Sunday, September 24, 2017

The Fulani do not Carry Haplogroup H because of Eurasian Admixture

Iva Kulichová et al. (2017).Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara,

This paper is based on speculation. It has no ancient DNA and archaeological data to support its conclusions. To support their propositions they cite Haber et al,2016, and Cherni et al, 2005. The Haber et al(2016) article claims that there was a back migration of R1b carriers because some Central Africans carry R1b, but these writers never name the culture bearers who introduced R1b, and the European culture this population came from. The Cherni et al (2005) paper is speculation because it lacks any aDNA to support their claims.

The authors state that:

We show that age estimates of the maternal lineage H1cb1, occurring almost exclusively in the Fulani, point to the time when the first cattle herders settled the Sahel/Savannah belt. Similar age estimates were obtained for paternal lineage R1b-V88, which occurs today in the Fulani but also in other, mostly pastoral populations. Maternal clade U5b1b1b, reported earlier in the Berbers, shows a shallower age, suggesting another possibly independent input into the Sahelian pastoralist gene pool.

Despite the fact that animal domestication originated in the Near East
10 ka, and that it was from there that animals such as sheep, goats as well as cattle were introduced into Northeast Africa soon thereafter, contemporary cattle keepers in the Sahel/Savannah belt show uniparental genetic affinities that suggest the possibility of an ancient contact with an additional ancestral population of western Mediterranean ancestry.

Problem 1. The Fulani did not come from the Middle East. Secondly, just because a population carries a specific gene does not mean the haplogroup originated elsewhere. The authors could only support this conclusion by:

a) Providing individuals from specific cultures that carry a specific set of genes;

b) Provide the name of the culture and artifacts associated with the culture;

c) The date for the Culture

The failure to provide this information makes the claim groundless.

Problem 2. The authors contend that cattle domestication began in the Middle East. But they fail to identify the cattle rearing culture associated with this domestication.

The earliest documented case of cattle domestication comes from Nabta Playa. The population at Nabta Playa , took cattle and Ounan-Harifian points to the Levant. It was these African agro-pastoral people who took cattle rearing and archery to Europe and spread the Bell Beaker and related cultures across Europe.

The archeaogenetic evidence makes it clear that H1 was taken to Iberia, not vice versa.

Genetic evidence based on contemporary populations can not support an ancient origin of any population without archaeological and linguistic evidence.


Clyde Winters, The Fulani are not from the Middle East, PNAS 2010 107 (34) E132; published ahead of print August 3, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1008007107

Friday, September 22, 2017

The Neolithic Process of North Africa was done by Africans-Not Eurasians

Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. Drake et al [1] provides evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan (NS) speakers. The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [3].

The IAM people [Early Neolithic Moroccans] (5), were nothing more than hunter-gatherer Kushites that had originally belonged to the Ounanian Culture (3-4). The Ounanians, like their Kushite descendants were great archers and based their civilization on hunting using the bow, and limited cattle domestication (3-4).

The Ounanian culture was first described by Breuil in 1930 at Ounan to the south of Taodeni in northern Mali. Ounanian Points are suggested to be the hallmark of the some Epipaleolithic industries in the central Sahara, the Sahel and northern Sudan, and dated to the early Holocene.

The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [3-4]. The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. This would explain the close relationship between the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages[3].

The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. From here NC populations migrated into the Fezzan, Nile Valley and Sudan as their original homeland became more and more arid.

In the Eastern Sahara many individual types of tanged and shouldered arrowheads occur on early Holocene prehistoric sites along with Green Saharan/Wavy-line pottery (1-2) . 'Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic' wavy-line, dotted wavy line and walking-comb pottery was used from Lake Turkana to Nabta Playa, in Tibestim , Mauritania, on into in the Hoggar, in Niger. This pottery evolved into the Beaker Bell ceramics.

Wavy-line pottery 

The Ounanian culture was not isolated in Africa. It was spread into the Levant. As a result, we have in the archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .

Tanged Point

Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert. Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.

The tangled Ounanian points are also found at Foum Arguin . These points were used from Oued Draa, in southern Morocco, to the Banc d’Arguin and from the Atlantic shore to the lowlands of northwestern Sahara in Mauritania . We now have DNA from Ounanian sites in Morocco.

All the burials in Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa site IAM1-IAM7 , are devoid of any artifacts, except for an original funeral ritual, which consists of placing a millstone on the skull (5) . These burials were dated from 4,850 to 5,250 BCE, they carried U6, M1, T2, X and K (5). This suggest that Africans were already carrying this mtDNA. The spread of the Ounanians to Harif in the Levant explains the presence of these Kushite clades in the Levant and Anatolia. 

In summary, the Niger-Congo speakers or Kushites formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. The ancestors of the Kushites were the Ounanians who spread the Ounan-Harfian toolkit, pottery and arrows from throughout North Africa, into Iberia and the Levant. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep). It was these Kushites who introduced mtDNA U6, M1, T2, X and K; and Y-Chromosome R1b into Eurasian from their African homeland in the Sahel-Sahara. 

1. Nick A. Drake, Roger M. Blench, Simon J. Armitage, Charlie S. Bristow, and Kevin H. White. (2010). Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert PNAS 2011 108 (2) 458-462; published ahead of print December 27,2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1012231108
2. Vernet R, Ott M, Tarrou L, Gallin A, Géoris-Creuseveau J. (2007) Excavation of the mound of FA 10 (Banc d'Arguin) and its contribution to the knowledge of the culture paleolithical Foum Arguin, northwestern Sahara (Translated from French) J Afr Archaeol 5:17–46.
3. Winters C. (2012). Origin of the Niger-Congo Speakers. WebmedCentral GENETICS 2012;3(3). 
5. Fregel R, et al (2017). Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe. bioRxiv 191569; doi:

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Neolithization of North Africa preprint

Rosa Fregel  R, et al (2017). Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe. bioRxiv 191569; doi:

Interesting paper. It promotes the idea of a back migration to Africa. It is interesting because the results parallel archaeological findings in the Neolithic sites in North Africa and Andalusian Early Neolithic and Cardial cultures, and ivory tools associated Iberian Neolithic sites.

