 68%
Iran Neolithic 62%

I would suggest I6900 had a Siberian/ANE related ancestry in the past, because he does not match with the Iranian farmers and has the EDAR variant. But this is not supported by admixture. (Only 2.8% Volga-Ural)

 

[kingdavid]

I1985

More round faced, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
A long, slim nose with hooked nose bridge.
Small mouth, thin lips.
Likely brown eyes.
Dark Hair, Dark Brown or Black, curly or wavy.
Light brown skin.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 54%
Natufian 66%
Iran Neolithic 78%

I3262

More round face, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
Long, slim, hooked nose with downtuned nosetip.
Small mouth.
Brown Eyes.
Light brown skin.
Brown, wavy Hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 58%
Natufian 67%
Iran Neolithic 94%

I6900

Medium face lenght, broad forehead.
Long, slim nose.
Large mouth.
Heterozygote for the EDAR gene variant that is associated with Asian teeth and hair structure.
Too few eye color SNPs, but the present ones suggest mixed eye color, maybe hazel/green.
Brown skin.
Black, straight or wavy hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 60%
Natufian 68%
Iran Neolithic 62%

I would suggest I6900 had a Siberian/ANE related ancestry in the past, because he does not match with the Iranian farmers and has the EDAR variant. But this is not supported by admixture. (Only 2.8% Volga-Ural)

kudos
amazing works
so most of them have features that resemble more
the iranian farmers
cool
yes could be ...
i agree i6900 could aquire the edar allells in the steppe

p.s
i myself have large mouth
by the way
in the verteba last paper i saw 1 of the remains had the edar derived allels
so he had east asian influence

 

[johen]

i agree i6900 could aquire the edar allells in the steppe

p.s
i myself have large mouth
by the way

Ya, large mouth

 

[kingdavid]

Ya, large mouth

nice
who is this lady or it is a male ?

 

[johen]

nice
who is this lady or it is a male ?

https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...the-face-of-an-ancient-amazon-female-warrior/

P.s
It seems to me that ancient altai people has a large-mouth patent.:
Okunevo

 

[adian808]

Dodgerland you make an error !

people can be brothers and have different genes

The people of Melanesia have a distinctive ancestry. Along with the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, they are believed to derive from the Proto-Australoids who emigrated from Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago and dispersed along the southern edge of Asia, giving rise to Australoid populations in various places, including South India, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, and others. The limit of this ancient migration was Sahul, the continent formed when Australia and New Guinea were united by a land bridge as a result of low sea levels. The first migration into Sahul came over 40,000 years ago. A further expansion into the eastern islands of Melanesia came much later, probably between 4000 B.C. and 3000 B.C ( wikipedia)

humanphenotype adds besides of this that veddoids/australoids were the first people of middle east and india

Description: Ancient South Asian type that probably split off early and long dominated large parts of South Asia from Arabia to the Sunda Islands. Was pushed back by later migrations and became restricted to hunter-gatherers and forest populations. The skin is medium to dark brown, the hair wavy to curly. Skulls are often long and small, stature rather short, the face low, brow ridges significant, forehead and chin receding, mild prognathy common. The most typical variety is the Vedda type that survives in small numbers in Sri Lankan forests. More common are the Gondids in tribal populations of India Malids of South India show some Negritoid traits. Toalids of Indonesia are shorter-skulled. Other varieties include Senoids of Indochina and Arabian veddoids ( veddoids from arabia region) Names: Weddid (Eickstedt, 1952; Lundman, 1967, Vogel, 1974, Knussmann, 1996), Veddid (Lundman, 1988), Veddoid (Cole, 1965; Debets, 1974), Vedda (Vallois, 1968), Veddidi (Biasutti, 1967), Ceylonesian-Sundanesian (Cheboksarov, 1951, ) Australoid (Hooton, 1946), Homo veddalis (Haeckel, 1898)

[TD="width: 100"][/TD]

See also:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211537/
All non-African regions including Melanesia shared the most alleles with Africa, indicating they were primarily subsets of African diversity
cam.ac.uk/news/dna-links-aborigines-to-african-walkabout
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa

AND WE KNOW africans, melnesians and aborigines , veddoid peoples ( which means people similar to Veddas who are blacks ) and dravidians have the same brown skin so they are brothers

 

[MOESAN]

people can be brothers and have different genes

The people of Melanesia have a distinctive ancestry. Along with the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, they are believed to derive from the Proto-Australoids who emigrated from Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago and dispersed along the southern edge of Asia, giving rise to Australoid populations in various places, including South India, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, and others. The limit of this ancient migration was Sahul, the continent formed when Australia and New Guinea were united by a land bridge as a result of low sea levels. The first migration into Sahul came over 40,000 years ago. A further expansion into the eastern islands of Melanesia came much later, probably between 4000 B.C. and 3000 B.C ( wikipedia)

humanphenotype adds besides of this that veddoids/australoids were the first people of middle east and india

Description: Ancient South Asian type that probably split off early and long dominated large parts of South Asia from Arabia to the Sunda Islands. Was pushed back by later migrations and became restricted to hunter-gatherers and forest populations. The skin is medium to dark brown, the hair wavy to curly. Skulls are often long and small, stature rather short, the face low, brow ridges significant, forehead and chin receding, mild prognathy common. The most typical variety is the Vedda type that survives in small numbers in Sri Lankan forests. More common are the Gondids in tribal populations of India Malids of South India show some Negritoid traits. Toalids of Indonesia are shorter-skulled. Other varieties include Senoids of Indochina and Arabian veddoids ( veddoids from arabia region) Names: Weddid (Eickstedt, 1952; Lundman, 1967, Vogel, 1974, Knussmann, 1996), Veddid (Lundman, 1988), Veddoid (Cole, 1965; Debets, 1974), Vedda (Vallois, 1968), Veddidi (Biasutti, 1967), Ceylonesian-Sundanesian (Cheboksarov, 1951, ) Australoid (Hooton, 1946), Homo veddalis (Haeckel, 1898)

[TD="width: 100"][/TD]

See also:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211537/
All non-African regions including Melanesia shared the most alleles with Africa, indicating they were primarily subsets of African diversity
cam.ac.uk/news/dna-links-aborigines-to-african-walkabout
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa

AND WE KNOW africans, melnesians and aborigines , veddoid peoples ( which means people similar to Veddas who are blacks ) and dravidians have the same brown skin so they are brothers

Adian808
I'm afraid you have hard work to understand some things.
1) pops situated on a track of colonisations are not by force the descendants of the first colonisers.
2) today Black Africans = SSA people (better received) are far to be all the same people that first colonised southern Eurasia. They stayed there but evolved an other way, a lot of them. They are not all of them the very descendants of the ones who took the route eastwards. SSA are not by force so closer to this first colonisers than today "white" Europoids or "yellow' Eat-Asians.
3) brown skin is not black skin and all the way it doesn't matter; it's a too focalised adaptative condition to prove any long term general genetic connection.

 

[MOESAN]

nice
who is this lady or it is a male ?

I am not sure, I think in a female of Nolithical Sicily I saw in another thread?
BTW I found very curious this mouth and the length of the face compared to the skull, but ...?

 

[Doggerland]

people can be brothers and have different genes

This evening I wanna have some fun and post interesting things, so I answer to you:

Lets compare the Aboriginal Australians in every single SNP allele that is available in some interesting samples and see if they match/are similar:

AboriginalAustralian / Papuan 85,37%
AboriginalAustralian / Han Chinese 84,21%
AboriginalAustralian / Melanesian 82,58%
AboriginalAustralian / Iberian 76,57%
AboriginalAustralian / Cheddar Man 75,43%
AboriginalAustralian / Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 69,47%
AboriginalAustralian / Khomani San / 68,32
AboriginalAustralian / Dravidian 67,36%
AboriginalAustralian / Modern German 65,45%
AboriginalAustralian / Denisova 65,14%
AboriginalAustralian / Chimpanzee 64,30
AboriginalAustralian / Neanderthal 64,06%
AboriginalAustralian / Pygmy: 62,70%
AboriginalAustralian / Bantu 61,72%
AboriginalAustralian / Andaman 60,03%
AboriginalAustralian / Bedouin 42,63%

CheddarMan:

CheddarMan / Han Chinese 82,59%
CheddarMan / Melanesian 81,31%
CheddarMan / Viking from Sweden 77,56%
CheddarMan / Papuan 77,30%
CheddarMan / Iberian 77,27%
CheddarMan / British Viking 76,69 %
CheddarMan / Aboriginal Australian 75,43%
CheddarMan / Viking from Denmark 69,82%
CheddarMan / Modern German 69,71%
CheddarMan / Sami 66,55%
CheddarMan / Dravidian 65,20%
CheddarMan / Khomani San 65,19%
CheddarMan / Pygmy 59,46%
CheddarMan / Bantu 58,43%
CheddarMan / Bedouin 43,64%

Lets see who modern day West Africans matches most:

Bantu/ Melanesian 67,68%
Bantu/ Han Chinese 66,93%
Bantu/ Mamanwa 64,98%
Bantu/ Pygmy 64,88%
Bantu/ Denisovan 63,95%
Bantu/ Malawi Mesolithic 63,63%
Bantu/ Chimpanzee 63,02%
Bantu/ Neanderthal 63,01%
Bantu/ Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 62,91%
Bantu/ Papuan 61,81%
Bantu/ Aboriginal Australian 61,72%
Bantu/ Khomani San 61,53%
Bantu/ Zlaty Kun 60,42%
Bantu/ Dzuzuana 60,15%
Bantu/ Iberian 58,89%
Bantu/ Egyptian Mummy 59,74%
Bantu/ Cheddar Man 58,43%
Bantu/ Modern German 56,31%
Bantu/ Andaman 54,79%
Bantu/ Saharawi 54,63%
Bantu/ Yana Siberia 52,98%
Bantu/ Bedouin 42%

Have fun with the data and tell your story. My story is that humanity including Africans originate in the largest part in Asia.
Han Chinese are a good model for a descendant of a prototype modern human, because they share many alleles with very ancient ethnicities in general and are very inbreed, like many species in the wild or Neanderthals.

My personal overall allele match with Han Chinese is only 59,92% because I am not much related to archaic humans in general and not related to East Asians.
I have over 250 samples on my hard disc and tested every single in total allele comparison to me, and I think the method is not a bad one, because those are my highest results:

Me/ Single Grave Culture 62,95%
Me/ Hittite 60,74 %
Me/ Linear Pottery Hungary 60,73 %
Me/ Maglemose 60,64%

One should notice that total allele compare is not the same as ancestry informative markers or comparing physical trait related SNPs.

 

[Doggerland]

Who is more ancient/archaic? Han Chinese or Khomani San?

KhomaniSan / Salkhit 68,72%
KhomaniSan / Dzuzuana 68,51%
KhomaniSan / Dolni Vestonice 67,17%
KhomaniSan / Mesolithic South Africa 66,58%
KhomaniSan / Devils Gate 65,99%
KhomaniSan / Sunghir 65,92%
KhomaniSan / Malawi Mesolithic 64,60%
KhomaniSan / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 64,47%
KhomaniSan / Denisova 64,37%
KhomaniSan / Gorilla 63,64%
KhomaniSan / Altai Neanderthal 63,42%
KhomaniSan / Chimpanzee 63,20%
KhomaniSan / Azilian 62,70%
KhomaniSan / Tianyuan 62,59%
KhomaniSan / Yana Siberia 62,14%
KhomaniSan / Oase 1 61,41%
KhomaniSan / Pestera Muierii 60,98%
KhomaniSan / CHG 60,41%
KhomaniSan / Zlaty Kun 57,67%
KhomaniSan / Mal Ta Buret 57,21%
KhomaniSan / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 56,94%
KhomaniSan / EHG 56,50%
KhomaniSan / Mesolithic Andes 56,33%
KhomaniSan / Anatolia HG 56.18%
KhomaniSan / Magdalenian 56,12%
KhomaniSan / Iberomaurusian 56,06%
KhomaniSan / Aurignacian 55,86%
KhomaniSan / Gravettian 55,29%
KhomaniSan / Natufian 55,16%
KhomaniSan / Ust Ishim 51,47%
KhomaniSan / Clovis Culture 48,68%

