Transcription
Yo, swinging and banging all the way from the land of Canaan! We got James, the Argument King, in the building. We chiefing on that lovely on the StreamYard, acting ugly. We back, man. Source gang, seven gang over everything. You know how we rocking, man. And with no further ado, I'mma pass it over to my brother. He got a powerful, powerful presentation that he wants to give to the people today. So that's what we going to do, man. My brother going to rock, he going to get that information out, and the haters going to hate, man. And we going to continue to graduate. So with no further ado, James, the Argument King, is on you, my brother.
All right, man. I want to say Shalom to everybody out there. You know, we want to give all praise and glory to the Most High, man. And, um, I'm just gonna come out and say it like this, man. We have a lot of people out there talking a lot of noise about what we putting out, the information we sharing with y'all. But, uh, ain't none of that going to stop us from putting that information out. And we know they scared to come over here on the Source and challenge us face to face on the information. They want to try to drag us over to their platforms where they can try to shut off your mic and throw you in the background and stuff when you making a point that's killing their argument. But we ain't gonna have that today. We about to start putting out this information. It's gonna make them fall to their knees and bow down and respect what we got going on over here in Israel, man. I mean, that. Let me share my screen. All right, you see it? Just, it's up there. All right, great, great, great, great, great. This presentation right here, I entitled "All the 'quote unquote' African Y-Haplogroup Groups All Really African?" You know what I'm saying? Because over the next two presentations I do, we going to go into where some of these haplogroup groups originate at, according to the new scholarship on the subject, and it ain't in Africa. But today, I'm really, really going to stab all up in the back of some of these Afrocentric communities because I'm gonna show right here, right now, that haplogroup E is not indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. So they gonna have to give up on all them arguments where they be trying to say, "Oh, well, we've been in Africa forever." Like Garfield, we've been in Africa for 10,000 years, man. Get out of here with that pseudo [ __ ]! That's why y'all won't come over here to the Source, man, because we gonna check y'all on all that pseudo. We don't play that, man. So let's get into it.
Um, of course, the introduction. Uh, in this presentation, we'll be analyzing the Y chromosome of the peoples, uh, called African populations, "quote unquote." We will find that many of these groups did not find their origin in Africa, but in other regions of the world. While those that are indigenous to Africa came from a different branch of the phylogenetic tree. We will separate the indigenous Africans from the more recent migrants to the continent and explore their origins, rounding it out with exploration with an exploration of their theoretical place among the Genesis table of nations found in Genesis 10.
All right, as in the prior presentation, we'll be using the migration patterns of the people in, of the world after the last glacial maximum, which our ancestors kept a cultural memory of this event by calling it The Great Flood of Noah. Um, by exploring these migration patterns, we can better analyze and form a theory in which people belonging to which son, "quote unquote," son of Noah, or whether it's Ham, Shem, or Japheth. You know what I'm saying? So we can better narrow down the Y chromosome of the children of Israel because that's really the main goal. We want to do our best to narrow down what is the most likely Y chromosome of the children of Israel so we can, uh, so we can follow the commission to the lost sheep of the House of Israel because that's the Great Commission that we supposed to be doing right now, fulfilling our duty and part, and, and a big part of our calling.
All right, if you see right here in this area right here, we've already done all this right here. This is Y, Yah, en-larger, or Japheth's lineage, the C-F lineage from here all the way over. But we're going to be dealing with the A and B lineages mainly up in here. Uh, E going to come up a bit up in here. Um, so who are the peoples indigenous to Africa? The population structure of Africa prior to the expansion of food explorers, pastoralists, and agriculturalists remains unknown. So when you have all these people talking about, "Oh, oh, we know for sure that we've been in Africa for this long and that long, blah, blah." No, they have no idea. They're just starting to go into these studies with this present, with the article that I'm going to be using in this presentation right here. They don't know nothing about it before the food producers got there, where there was a more of an archaeological record left behind because, you know, uh, hunters and gatherers, they move around a lot, so they don't leave much of an archaeological record. But when you have pastoralists and agriculturalists, they can start building communities, they can start building towns, villages because they have more, uh, food to sustain a larger population, so they could be more, uh, in set to.