The major problem with the paper is that it fails to explain that the earliest sites for these artifacts including bell beaker are found in North Africa--not Europe. as a result. we have more evidence that U6, M1, T2, X and K originated in Africa not Europe The Bell Beaker sites in North Africa date to 5kya, while the Spanish Bell Beaker sites only date to the 2nd Millennium BC.


Martín-Socas D, et al. (2004).Cueva de El Toro (Antequera, Málaga-Spain). A Neolithic Stockbreeding Community in the Andalusian region between VI-III millenniums B.C.. Documenta Praehistorica XXX:126-143 . [accessed Sep 22, 2017]. Available from C

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

V88 and the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype

Now Geneticists are pretending V88 (R1b1a2) is M269 in relation to the migration of the CHG and EF populations from Africa into Eurasia, These Africans, the Kushites who introduced archery, farming and cattle rearing to Eurasia. 

Martiniano R, Cassidy LM, Ó'Maoldúin R, McLaughlin R, Silva NM, Manco L, et al. (2017) The population genomics of archaeological transition in west Iberia: Investigation of ancient substructure using imputation and haplotype-based methods. PLoS Genet 13(7): e1006852. 


Recent ancient DNA work has demonstrated the significant genetic impact of mass migrations from the Steppe into Central and Northern Europe during the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. In Iberia, archaeological change at the level of material culture and funerary rituals has been reported during this period, however, the genetic impact associated with this cultural transformation has not yet been estimated. In order to investigate this, we sequence Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from Portugal, which we compare to other ancient and present-day individuals. Genome-wide imputation of a large dataset of ancient samples enabled sensitive methods for detecting population structure and selection in ancient samples. We revealed subtle genetic differentiation between the Portuguese Neolithic and Bronze Age samples suggesting a markedly reduced influx in Iberia compared to other European regions. Furthermore, we predict individual height in ancients, suggesting that stature was reduced in the Neolithic and affected by subsequent admixtures. Lastly, we examine signatures of strong selection in important traits and the timing of their origins.

The authors argue that the three Bronze Age individuals carrying R1b1a2, represent R-M269, but this is false they represent V88 and M18. Moreover, they fail to show discontinuity because, we find R1b1a (R-L754) carried by Villabruna, who lived 15kya in north-west Italy, and was a member of the Epigravettian culture. R-L754 has a high frequentcy among Africans.

V88 and the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype 

Euronuts have no limit to their blatant and stealthily rewriting of history to "whiteout" Black and African people. The aDNA of the CHG and EF of Europe is R1b1a2. Although ISOGG 216 makes it clear this haplogroup is V88, in the research literature they are referring to this clade (R1b1a2) as R1b-P312/M269 , eventhough M269 is R1b1a1a2.

The presence of R1b1a2 in Europe is explained by the migration of the Kushites into Europe via Gibraltar and Anatolia

Sunday, August 6, 2017

The Ancient Minoans were Mande Speakers not Greeks

Eurocentrists never give up trying to "white out", Blacks from ancient history. Many of the Minoan murals were repainted to make them look more European. But The Minoans were Blacks.

Population genetics can not change history and archaeology except in the mind of the confused and promoters of Eurocentrism. The Greeks made it clear the Minoans came from Africa and were descendants of the Garamantes.

The Garamantes founded civilization in Minoa, or ancient Crete.The Garamantes were Mande speakers not Berbers.

The Tuareg did not come from the Fezzan, they originated in the East. According to Tuareg tradition they originated in the Tafilalt or Tafilet (Arabic: تافيلالت‎) a important oasis of the Moroccan Sahara, and migrated from there to the Fezzan.

The Ancient Minoans: Keftiu were Mande Speakers 

Every since Arthur Evans discovered the Hieroglyphic and Linear A writing of Crete there has been a search for the authors of this writing.

Some Grecian traditions indicate that Libyans (called Garamante) formerly lived on Crete. This suggest that the Eteocretans may have spoken one of the ancient languages of Libya.

Sources agree that Garama was name of their capital city. Garamante was the name for the tribe.

Garama was the name of the capital city of the Garamantes. Pliny the Elder wrote"clarissimumque Garama caput Garamantum, the "well known Garam capital, of the Garamantes".See:

A major group from Libya that settled Crete were the Garamante. Robert Graves in (Vol.1, pp.33-35) maintains that the Garamante originally lived in the Fezzan and fused with the inhabitants of the Upper Niger region of West Africa.

This theory is interesting because the chariot routes from the Garama, in the Fezzan terminated at the Niger river. In addition, the Cretan term for king "Minos", agrees with the Mande/Manding word for ruler "Mansa". Both these terms share consonantal agreement : M N S.

The name Garamante, illustrates affinity to Mande morphology and grammar. The Mande language is a member of the Niger-Congo group of languages. The name for the Manding tribe called "Mande", means Ma 'mother, and nde 'children', can be interpreted as "Children of Ma", or "Mothers children " (descent among this group is matrilineal) . The word Garamante,can be broken down into Malinke-Bambara into the following monosyllabic words Ga 'hearth', arid, hot'; Mante/Mande , the name of the Mande speaking tribes. This means that the term: Garamante, can be interpreted as "Mande of the Arid lands" or "Arid lands of the children of Ma". This last term is quite interesting because by the time the Greeks and Romans learned about the Garamante, the Fezzan was becoming increasingly arid.



The Egyptians called the Cretans Keftiu. There is agreement between the Keftiu names recorded by Egyptian scribes (T.E. Peet, "The Egyptian writing board BM5647 bearing Keftiu names". In , (ed.) by S Casson (Oxford, 1927, 90-99)), and Manding names.

The root kef-, in Keftiu, probably is Ke'be, the name of a Manding clan , plus the locative suffix {i-} used to give the affirmative sense, plus the plural suffix for names {u-}, and the {-te} suffixial element used to denote place names, nationalities and to form words.