HanChinese / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 95,31%
HanChinese / Oase 1 91.82%
HanChinese / Natufian 86,36%
HanChinese / CHG 86,26%
HanChinese / Mesolithic South Africa 84,67%
HanChinese / Devils Gate 84,62%
HanChinese / Dzuzuana 84,62%
HanChinese / Dolni Vestonice 84,51%
HanChinese / Salkhit 83,53%
HanChinese / Sunghir 82,17%
HanChinese / Mal Ta Buret 78,96%
HanChinese / Tianyuan 78,95%
HanChinese / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 76,84%
HanChinese / Zlaty Kun 76,59%
HanChinese / Gravettian 75,60%
HanChinese / Azilian 75,53%
HanChinese / Mesolithic Andes 74,99%
HanChinese / Magdalenian 74,69%
HanChinese / Yana Siberia 74,04%
HanChinese / Malawi Mesolithic 73,48%
HanChinese / Aurignacian 73,24%
HanChinese / Anatolia HG 73,08%
HanChinese / Gorilla 72,77%
HanChinese / EHG 71,71%
HanChinese / Denisova 70,93%
HanChinese / Pestera Muierii 70,83%
HanChinese / Iberomaurusian 70,25%
HanChinese / Chimpanzee 69,95%
HanChinese / Altai Neanderthal 69,94%
HanChinese / Clovis Culture 65,25%
HanChinese / Ust Ishim 60,74%

Looks like the Asian Han are more similar in alleles to archaic humans then the African San. Or is this a wink to a more archaic separation of human ancestors long before the appearance of modern human traits? This would support the Multiregional Origin theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Bfa4d4mv4

 

[Doggerland]

Lets get back to Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, maybe an Ancestor of the Sumerians. Total allele similarity:

EFCN/ Han Chinese 83,36%
EFCN/ Burusho 83,20%
EFCN/ Melanesian 83,20%
EFCN/ Mamanwa 81,31%
EFCN/ Papuan 78,70%
EFCN/ Celtic GB 77,62%
EFCN/ Celtic France 77,39%
EFCN/ Hittite 77.32%
EFCN/ Corded Ware Poland 77,12%
EFCN/ Iberian 76,90%
EFCN/ Viking from Sweden 76,65%
EFCN/ Tarim Mummy 76,59%
EFCN/ Aboriginal Australian 76,58%
EFCN/ Pict 76,34%
EFCN/ Neolithic Greek 76,33%
EFCN/ Baikal Bronze Age 76,11%
EFCN/ Guanches 75,74%
EFCN/ Germanic Rus 75,44%
EFCN/ Hunnic 75,12%
EFCN/ Ancient Greek 74,54%
EFCN/ Modern Native American 74,19%
EFCN/ Ancient Turk 73,11%
EFCN/ Ancient Aegean 72,12%
EFCN/ Iran Neolithic 72,09%
EFCN/ Maikop 69,89%
EFCN/ Battle Axe Sweden 68,93%
EFCN/ Egyptian Mummy 68,22%
EFCN/ Iran HG 67,71%
EFCN/ Modern German 67,66%
EFCN/ Kura Araxes 67,10%
EFCN/ Malawi Mesolithic 66,80%
EFCN/ Khomani San 66,57%
EFCN/ Dravidian 66,44%
EFCN/ Yamnaya 66,12%
EFCN/ Modern Greek 65,99%
EFCN/ Pre-Pottery Brazil 65,56%
EFCN/ Khanty 65,44%
EFCN/ Canaanite 65,21%
EFCN/ Hattian 64,41%
EFCN/ Pygmy 60,79%
EFCN/ Bantu 59,75%
EFCN/ Andaman 58,81%
EFCN/ Clovis Culture 56,95%
EFCN/ Basque 45,12%
EFCN/ Italian 44,68%
EFCN/ French 44,65%


They appear somewhat Ancient Eurasian/Asian + Indo-European, but not African when it comes to total allele sharing. Like i said about the trait allele sharing: They where dark skinned, but not brothers of modern Africans, they had a special kind of archaic Eurasian/Asian ancestry.

 

[Mmiikkii]

Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.

 

[Doggerland]

The problem is that many people don’t understand that genetics are notable to give a simple and clear answer that people want to hear.