All right, um, to reconstruct African population structure prior to the spread of food producers, we generate new genome-wide data from 15 ancient sub-Saharan Africans for, uh, for three individuals from the Western Cape of South Africa, from 2300 to 1300 years ago. We carried out direct shotgun sequencing, 7 to twofold coverage for 12 individuals from Eastern and Southern Central Africa. We use the, uh, in-solution enrichment of 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. These include four individuals from the coastal region of Kenya and Tanzania, 1400 to 400 years ago, one of one from the interior of Tanzania, 3100 years ago, and seven from Malawi, ranging from 8100 to 2500 years ago.
All right, we use principal component analysis to automate cluster to relate the 16 ancient individuals to present-day sub-Saharan Africans. As you can see over here in the figure, if you look over here in the A, right here, by where it says A, you can see this area right here is present sub-Saharan Africans, and the only one you'll see there is Tanzania, uh, 600 BP, right down here, and that's the only one that's closest to sub-Saharan. And the rest of them fall within a range going down, and we're going to find out from other articles why some of these fall into this range. Um, whereas two individuals from two, 2,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer contents in South Africa, share ancestry with Southern African Khoisan populations. And principal component analysis, 11 of the 12 ancient individuals who lived in Eastern and South Central Africa between 8100 and 400 years ago, form a graduate and relatedness to the Eastern African Khoisan on one hand, and the Southern African Khoisan on the other hand. As we can see again in this figure, you can see them right here, about in the middle. Um, the genetic kind correlates to geography, running along a north-south axis, with ancient individuals from Ethiopia, 4,500 years ago, Kenya, 400 years ago, Tanzania, 1400 years ago, and Malawi, 8100 to 2500 years ago, showing increased affinity to Southern Africans, both ancient individuals and present-day Khoisan. The seven individuals from Malawi show no clear heterogeneity, indicating a long-standing and distinct population in ancient Malawi that persisted for at least 5,000 years, the minimal span of our radiocarbon dates, but which no longer exists today. But they pretty much saying that the people they found in Malawi, this is in more towards Northeast Africa because, you know, they've been trying to say that the Khoisan have been in South Africa for 2,000 or 200,000 years and all that. But the evidence we see more recently shows that actually their ancestors were more up into Northeast Africa, and we're going to find out more or less what kind of pushed them out of the region as we go along here.
All right, so if we look at some of these, uh, Y chromosomes, which you find right here, here the Y chromosome right here of the males in South Africa, you have A, just like you would have the Khoisan have today. So both of them are A from 2,000 years ago. But then you get to Malawi, you have haplogroup BT, uh, which is more of a theoretical haplogroup. I've been doing some other studies and a lot of times they end up changing that into either, uh, either a branch of a basal B or a branch of a, uh. But right here in this presentation, I mean, right here in this article, they still presented as BT, but that would follow along more towards the B, uh, cluster. Uh, and then as for the, and then at the very bottom, in Kenya, 400 years ago, you get E1b1b1b2, which they say is Near Eastern ancestry. And we all know that that E1b1b is our brother haplogroup. So wherever it would have originated or branched out from, our, our branch would be right there because they would have branched off from, from, from our ancestral lineage before we did. And, um, when you look at the females, a lot of them are LZ, um, and then you have like L4, and a lot, most of them are either South African lineage or hunter-gatherer lineages, or I think one of them's a Near Eastern or East African lineage, East African sub-Saharan lineage. Uh, we find that ancestry related to the ancient South African was present much further north and east in the past than, than is apparently today. Like I was just saying a second ago, this ancient South African ancestry comprised of up to 91% of the ancestry of the Khoisan today, and that showed on table as five. I, I think I might have put in this presentation. And also 31%, give or take 3%, of the ancestry of Tanzania, Zanzibar, 1400 years ago, 60%, give or take 6%, of the ancestry of Malawi, of Fingir, 6100 years ago, which pretty much say all of these are mostly related to the