On the Egyptian writing board there are eight Keftiu names. These names agree with Manding names:

Keftiu....... Manding

sh h.r........ Sye

Nsy ..........Nsye

'ksh .........Nkyi

Pnrt Pe,..... Beni (name for twins)

'dm ..........Demba

Rs............. Rsa

This analogy between Keftiu and Manding names is startling.

In conclusion, the evidence of similarity between Keftiu names and names from the Manding languages appear to support Graves view that the Eteocretans, who early settled Crete may have spoken a language similar to the Mande people who live near the Niger. Conseqently, there is every possibility that the Linear A script used by the Keftiu, which is analogous to the Libyco Berber writing used by the Proto-Mande .This is further support to Cambell-Dunn' s hypothesis that the Minoans spoke a Niger-Congo language.

In addition, because the Keftiu were Africans, the haplogroups carried by the Minoans would have been African haplogroups. 
As a result, when we find mtDNA U,T,N1 and K among the Anatolians, it was just a reflection of the Blacks/Kushites that dominated Anatolia


Consequently, when we find that the Minoans carried haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). Haplogroups U5a, W, J2, U, X and J were each identified in a single individual. The results correspond to the Anatolian mtDNA.

The Mande speakers, include the Djola and Mandekan of the geneticist carry 2% Eurasian admixture. The people in Mali carry the N and H haplogroups.
The highest concentration of U5 is found among Berbers in NWA . It is also carried by Mande spekers and Fulani in West Africa . The Djola, Mande speakers also carry mtDNA M1, H and N. See Alexandra Rosa, et al, MtDNA Profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a Better Understanding of the Senegambia,

The U5 haplogroup carried by the Mande, like other SSWA is characterized by 16189,16192,16270 and 16320.

The presence of hg U5, M1, N and H among the Mande speakers supports the linguistic evidence concerning the Keftiu.

The Y-chromosomes of Cretans also indicate the Cretans were Blacks Laisel Martinez et al , Paleolithic Y-haplogroup heritage predominates in a Cretan highland plateau, Eur J Hum Genet. 2007 provides a detailed discussion of the y-chromosomes in Crete.
The presence of y-chromosomes R1b, T, K and H in Crete indicate that the Cretans were Black.


The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.




In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:

  • Haplogroup Frequency
    U 18.5
    T 22.2
    J 18.5
    X 0.0675
    M1a 0.0675
    H 0.0675
    I 0.0675
    HV 0.037
    RO 0.037
    K 0.037
    N 0.037

The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Lower Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.

As a result, the finding of mtDNA U,T,J and N clades, and the Y-Chromosome R1 among, Anatolians, Cretans and Lower Egyptians explains the close relationship between the Minoans,and Anatolians. All of these people were Khas=Kushites, who had come from Upper Egypt and the Fezzan.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Requiem to the Ancient Egypt Forum of Egyptsearch Forums

Up to June 2017, a significant Afrocentric Forum/Discussion Group was the Ancient Egypt Forum of Egyptsearch Forums. This forum greatly influenced the study of the ancient history of Blacks Worldwide.

 Posters such as Iron Lion, Mike 111, Ish Gebor, Egmond Codfried,  Marc Washington, Narmerthoth, Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova, xyyman ,  Amun-Ra The Ultimate, and the lioness Inc.. During the lifetime of the Ancient Egypt forum we had lively debates and photo essays that have influenced the study of Ancient Black Civilizations. Iron Lion, Mike 111, Ish Gebor, Egmond Codfried,  Marc Washington, Narmerthoth  and myself (Clyde Winters) have never been ashamed to admit that they were Afrocentric Researchers.

 Iron Lion made the public aware of the Muurish/Moorish history of Black Americans. It was Egmond Codfried and Marc Washington that highlighted the history of Blacks in Europe. Due to the research of Marc we became aware of the fact that Europeans only recently entered western Europe from Central Asia. In addition, Marc made wonderful Posters that summarized aspects of Black history.
Image result for Marc Washington Egyptsearch

Image result for Marc Washington Egyptsearch

Mike 111 and myself made wonderful photo essays relating to Black history. These photos provide iconographic evidence of the role of Blacks through every period in Black history. Mike has a beautiful website where you can find out any aspect of ancient Black History:

It was fun debating lioness Inc. Debating lioness Inc., was fun because this poster included Eurocentrists around the world who would debate various themes to attack Afrocentrism. We knew it was more than one lioness because post would be published almost 24 hours and no single person could do this. The present poster using the lioness name is very ignorant.

Ish Gebor and Zarahan have provided the public with up-to-date resources to illuminate Black history.  Narmerthoth has provided us with the latest ideas about melanin  and business issues. All of these post will be greatly missed.

Today the Ancient Egypt forum is dead. The moderator has suspended some of the Afrocentric researchers that formerly posted at the site, and does not allow the posting of photo essays  which he  claims is spamming.   Although the site is dead its legacy will live on. Many recent books relating to ancient Black History in the past five years have photos that first appeared at Ancient Egypt.

Indeed, the Ancient Egypt Forum is dead--but it will be fondly remembered.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Why Bayes Law and Genetic Admixture Programs can not Accurately Access African-Eurasian Admixture

Many geneticists claim they use Bayesian statistics to determine the phylogeography of African and Afro-American populations,  "In probability theory and statistics, Bayes’ theorem (alternatively Bayes’ law or Bayes' rule) describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event." 

In genetics researchers are attempting to match individuals to their ancestry based on the genetic profile they carry in their genes. Researchers have identified a set of particular mtDNA and Y_Chromosome haplogroups that are carried by the four major populations: Sub-Saharan Africans, Western and Eastern Eurasian, and Native Americans.

When people take a genetics test they often self identify the population they belong too. Today, researchers can identify an individual's ancestry by examining single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. The pattern of SNPs in an individual's genome  indicates a person's ancestry.

If the pattern of ones SNPs can indicate an individual's ancestry (and ethnicity), using Bayes’ theorem, a person’s ethnicity can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they carry a particular haplogroup, compared to the assessment of the probability of an individual's ancestry made without knowledge of the person's ethnicity.