Ancestry informative markers don’t say something about how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They make only up to 0.4% of the whole DNA.
They can predict who is related to someone. But being related does notmean being similar, because after 12 generations ethnicity specific alleles can be completely gone, if the parents are not from the same ethnicity/not related.
Native Americans are related to East Asians, but that does not mean that they must share much allele similarity with them, because they where isolated and got other ancestors from Siberia and in the southern part also from Polynesians (Botocudo)

A total allele compare can show who shares the most alleles. The problem with this is that it does not show who is related. The similarity can be based on the fact that many populations of the world, especially the ones that are believed to be very ancient, don’t have much mutated over time. Their ancestry informative markers differ, but not their overall alleles.

And then there are alleles that are related to physical abilities, how someone is looking, diseases, psychological traits. Those alleles where under strong pressure and selection in many ethnicites, because they lived in a special environment, other to archaic humans and had a more complex social structure.
When you compare those alleles, you will also get different results that may not match with total allele sharing or ancestry informative markers.

Haplogroups are the least markers that can determine race, because they have no effects on how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They are simple lineage markers. African Americans that have 100% African Ancestry can have I1 or R1b haplogroups from slave owners, many Southern American Natives have European Y-DNA.
They are just an event marker, nothing more.

But people want clear answers, because they believe determining ancestry or race is as simple as comparing wood pound pegs.

If you are interested in ancestry, who is related to who, ancestry informative markers/ancestry components/admixture PCA is the best answer.

If you wanna know about someones physical look or psychological traits, looking for a bunch of single trait related SNPs is the best way.

If you are interested in human migration, war and population changes, haplogroups and mtDNA are the best predictors.

If you wanna know how genetically similar two people are, total allele compare.

All those methods have limitations and are also dependent on sample quality and quantity.

Such claims like “In Britain 90% of DNA was replaced by Bell Beakers” are in the bigger sense completely nonsense. Human genomes are over 90% similar, so there cannot be a 90% replacement. Who knows what the guys measured there, ancestry informative markers or some specific SNPs they are using for their studies.

Back to the Native Americans:

It depends what your question is and what kind of calculator you are using.
They are related to Han in terms of ancestry components. For example in Eurogenes K15 they are relatively far away from Han Chinese and between Sami and Chukchi.
In Eurogones K36 they are between Han, Tatar and Adygei.

Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic is placed near Balochi in Eurogenes K15and in K36 between Pathan, Bosnian, Iranians and Makarani.

Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic and Native Americans are not related in terms of ancestry components.

 

[MOESAN]

Doggerland, I find very confused your way of thinking. What differences between "similarity" genes and other genes, concerning shared ancestry? What could have weight would be which among our all inherited genes are the ones showing a more recent common heritage.
Your EFCN percentages don't say anything to me, sorry.

 

[Doggerland]

I personally don’t understand why people lay so much weight on ancestry markers. They are almost not alleles that have a known function or predict our physical look or abilities. In our everyday life we cannot see ancestry markers, we look for similarity.

I see a huge focusing on physical traits in the discussion about the race/ethnicity of people in Anthro-Forums, but the majority of people try to answer this with SNPs that are not related to physical traits. Ancestry markers or haplogroups. They don’t influence our look at all.

This is in my opinion the wrong way to answer questions about peoples physical apperance.

For example many calculators give modern Europeans high percentages of WHG ancestry, but when it comes to physical trait related SNPs, they don’t match as much as with neolithic samples in most cases. They have WHG related ancestry markers, but the physical and metabolic traits where not favored by evolution, because they are a huge disadvantage in a modern society. So the people of today don’t look so much like WHG anymore, despite of their ancestry markers. SHG is another thing but i will try to make this post as short as possible.