Khoisan groups. Notably, the Khoisan-related ancestry in ancient individuals from Malawi and Tanzania is symmetrically related to the two previously identified lineages presented in the sign, estimated to have diverged at least 20,000 years ago. So they saying that's when they branched from each other, implying this is an ancient divergent branch of the group that lived in East Africa at least until 1400 years ago. So they were living up in East Africa to about 1400 years ago, and we're going to see, like I said, what kind of pushed them out of that region. However, it is not present in all East Africans, as we do not detect it in the 400-year-old individual from coastal Kenya, nor in the present-day Hadza people. Both supervised clustering and formal ancestry estimations suggest that individuals from the Hadza group in Tanzania can be modeled as deriving all their ancestry from a lineage related deep to an ancient East African, such as Ethiopia, 4500 BP or years ago. Individual, however, this lineage appears to have contributed little ancestry to present-day Bantu speakers in East Africa, who instead trace their L, their ancestry to a lineage related to present-day West Africans, in addition to components related to Neolithic-speaking Dinka and the Tanzania Lux, 3100 years ago, pastoralists. So they pretty much saying that, uh, the, uh, Bantu speakers in East Africa come from a common ancestral population with us West Africans, and they're not descended from these same people that we find in the region. And we know they are E1b1a2, that's what the, uh, they are in East Africa. Uh, and if you look at the images to the right, these are these A and B haplogroup peoples. Um, we are not related to these people. They're from a completely different branch of the Y chromosome tree than us. Um, from our studies, we would throw them along the branch of what they call, of our ancestors would have called Hamitic or Hamites. These people carry, like I said, A and B haplogroups. They're the first indigenous people to Africa after the last glacial maximum, and a lot of people will say that that's not correct, but towards the end of this presentation, I'm going to show an article that shows that that is true. They do come from the same region, uh, in, in that, as in that, uh, Asia area than most other people do, and they make a strong case to it.
We, another population like the Hadza, which is BT, uses click consonants in their spoken language, are modeled as having ancestry similar to Hadza and also admixture related to that of the neighboring population, consistent with previous findings. I, I wanted to say something because it really just jumped out in my mind right now. Um, notice that when we deal with a lot of those C-F lineages, they, they spoke an ancient Indo-European language, right? And then when you deal with a lot of these A and B languages, they speak click languages. So, our ancestors explained that by the splitting of the tongues in ancient Babylon, and that's why the people speak in those different languages, why other peoples at that time would have been speaking more of a Proto-Afroasiatic, uh, language, branch of, of language. So, I mean, um, I think even in their, their languages, it's also coincided with the DNA and with a lot of their cultural aspects to show that they do come from some familiar, uh, common ancestral population to carry all these traits.
And back to the article. Population replacement by incoming food producers appears to have nearly have been nearly complete in Malawi, where we detect little, if any, ancestry from the ancient individuals that lived 8100 to 2500 years ago. Instead, present-day Malawian individuals are consistent with deriving all their ancestry from the Bantu 2 expansion of ultimate West African origin. So what they're showing pretty much here is that it was actually the Bantu 2 expansion that pushed these people out of their region that they were in more north than East Africa. So we really not finding evidence of people living in South Africa, and those who are living below the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa, that from here, especially on the eastern side, they're showing a lot of these people are A and B haplogroups, who come from a common ancestor, which, like I said, our ancestors call Ham.
All right, moving on. And as you can see, uh, I even included, uh, the people of Sudan, you know, some of the shortest people in the world. Well, we got man B right here, he's from a haplogroup all the way until you dealing with some of the, um, the Biaka pygmies and stuff like that, just to show the diversity of, of height, uh, and just physiy of these people who fall within what we would call from our ancestors, Hamites.