Admixture and Structure programs assume that their are four pristine ethnic population or races: Sub-Saharan African, Western Eurasian (Sub-clade in Middle East), Eastern Eurasian and Native American. Because these races are considered pristine, each population is assigned a specific set of haplogroups, e.g., SSA population mtDNA belong to L haplogroups and Y-DNA is A and E. The problem with these assumptions is that SSA carry all the haplogroups associated with the Eurasians and Native Americans. Due to this, geneticist have to mask selected genes so they can get the results they want.

Bayes Law mathematically is the following equation:


Where A and B are the probabilities of observing A and B without regard to each other.
P(A\B), a conditional probability is the probability of observing event A given that B is true.
P(B\A) is the probability of observing event B given that A is true.

If we apply this to genetic ancestry and admixture testing we have the following equation:

P(ethnicity\SNPs) is a conditional probability it the probability of observing that the ethnicity (of individuals) (A) x SNPs (B) = individual’s P(ethnicity\SNPs) is a conditional probability it the probability of observing that the ethnicity (of individuals) (A) x SNPs (B) = an individual’s haplogroup or membership in a population is true.

P(SNPs\ethnicity) is the probability of observing that given SNPs x ethnicity= an individual’s haplogroup/ancestral component as a member of a given population is true.

The equation might fail in determining the admixture between SSAs and Eurasians, because Africans carry all the genes found among Eurasians.

As a result, using Bayesian statistics in admixture programs may provide invalid results, because P(ethnicity \SNPs) does not accurately predict the ancestral components carried by SSAs because we carry ancestral components carried by Eurasians and Native Americans.

We carry these haplogroups because Africans were the first anatomically modern humans to migrant into Eurasia and the Americas carrying these genes.

Sunday, June 18, 2017


Previous studies of the genetic structure of Afro-Americans have observed a considerable presence of European haplotype R1, among Afro-Americans in North America and the Caribbean. Researchers have assumed that these European genetic signals were probably the result of European males mating with Sub-Saharan African (SSA) females during the Atlantic Slave Trade. Even though this is the usual explanation for the presence of European clades carried by Afro-Americans (AA), recent studies show a high frequency of R haplogroup ancestry among SSAs in West Africa. This study illustrates that the existence of Y-chromosome R1a, and R1b (M-269 and V88) among Afro-Americans may be derived from SSAs instead of Europeans.

Clyde Winters. (2017). DID AFRICAN SLAVES BRING THE Y-CHROMOSOMES R1 CLADES TO THE AMERICAS?; International Journal of Innovative Research and Review , Vol. 5 (2) April-June, pp.1-10/Winters .

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

300,000 Year Old human found in Morocco

 Recent research in Morocco is changing our view on where the first anatomically modern human AMH) originated.   We do not know when man first appeared on earth. But most scholars  agree that by 100,000 BC the first man was living in East and Southern  Africa, which was considered the  original homeland of mankind.  Modern man as we know him is suppose to have come from two earlier pre-man types called Homo habilis, who lived two million years ago, and Homo erectus, who lived 1.6 million years ago.

Now due to research  by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany) and Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer of the National Institute for Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP, Rabat, Morocco)  that  uncovered fossil bones , animal bones stone tools in a cave  at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco indicate that  AMH appeared in North Africa 100,000 years before prehistoric AMH appeared in  East and South Africa.

Controversy surrounds the location where man originated in Africa. Formerly the birthplace of homo sapiens, was located in East and Southern Africa. In Ethiopia archaeologists found  evidence of AMH at Omo dating between 190-200 kya (thousand years ago). A cranium from Herto, Ethiopia dates back 154-160kya. This along with remains of AMH found in the Sudan and Tanzania supported the idea that the first man may have originated in East Africa .


Other Archaeologists agree that AMH remains have also been found in southern Africa. One of the oldest fossil evidence of AMH in Southern Africa dates back to 110kya and was found at Broken Hill, South Africa (SA). Another series of AMH remains dating between 65-105 kya have been discovered in the Klasis River caves. The most archaic human remains come from Florished, SA, and date between 190-330 kys .

The Jebel Irhoud human remains are changing our view of man’s origins in Africa. The fossil remains found by Jean-Jacques Hublin at Jebel Irhoud include long bones,  skulls and teeth of  five individuals.  Using heated flints found at the site the researchers used the thermoluminescence  to date the site. This pushes back the date of AMH in North Africa 300,000 years.

Researchers used new techniques to date the remains found at Jebel Irhoud. Daniel Richter geochronology expert  at Freiberg Instruments GmbH and the  Max Planck Institute , noted that "Well dated sites of this age are exceptionally rare in Africa, but we were fortunate that so many of the Jebel Irhoud flint artefacts had been heated in the past. " Richter added that: "This allowed us to apply thermoluminescence dating methods on the flint artefacts and establish a consistent chronology for the new hominin fossils and the layers above them."

The remains found at Jebel Irhoud  indicate that the humans there made Levellois prepared tools. These tools were used by the Jebel Irhoudians to butcher gezelles that were hunted by people who left there remains in the cave.

The Jebel Irhoud remains  also corroborate the interpretation  of the Florisbad, South Africa crania dated between 190-330kya .The human remains from Jebel Irhoud  and  Florisbad  make it clear that AMH were widespread across Africa 300,000 years ago.

Source: The first of our kind.  Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary  Anthropology, Leipzig.****-sapiens-fossils-at-jebel-irhoud-morocco

Schlebusch et al (2017) argue that the Khoisan carry 9-22% Eurasian Genes

Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that " all modern-day Khoekhoe and San groups have been influenced by 9-22% genetic admixture from East African/Eurasian pastoralist groups arriving >1,000 years ago, including the Ju|'hoansi San, previously thought to have very low levels of admixture ". This is ludicrous, there is no archaeological evidence, presented by these researchers of East Africans migrating into south Africa, we only have the Bantu speakers expanding into Southern Africa during the Iron Age. As I note in my Protocols to Evaluate genetics articles the absence of archaeological support is a clear sign the paper lacks any validity (web page). 

Schlebusch et al (2017) has it backwards. The so-called Eurasian admixture among the Khoisan is the result of the spread of khoisan into Eurasia, as the Cro-Magnon carriers of the Aurignacian civilization. Boule, M., H V Vallois in Fossil Man link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon.