Lets get back to the widely used admixture calculators and ancestry markers:
For example things like this:https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-using-qpAdm-Sources-used-were_fig5_346952053
Those percentages are very unrealistic, because they only use very few selected samples. People think: “Ah, yes, everybody is somehow descended from that ancient people” But that is wrong. This is all based on data selection. But selection is the only way to get clear and simple results like this when it comes to human genetics.
You could produce graphics like this with almost every population on earth. We could use Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan and also create a 100% percentage graph where everybody will get percentages of Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan.
Have you ever wondered why every ethnicity like Poles, Germans, Russian ,Maris etc. on the graph get all 100%? It is highly unrealistic, that those 3 samples, Nganasan, Yamnaya, Anatolia explain the whole ancestry of those people.
The same comes to the widely used calculators on the hobby. They always produce a 100% result with the tested sample, but that is highly unlikely:https://whoareyoumadeof.com/wp-cont...le-of-gedmatch-ancient-eurasia-k6-results.jpg

How “wrong” those calculators are if selected by specific samples, I will demonstrate. I use myself in Dodecad Africa:

68,21%Europe
23,74%SW_Asian
7,08%NW-African
0,56%S_Africa
0,42%E_African

Yeah,I am 30% Non-European and therefore a POC.

Using1 populations approximation
1100% North_Italian @ 7,010

MixedMode:
191,02% North_Italian + 8,98% Morocco_N @ 0,650

Was born in the wrong family.

Or another good example is Tolan K16 Neolithic:

98,25%European_EHG
1,75%Caucasus
-
Modern:

87,20%Russian
12,00%Mordovians
0,60%Pole
0,20%Abhkasians

If the calculators would be realistic, it should address me a large percentage of “ERROR” or “Unknown”
But those things are not build for this, they show the most similarity in ancestry markers to the selected samples, even if they are very distant.

Admixture calculators cannot differentiate between Apes, Monkeys, Nanderthals and Sub Saharan Africans:

Gorilla
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,334
2100% Luhya @ 4,570
3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 5,755

Chimp
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Luhya @ 3,568
2100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,885
3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 4,810

Neanderthal
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,623
2100% Bantu_S.E. @ 6,236
3100% Bantu_S.W. @ 8,484

Rhesus Monkey
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Bantu_N.E. @ 7,889
2100% Luhya @ 8,702
3100% Mbuti_Pygmy @ 11,610

So if admixture defines who is brother or not, Apes, Monkeys, Africans and Neanderthals are all black brothers.
All those calculators have their limitations and the method of using ancestry markers in general.

And because of this I prefer direct SNP compare or total allele compare instead of ancestry markers when it comes to similarity(not ancestry) of people/samples. If there is no match, the answer is just “0”zero, and not a forced percentage of some of the samples to reach a 100% answer.

 

[Nicu]

Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.

Wait, Southern Chinese?? Is that some new finding? I thought Native Americans derived from a Central-East Siberian/North Asian population which in the past had absorbed some ancient West Eurasian/Proto-Caucasian before moving across the Bering Strait to the Americas thousands of years ago? If anything they'd be closer to the paleo-Siberians, Ket people (with whom some in the NaDene family have linguistic links), Chukchi, Inuits, etc, and after that maybe Tungusic peoples, even Mongols and Turkics and maybe Ainus before straight up Chinese. The occasional superficial resemblance of Native American types with some Southeast Asians is more coincidental, and I thought a northeast Asian link would be more probable.

 

[adian808]

Ancient Greeks where not modern scientists and could not perform genetic analysis. They recognized people based on their bias.

“Blacks” do exist as a social idea, but not as a genetic reality. Sub Saharan African can be seen as an ethnicity, because they share ancient ancestry. Sub Saharan Africans are genetically real. But Aboriginal Australians, Negritos, South Indians, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans are genetically very distant from them. They are not part of their genetic cluster, not part of their genetic ethnicity.

The idea that people with a same trait like dark skin, blue eyes or blonde hair belong to the same “Race” or are somehow related, is an outdated idea that has no support in modern science.
It was the base for racial wars in the past and it seems that it will be in the future, because some(or many?) people are not interested in reality and place their bad claiming for vengeance over knowledge and wisdom.

If Cheddar Man is "black" because he has alleles for dark skin, I must be "black" too, because I have wild type alleles for dark eye and hair color, the same ones Archaic Humans and Sub Saharan Africans have.

As the first human genomes where sequenced, scientists found out that most alleles in all humans are the same. So they had to find a method to differentiate populations and traits. They found out that some single SNPs determined traits that differ between populations, but that was not enough to make a clear differentiation. They searched for patterns of alleles in SNPs that where common for a population and based on this, ancestry can be determined.