This study, which multiplies by 16-fold the number of individuals with genome-wide ancient DNA data from sub-Saharan Africa, highlights the power of ancient African genomes to provide insights into prehistoric events that are difficult to discern based solely on analysis of present-day genomes. Because like a lot of this information, G to show you can't judge the past by people where people live today. Humans have been migrating since hundreds of thousands of years ago on the secular timeline. So how you going to sit here and try to just pitch and people into one individual area of the world while everybody else migrating? Like we was just that backwards of a people? We revealed that, we reveal the presence of hitherto unknown clades of geographically structured hunter-gatherer populations stretching from Ethiopia to South Africa, which we show existed prior to the great population transformation that occurred in the last few thousand years in association with the spread of herders and farmers. We also, oh, let me. We also document deeper structure in Western Africa, possibly predating the divergence of ancestors of Southern African hunter-gatherers from other population lineages. This goes into something I'm going to go more into in my next presentation, but, uh, they found a lineage that's even more ancient than the Khoisan lineage in present-day West Africans or ourselves as a people. So when a lot of people start trying to argue that everyone descended from the Khoisan, or they are ancestors of everybody, that's why a lot of times I step in and say, "No, they found what they call ghost DNA in, um, or sometimes they'll call it basal West African DNA in us that diverged earlier than the, um, Khoisan diverged." Uh, uh, let me get back to where it was. We find, we finally provide case examples of how populations in Eastern and Southern Africa were transformed by the spread of food producers and show how the progress gave rise to the interactions with the previously established hunters and gatherers, with the outcomes ranging from no detectable admixture in present-day populations to substantial admixture. Our documentation of a radically different landscape of human populations before and after the spread of food producers highlights the difficulty of reconstructing the African past based solely on analysis of present-day populations and the importance of using ancient DNA to study deep African population history. In an era in which technological improvements have have now made this feasible, it is clear that ancient DNA studies with larger sample sizes and covering a broader chronological and geographical range have the potential to make major progress in improving our understanding of African prehistory. But like I'm saying, a lot of this, um, these ancient bones they're finding, a lot of them ain't E1, E1b1a or E1b1b until you start getting some migrations into the region. And this right here came from, uh, reconstructing prehistoric African population structure, led by Pontus Skoglund, Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School. And this right here is an image of it to the right, so you know it when you see it.
Hey, J, I wanted to know if it was anything. I know you probably read this article. Is there anything that may have stood out to you in the article you may want to bring up? I'mma talk about it more a little bit later, but I just want to give you the floor for any input.
No, man. Um, you pretty much hitting all the points, man, and firing on all cylinders. Uh, just to recapitulate what you said about what we find in the oldest, oldest DNA that we find in sub-Saharan Africa is in Cameroon, and it's D, A, Z, and B. So like you said, man, these guys, what happens is the burden of proof is on these guys that show us they're in ancient times during that same time period. We don't see us there. We don't see our ancestors there. We see A and B. Like you brought up the Khoi-Khoi people, the Bushmen, you know, these early, uh, Nilotic people, pre-Bantu populations, they all dominated by A and B. So like you said, where, where is the evidence for our people being in sub-Saharan Africa, you know what I'm saying? 8,000, 10,000 years ago, like, like the clown, Garfield K. Re, said. So you're doing an excellent job, brother.
All right, then. Let me move into the next part, then. Uh, all right. Before 5,000 years ago, most of sub-Saharan Africa was sparsely occupied by a collection of linguistically and culturally diverse hunter-gatherer populations. Within the past 5,000 years, the majority of hunter-gatherer populations in Africa have disappeared, either through assimilation into expanding agro-pastoral farmer and herder groups or by extinction. The remaining hunter-gatherers include the forest pygmy populations of Central Africa, isolated click-speaking populations of Tanzania, and the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert region of South Africa. Even some of these groups, however, have been experiencing a transition to agricultural subsistence over the past 100 years. Cuz, you know, it's hard to be a hunter and gatherer in Africa when, you know, people are occupying a lot of places that weren't there beforehand. You got these different governments, all this colonialism took place where they was just giving smaller and smaller regions for them to move around in. So, I mean, uh, but like it's saying, um, 5,000 years ago, man, it was hunters and gatherers running around in sub-Saharan Africa, like me and the brother JHU were just saying.
So like he said, what's up? I hate to interrupt you, but, and goes, he agrees. He says it right there. EM2 came down and killed the hunter-gatherers off and brought farming.