The Khoisan formerly occupied an area from South Africa to North. This would explain the Khoisan domesticated cattle being of North African rather than Bantu type.
The most archaic AMH remains come from Florished, South Africa; they date between 190-330 kya. Other ancient fossil evidence of AMH in South Africa come from Broken Hill (c.110kya) and the Klasis River caves (c. 65-105kya).

The Khoisan early migrated into North Africa. As a result, we see shared cultural and behavioral traditions between 200-40kya among South Africans and Moroccans.



The Khoisan carry haplogroups L3(M,N). Before they reached Iberia, they probably stopped in West Africa.
Granted L3 and L2 are not as old as LOd, but Gonder et al (2006)provides very early dates for this mtDNA e.g., L3(M,N) 94.3; the South African Khoisan (SAK) carry L1c, L1,L2,L3(M,N) dates to 142.3kya; the Hadza are L2a, L2, L3(M,N), dates to 96.7kya.
The dates for L1,L2,L3, M,N are old enough for the Khoisan to have taken N to West Africa, where we find L3, L2 and LOd and thence to Iberia as I suggested in my paper (Winters,2011).
It is interesting to note that LO haplogroups are primarily found among Khoisan and West Africans. This shows that at some point in prehistory the Khoisan had migrated into West Africa on their way to Morocco.
The basal L3(M) motiff in West Africa is characterized by the Ddel site np 10394 and Alul site np 10397 associated with AF-24. This supports my contention that Khoisan speakers early settled West Africa on their way to Iberia.
The Khoisan may have introduced the L haplogroup to Iberia. The SAK populations carry haplogroups L2, and L3. Dominguez (2005) ,noted that much of the ancient mtDNA found in Iberia has no relationship to the people presently living in Iberia today and correspond to African mtDNA haplogroups .
The SAK carry haplogroups L1c, L1,L2,L3 M,N and dates to 142.3kya; the Hadza are L2a, L2, L3, M,N, and dates to 96.7kya.
The dates for L1,L2,L3(M,N) are old enough for the Khoisan to have taken N to West Africa and thence Iberia.
Dominguez (2005) found that the lineages recovered from ancient Iberian skeletons are the African lineages L1b,L2 and L3. Almost 50% of the lineages from the Abauntz Chalcolithic deposits and Tres Montes, in Navarre are the Sub-Saharan lineages L1b,L2 and L3. The appearance of phylogenetically related sequences of hg L3 present in many ancient Iberian skeletons suggest that this haplogroup may have a long history in Iberia. This would support the possibility that SAK populations early settled ancient Iberia.

The Neanderthal used Mousterian tools. These tools were also being used in Africa as early 130kya. This places Neanderthalers in North Africa.
The human types associated with the Neanderthal tools found at Jebel Ighoud and Haua Fteah resemble contemporaneous European Neanderthaler tools. The presence of Mousterian tools suggest that Neanderthalers mixed with Africans because we know that anatomically modern humans were living in the area at the time.

The African Neanderthal people used the common Levoiso-Mousterian tool kit originally discovered in Europe. The Nenderthal skeletons have come from Djebel Irhoud and El Guettar in Morocco (Ki-Zerbo,1981). Later Neanderthal people used the Aterian tool kit. It was probably in Morocco that Neanderthal and Khoisan interacted.
An exception to this norm are the Khoisan who share a phylogenic relationship with Altai Neanderthals (Prufer, et al, 2013). Many researchers claim that Africans have no relationship to the Neanderthals.But Prufer et al (2013) share more alleles with Altaic Neanderthal than Denisova.
In the Supplemental section of Prufer et al (2013) there is considerable discussion of the relationship between Neanderthal and Khoisan. In relation to the Altaic Neanderthal the non-Africans have a lower divergence rate than Africans between 10-20%. Prufer et al (2013) note little statistical difference between non-African and African divergence.
Researchers have observered a relationship between the Neanderthals, the Khoisan and Yoruba. Prufer et al (2013) detected a relationship between the Neanderthal and Mandekan. It is interesting to note that Yoruba traditions place them in Mande-speaking areas (Prufer et al,2013).
There is interesting information in Figure S7.1. In Figure S7.1 the maximum likelihood tree of bonobo, Denisova and Neanderthal, the closest present-day hmans are Africans, not Europeans. Reading the Tree Chart Graph, the neighbor joining tree of archaic and present day human individuals has the Khoisan following the Denisova.
An interesting finding of Prufer et al (2013) was that Altaic Neanderthal and Denisova are estimated to have similar split times. The divergence estimate for African Khoisan-Mandekan and Altaic is younger than the split between Africans and Denisova archaic individuals and modern African individuals. The split times between the Khoisan and Mandekan may be explained by the presence of AF-24 haplotype in West Africa.
The major problem with the paper is that the Prufer et al (2013)believe that there was a back-to-Africa migration of Eurasian genomes among West Africans people. This back migration probably did not occur. What we do know is that the ancient Kushite people belonged to the C-Group. The C-Group people spoke Niger-Congo and Dravidian languages.
The Kushites founded many civilizations in Eurasia including the Sumerian and Elamite civilizations. The Kushites may have spread L3(M) and y-chromosome R haplogroup in Eurasia. This suggest that so-called Eurasian genomes are the result of admixtures of Europeans and Kushites.
In summary the Khoisan early settled Morocco. From here they interacted with Neanderthal populations. Later the Khoisan migrated into Iberia an deposited many genomes of the L clade and L3(N) macrohaplogroup.

The Khoisan took the Aurignacian culture to Europe from North Africa.


The craniofacial evidence makes it clear that the Aurignacian people came from Africa . The Aurignacian people are called Grimaldi Or Cro-Magnon.

Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.

Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to portray Negroids.

In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).

Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group."


in conclusion, the Khoisan carry Eurasian genes, not because of admixture. They carry Eurasian genes because they were the first Eurasians.