Cheddar Man does not share a large amount of unique DNA with Sub Saharan Africans, but with Europeans:

Eurogenes K36 results:

32.26% Fennoscandian
24.48% North_Sea
16.45% East_Central_Euro
10.70% Eastern_Euro
9.41% North_Atlantic​

6.69% Basque

If he would be of ancient African ancestry, he must have at least 30% Pygmy component.

Population Oracles from Gedmatch for Cheddar Man:

MDLPK16

[TABLE="width: 232"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

#​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Population[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

Percent​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

1​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]NorthEastEuropean[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

72.46​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Neolithic[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

25.2​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

3​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Steppe[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

1.19​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

4​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Australian[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.53​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

5​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Subsaharian[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.44​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

6​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Oceanic[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.15​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

7​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Ancestor[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.03​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

8​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 129"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.01​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="width: 341"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

#​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Population (source)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

Distance​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

1​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Finn (Finland)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

39.01​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Latvian (Latvia)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

39.33​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

3​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Latvian_Dobele (Dobele)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

39.45​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

4​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Estonian (Estonia)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

39.65​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

5​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Lithuanian (Lithuania)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

40.51​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

6​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Latvian_Cesis (Cesis)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

40.6​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

7​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Russian (Russia)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

41.27​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

8​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Vepsa (Russia)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

42.19​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

9​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Karelian (Karelia)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

42.31​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

10​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Saami_WGA (Lapland)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

42.39​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

DodecadK12b

[TABLE="width: 224"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

#​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 122"]Population[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

Percent​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

1​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 122"]North_European[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

69.96​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 122"]Atlantic_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

29.74​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

3​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 122"]Sub_Saharan[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.24​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33"]

4​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 122"]East_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]

0.05​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="width: 341"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

#​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Population (source)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

Distance​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

1​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Swedish (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

14.36​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Polish (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

15.06​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

3​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Norwegian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

16.95​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

4​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]FIN30 (1000Genomes)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

17.03​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

5​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Belorussian (Behar)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

17.55​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

6​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Lithuanian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

17.7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

7​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Finnish (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

17.82​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

8​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Lithuanians (Behar)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

17.85​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

9​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Mixed_Slav (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

18​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43"]

10​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 222"]Russian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 65"]

18.62​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Much distance to any living population, but closest to Northeast Europeans.

But we can ignore the genetic components of Cheddar Man and just look what modern populations most matches his look in trait SNPs, not ancestry:

Swede 68% United Kingdom 68% European 68%
Aboriginal Australian 63% Ukrainian 63%
All Africans 61%
Northern South Asian 60%
Dravidian 59% Middle East 59%
San 58%
Khanty 56% Native American 56%
Bantu 55%
Papuan 53%
Han Chinese 48%

He doesn't resemble any living population in a large percentage.
Its the same case like with the Tarim Mummies, some people do hard in accepting that ancient individuals often don’t fit in today's categories build by social movements and the racial Ideas of the last century.

Cheddar Mans people may looked like this Aboriginal Australian + European mixed woman on the right side of the picture:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/f3/f9/d8f3f950ed05ce62dc7070e4a936c533.jpg

you forget one thing
cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

y

 

[Palermo Trapani]

you forget one thing
cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

y

I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).


Now with respect to Cheddar Man, he was not genetically related to peoples of sub-saharan Africa or even Horn Africans if you want to distinguish them from Western, Central, Southern and other Eastern Africans given their unique genetic history of back migration from West Asia to the Horn. He is not exactly like any modern population today, but closest to NW Europeans (British isles and Northern Europeans (Scandinavians) due to him being a European HG. His Y DNA was I2, common among Mesolithic Western European HG and is maternal was U5, very common in Western Eurasia and also found in North Africa. His skin tone was likely darker probably due to not having the snps for lighter skin tone on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2; however someone more up to date on Cheddar might have definitive information on that one. However, in 2018 additional work was done and it was suggested his skin tone could have been more intermediate. Regardless of what his skin tone was or was not, skin tone is a "phenotype" not something that can be used to categorize Cheddar into Population A vs. B vs. C, etc.

Regards.