Boule, M., HV Vallois . (1957). Fossil Man . Dryden Press New York

Barral,L. & Charles,R.P. (1963) Nouvelles donnees anthropometriques et precision sue les affinities systematiques des negroides de Grimaldi, Bulletin du Musee d’anthropologie prehistorique de Monaco, No.10:123-139.

de Domínguez E.F. Polimorfismos de DNA mitocondrial en poblaciones antiguas de la cuenca mediterránea. Universitat de Barcelona. Departament Biologia Animal, 2005 (PhD thesis).

Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA. (2006). Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Dec 28.

Ki-Zerbo,J. (1981). Unesco General History of Africa Vol. 1: Methodology and African Prehistory (1981), pg.572.

Pruler,K, Racimo,F.,Patterson,N et al. (2014). The complete genome sequences of Neanderthal from the Altai, Mountains. Nature , 505/7481: 43-9. doi .10.1038/ Nature 12881.Epub.2013.Dec.18.

 Schlebusch C M, Helena Malmström, Torsten Günther, Per Sjödin, Alexandra Coutinho, Hanna Edlund, Arielle R Munters, Maryna Steyn, Himla Soodyall, Marlize Lombard, Mattias Jakobsson. (2017). Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago. bioRxiv 145409; doi:

Scozzari, R, Massaia,A, Trombatta,B. et al.(2014). An unbiased resource of novel SNP markers provides a new chronology for human Y-chromosome and reveals a deep phylogenetic structure in Africa. Genome Research, January 6,2014, doi: 10.1101/gr./60785.113.

Verneaux,R: Les Origines de l’humanite. Paris: F. Riedder & Cie, 1926.

Winters C. The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. WebmedCentral BIOLOGY 2011;2(10):WMC002311 . 

Sunday, June 4, 2017

The Geno-Hamitic Theory

The Geno-Hamitic theory is a variation of the Hamitic theory. The term Geno-Hamitic is made up of two words genetics and Hamitic.

Racist used the Hamitic myth in two ways. First it was used by racist to justify the enslavement of Africans, by claiming Black people were cursed.

Image result for hamitic theory

Historians also used the Hamitic myth to explain why great civilizations were found in ancient Africa. The Hamitic theory maintained that there existed in Africa Blacks who had facial features similar to Europeans that were  classified as a subgroup of the Caucasian race. These “black skinned whites” were imagined by 19th Century European scholars responsible for the spread of civilization across Africa.

Geno-hamiticists adhere to the Hamitic theory  claimed that the Kushites and ancient Egyptians , along with Semitic speaking East Africans , and the Fulani are modern representatives of the Hamites.

Although the Hamitic theory has been debunked Geneticists have revived this myth in their studies of African haplogroups. As a result, the East Africans are often referred too in the genetics literature as being distinct from other Sub-Saharan Africans. Sub-Saharan African (SSA)  is the name for the Negro race in modern Genetics articles. The Caucasian and Mongoloid populations are referred too in the Genetics literature, respectively as Western and Eastern Eurasians.

Thusly, we find that Geno-hamiticists imply that East Africans, are distinct from West Africans because, they carry  allegedly Eurasian haplogroups which the Geneticists interpret as evidence of East African and Eurasian admixture. The idea that East Africans carry so-called Eurasian genes due to admixture lacks any historical and/or archaeological support. You see there is no historical and/or archaeological evidence of a back migration of any population to Africa from Eurasia.. In fact as late as 4000 BC, the population in the Levant was Sub-Saharan African, and the archaeological evidence makes it clear the migrations have been of SSA into Eurasia not vice versa.

Given the archaeological and historical evidence the presence of so-called  Eurasian genes among East Africans must be the result, of these genes originating in Africa, not Eurasia.. Moreover, the vast  majority of East Africans carry the same genes carried by the West Africans.

The genomic evidence makes it clear the Geno-Hamitic hypothesis for East africans must be abandoned, while researchers accept the fact that many so-called Eurasian genes evolved in Africa--not Eurasia.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Short History Black People 2

  • There is no monolithic African/Black population. There was a variety of anatomically modern African/Black populations.The four major Black populations were the Australian aborigine , Khoisan, Pygmy and modern African populations found in Ethiopia, East, West and South Africa today. Except for the Australians, remnants of these populations presently live in Africa today.
  • I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.

    The Australians and Veddoids are the original settlers of EurAsia and the Americas (around 100kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks. The Australians were great navigators and probably sailed to Brazil and Crete 100kya

     -   -

    The Bushman/Khoisan probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 44kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.


    The Khoisan introduced the Aurignacian and Salutrean cultures to Europe, and later the Americas.

    The Anu (Pygmy) type were the third migration out of Africa. The Anu began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon (Khoisan) people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Anu began to replace the Khoisan in many parts of the Americas and Eurasia. It was the Anu who probably first crossed the Beringa straits to enter North America from East Asia.
    The major Anu centers of civilization were the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia. They established major centers of trade in the Americas and Eurasia and exported metals back to the Nile Valley and beyond.
    The Anu are probably the ancestors of the Classical mongoloid people. Classical mongoloids are the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
    The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia. These Blacks came from East Africa and may represent a Proto-Bantu group.

    After 3500 BC, the Kushite people began to migrant into Eurasia and the Americas. The Great Flood had taken place and many Anu centers were placed under water by the flood.
    The Kushites belonged to the C-Group people of Nubia and the Maa Confederation. The Kushites were Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers. They had originally belonged to Maa Civilization until aridity caused the Maaites to migrant into the Nile Valley to seek refuge from the dying Saharan zone, which could no longer support human habitation and the Agro-Pastoral lifestyle of the Maaites.
    It appears to have been a natural catastrophe, namely the Great Flood which caused the Classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 3500 BC.


    The Kushites replaced the Anu in Eurasia. Here they re-stablished the lucrative metals trade.
    In Mesopotamia , after 2000 BC, the Gutians began to move out of the Hills and attacked the Semitic speaking Akkadians. Eventually they established a City-State at Lagash.
    In 1400 BC the modern European tribes began to migrate out of Central Asia. They simultaneously began to invade Mesopotamia and India. From bases in Mesopotamia the Indo-Europeans expanded from Central Asia, all the way to the Nile Delta in Egypt.

    By 1200 BC the Classical mongoloids had become well established in East and Southeast Asia. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang, China. The Classical Mongoloids began to push the Dravidian and Mande speakers out of East Asia

    By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.
    The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the Anu or pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.

    This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.

    The coastal Melanesians , are descendants of recent African and Dravidian speakers who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Melanesians belonged to the Lapita culture. They were a combination of Mande, Ethiopian (Naga), and Dravidian speakers.
    The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc. migrated to Islands in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, after the Lapita culture bearers. These people are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature and probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

    The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan or Maaites of the Maa Confederation. These people were known in History as the Kushites.
    These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.

    Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Eurasian Clades were already carried by Egyptians before Greco-Roman Period



The problem with Coconuts/Negroes (people who are brown on the outside, but white inside) is that they don’t understand how to analyze data and form a conclusion. As a result, when they read a paper they accept what is written at face value without looking critically at the data and making their own interpretation.

First of all, Afro-American scholars have accepted that the Egyptians were Black/African people for the past 200 years, i.e., Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois, and J.A. Rogers, and the Senegalese scholar Anta Diop ; but, Negro Apologist : Gates, Kittles and etc, spend their time parroting the status quo line that the Egyptians were a mixed race. This same group attempt to make it appear that the Fulani, Somalis and Ethiopians are black skinned whites, because of their facial features. This is stupid, because man originated in Africa, so the physical features of these populations are African features.

The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.

The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.

In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:

  • Haplogroup Frequency
    U.......... 18.5
    T.......... 22.2
    J ..........18.5
    X.......... 0.0675
    M1a....... 0.0675
    H ..........0.0675
    I........... 0.0675
    HV......... 0.037
    RO......... 0.037
    K........... 0.037
    N.......... 0.037

The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.

In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian mtDNA. We know that these are African clades because there is no evidence of a massive migration of Eurasians into Egypt until the Greco-Roman period as supported by the research in Schuenemann et al.


Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Afro-American and Native American Shared R1 Y-Chromosomes

There are a number of Y-chromosome Haplogroups shared by mongoloid Native Americas and Afro-Americans.

I can not find any information on V88 among Afro-Americans. But I have found information on the frequency of haplogroup R among Afro-Americans.


Haplogroup E-P1 is called E1b1a1 .In the Hammer et al (2006) study while 63% of Afro-Americans carry this haplogroup,1.3% Native Americans carry the same haplogroup. 

The second most frequent Y-chromosome among Afro-Americans is R1b. In the Vallone and Butler (2004) study AAs carried around 0.3% R-M207, and 23% R1b.
Miller et al (2006) did a detailed study of Afro-American and Native American Y-Chromosome. Miller et al (2006) revealed that NA and AAs share many R haplogroups including R-M17 and R-M207. It is interesting to note that in relation to R-M269, that 21% carried this haplogroup, while 17.0 of AAs carried the same haplogroup. This is interesting because there is very little statistical difference between 17% and 21%.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Why We Find Discrepancies in African and Non-African Admixture/Structure Studies

We may never know the admixture between Native Americans and Africans if we wait to get the information from researchers because they are attempting to maintain the status quo.

Discrepancies take place because researchers do not want to tell the truth about the genetic histories of African people and their admixture with Native Americans and Eurasians. As a result, researchers have developed methods to exclude evidence of non-Africans carrying haplogroups mtDNA haplogroups L, and y-Chromosomes E and A.

This is due to the protocols of AdMixture and Structure programs that assume that Native Americans, Europeans and Africans only met after 1492. As a result researchers try to find methods to exclude African presence in European and Native Americans so evidence of this admixture will not be evidenced in the final results. Next researchers claim that if African people carry mtDNA haplogroups: N, R, M and D ; and Y-Chromosomes C, Q, I, J, and R, they are carrying Eurasians haplogroups, eventhough all of these haplogroups are found among African populations that have no history of admixture with Europeans. As a result, these haplogroups are probably of African origin--not a back migration.

Researchers believe this evidence should be excluded because any African admixture among these populations have to be recent.
The best example of how African admixture is excluded in research is Reich, D. et al, Reconstructing Native American population history. Nature 488, 370-374 (2012) Paper web page , the method used to exclude African admixture from this study is detailed in Supplementary Material 1.Reich, D. et al (2012) outlines the motivations for the exclusion of Africans from his study:

  • (i) Motivation
    There were a number of populations for which we did not have access to unadmixed samples. To learn about the history of such populations, we needed to adjust for the presence of non-Native ancestry. We used three complementary approaches to do this. The concordance of results from all these approaches increases our confidence in the key findings of this study.

    (1) Restricting to unadmixed samples: We restricted some analyses to 163 Native American samples (34 populations) without any evidence of recent European or African admixture (Note S2). A limitation of these studies, however, is that we could not analyze 16 populations in which all individuals were inferred to have some degree of recent admixture.

    (2) Local ancestry masking: We identified segments of the genome in each individual that had an appreciable probability of harboring non-Native American or Siberian ancestry. We then created a “masked” dataset that treated genetic data in these sections as missing (Note S4).

    (3) Ancestry Subtraction: We explicitly corrected for the effect of the estimated proportion of European and African in each sample by adjusting the value of f4-statistics by the amount that is expected from this admixture. This is discussed in what follows.

    (ii) Details of Ancestry Subtraction
    Assume that we have an accurate estimate of African and European ancestry for each sample (whether it is an individual or a pool of individuals). In practice, we used the ADMIXTURE k=4 estimates, because as described below, they appear to be accurate for Native American populations (with the possible exception of Aleuts as we discuss below). We can then define:

    a = % African ancestry in a test sample
    e = % European ancestry in a test sample
    1-a-e = % Native ancestry

    For many of our analyses, we are computing f4 statistics, whose values are affected in a known way by European and African admixture. Thus, we can algebraically correct for the effect of recent European or African admixture on the test statistics, obtaining an “Ancestry Subtracted” statistic that is what is expected for the sample if it had no recent European or African ancestry.

    The main context in which we compute f4 statistics is in our implementation of the 4 Population Test, to evaluate whether the allele frequency correlation patterns in the data are consistent with the proposed tree ((Unadmixed, Test),(Outgroup1, Outgroup2)), where the Unadmixed population is a set of Native American samples assumed to derive all of their ancestry from the initial population that peopled America, the Test population is another Native American population, and the two outgroups are Asian populations. An f4 statistic consistent with zero suggests that the Unadmixed and Test populations form a clade with no evidence of ancestry from more recent streams of gene flow from Asia. If the Test population harbors recent European or African ancestry, however, a significant deviation of this statistic from zero would be expected, making it difficult to interpret the results. We thus compute a linear combination of f4 statistics that is expected to equal what we would obtain if we had access to the Native American ancestors of the Test population without recent European or African admixture:

    S_1=(f_4 (Unadmixed,Test;Out1,Out2)-(a) f_4 (Unadmixed,Yoruba;Out1,Out2)-(e) f_4 (Unadmixed,French;Out1,Out2))/(1-a-e) (S3.1)

    Intuitively, this statistic is subtracting the contribution to the f4 statistic that is expected from their proportion a of West African-like ancestry (Yoruba), and their proportion e of West Eurasian-like ancestry (French). We then renormalize by 1/(1-a-e) to obtain the statistic that would be expected if the sample was unadmixed.

    A potential concern is that the African and European ancestry in any real Native American test sample is not likely to be from Yoruba and French exactly; instead, it will be from related populations. However, S1 is still expected to have the value we wish to compute if we choose the outgroups to be East Asians or Siberians. The reason is that genetic differences between Yoruba and the true African ancestors, and French and the true European ancestors, are not expected to be correlated to the frequency differences between two East Asian or Siberian outgroups. Specifically, the allele frequency differences are due to history within Africa or Europe, which is not expected to be correlated to allele frequency differences within East Asia and within Siberia.

    (iii) Ancestry Subtraction gives results concordant with those on unadmixed samples
    To compare the performance of our three approaches to address the confounder of recent European and African admixture, we computed 48 = 8×6 statistics of the form f4(Unadmixed, Test; Han, San). We choose “Unadmixed” to be one of 8 Native American groups from Meso-America southward that have sample sizes of at least two and for which all samples are inferred to be unadmixed by ADMIXTURE k=4 (Chane, Embera, Guahibo, Guaymi, Karitiana, Kogi, Surui and Waunana). We choose “Test” to be one of 8 Native American populations from Meso-America southward with at least two samples that are entirely unadmixed, and that also have at least two samples that have >5% non-Native admixture according to the ADMIXTURE k=4 analysis (Aymara, Cabecar, Pima, Tepehuano, Wayuu and Zapotec1). This allows us to compare results on admixed and unadmixed samples from the same population.

    If the Test population harbors European or West African admixture that we have not corrected, we expect to see a significant deviation of the statistic from zero. For example, f4(Karitiana, French; Han, San), corresponding to the statistic expected for an entirely European-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 45 standard errors from zero, and f4(Karitiana, Yoruba; Han, San), which gives the f4-value we would expect for an entirely West African-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 101.

    Figure S3.1 shows the scatterplots of Z-scores we obtain without Ancestry Subtraction, with Ancestry Subtraction, and with local ancestry masking (Note S4). The x-axis shows data for the unadmixed samples from each Test population, while the y-axis shows the results for the >5% admixed samples from the same populations. We find that:
    • Without Ancestry Subtraction there are significant deviations from zero (|Z|>3) (Fig. S3.1A)
    • With Ancestry Subtraction, there are no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1B)
    • With local ancestry masking (Note S4), there are again no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1C), showing that this method also appears to be appropriately correcting for the admixture.

Given the exclusion of Africans from studies like Reich, D. et al (2012), means that we are not really knowing the actual admixture among Africans and Native American that carry the accepted African haplogroups: i.e., haploroups E , L and etc.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

The Basal Europeans were probably Sub-Saharan Africans

It has always been know that the first hunter-gatherers of Europe were  SSAs (Sub-Saharan Africans) . Now we can declare that the carriers of haplogroup R1, that introduced the European agro-pastoral cultures to Europe, i.e., Bell Beaker and Yamnaya were probably also SSAs because they carried V88.

This should not be surprising according to Turek,  the Bell Beaker culture probably began in Morocco. Neolithic migrants into Europe from the Levant were also SSA. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids.  This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the  Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. If they were Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant.

Toomas Kivisild1 (2017).The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA. web page provides a detailed discussion of R1 in prehistoric Europe.

The article is interesting. It is most interesting because it places V88 in ancient Europe. It is sad that researchers fail to publish this reality.

Kivisild (2017) also made it clear that V88 is the earliest offshoot of R-M343 .

Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from Central and Western Europe have typically the R1b-L11, R1a1-Z283 and R1a-M417 (xZ645)
affiliation while the samples from the Yamnaya and Samara neighbourhood are different and belong to sub-clades R1b11-Z2105 and R1a2-Z93 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Cassidy et al. 2016; Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015; Schiffels et al. 2016).


The R1b11-Z2015 lineage is today common in the Caucasus and Volga-Uralic region while being virtually absent in Central and Western Europe (Broushaki et al.2016). Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).

The presence of the carriers of V88 in Europe makes it clear that Sub-Saharan Africans had been in Europe for an extended period of time. Moreover it is clear that 25kya SSAs carrying haplogroup R1 were in Eurasia, Africa and the Americas.


The Basal Eurasians that are mixed into modern Europeans, who came from the Middle East, and North Africa were SSA's not Indo-European speakers.


Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).

This quote makes it clear the V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara. This would place carriers of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012) and the Neolithic people of the Levant were also SSA  as proven by Holliday (2000). 


Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .

Turek, J. 2012: Chapter 8 - Origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The Moroccan connection, In: Fokkens, H. & F. Nicolis (eds) 2012: Background to Beakers. Inquiries into regional cultural backgrounds of the Bell Beaker complex. Leiden: Sidestone Press. ._Inquiries_into_regional_cultural_backgrounds_of_the_Bell_Beaker_complex._Leiden_Sidestone_Press