Exactly, exactly. And that, that's what we trying to get more people to see. You know, like I said, we don't agree with Goyi in totality, you know what I'm saying? But the facts are the facts, and we can agree on them if nothing else, you know what I'm saying? And moving on to the, uh, population structure. It is unclear to what extent the ancestral African population was structured at the time of, uh, Out of Africa migration by modern humans, 60,000 years ago. Deep ancestral population structure within Africa would affect inference of divergence time among African and non-African populations. Extent the admixture between expanding modern humans and Neanderthals, and the causes of divergence among the origin of modern humans, either through demographic growth, unique mutations affecting behavior, etc. By examining genomic data from 600 gathered populations from Southern, Central, and Eastern Africa, like the JHU and the Kaman Bushmen, the Umuti and the Baka, Hadza, and the Sanwi, in conjunction with 21 other African populations, we characterize the structure and relationship between these populations. Fine-scale population structure analysis demonstrates that the hunter-gatherer populations are highly differentiated, both among themselves and compared with other African populations. Thus, they do not seem to derive from agriculturalist populations and instead present geographically distinct populations, isolated from other groups for thousands of years. So these people that was there 5,000 years ago, they're not related to the agriculturalist people, like we saying, they're hunter-gatherer populations. However, all hunter-gatherer populations do share an ancestral cluster, which, at small K levels, a similar phenomenon was observed in the Tassoff at, um, paper microsatellite structural analysis, and suggests that Central African pygmies, Southern Khoisan, and Tanzanian click share a common ancestry distinct from other African populations, either through a more recent common ancestry or through long-distance migration. And again, that's why we say that these groups seem to be whom our ancestors calling Ham. These are the first people to, uh, populate the Nile Valley and the first ones to be even into the interiors of sub-Saharan Africa, and that's what the land which IA said was given to Ham. So that's why we contribute it this way, and it's a good way to show the, even though it's, uh, a, uh, mythology of our people, and a mythology don't mean it's full of lies. All right, mythology means that, uh, more or less, it's an oral tradition of our people. There seems to be a biological basis of truth to it by where these people migrated to, and the evidence that's showing up in the archaeological record.
Population divergence between the Eastern and Western Pygmy populations was present by the Umuti and Baka respectively, and estimated to have occurred approximately 15,000 to 27,000 years ago. Our Y-chromosome microsatellite data from the highly divergent basal Khoisan A3b1-M51 clade, found exclusively in Southern Africa, have a more recent common ancestor at 40,000 years ago. If the time in the time to the most recent common ancestor with the Khoisan population is 40,000 years, then this is among the first genetic evidence that the Khoisan have continuously occupied Southern Africa for at least the entire span of the Upper Paleolithic. This conclusion assumes that any past geographic movement of the Khoisanest population would have spread the and the distribution of A3b1 lineages, and these lineages would survive in contemporary populations.
So, um, I do want to point out that they do highlight as well that there's an assumption being placed here, which is what is really placing them down there in Southern Africa for so long. Um, we target, we present a target analysis of African hunter-gatherer genomes, including genomic SNP array data for Tanzanian Hadza, San, and South African Khoe-San Bushmen. We find that the six sub-Saharan hunter-gatherer populations share common ancestry distinct from the agriculturalists. Analysis of the LD and heterozygosity suggest that hunter-gatherers, especially, oh, I read this already. No, I didn't. No, I didn't. Let me get down to what I didn't go over in earlier. LD and fist patterns support the, um, right here in this area, hypothesis that all human populations originate from the Southern Africa. Although we caution that sampling in Africa remains sparse, our sample size of Bushmen numbers are 47 individuals, and other highly variable populations may be discovered. Additionally, the interaction between the agro-pastoralist populations and hunter-gatherers over the past 5,000 years has marked an effect hunter-gatherer populations in a variety of ways, including sex-based gene flow from agriculturalists into hunter-gatherer groups, which is pretty much saying that the men will come in and taking the women. That's just a nice way of saying that the men were coming in, running these people out of their lands, running war with them, and taking their women. And a lot of that was because, um, you need the antibodies in order to deal with a lot of the diseases that may be foreign to you in that region. And the women, a lot of time through breastfeeding, pass these antibodies on to the children, and it also, um, gives you some better beneficial traits for the region that you're in. And, um, I mean, like I said, our ancestors believe that's what the Most High wanted them to do. And again, we find that there is a genetic and biological basis for doing these things that is beneficial to the population doing it. For example, those associated with Ham. Um, let me see. Mark hunter-gatherer in a variety of ways, sex-based, uh, gene flow from agricultural-pastoralist into hunter-gatherer pop, hunter-gatherer groups, demographic bottlenecks in the Hadza and Central Pygmies, and possibly unique selection pressures were an example associated with infectious disease. Like again, they, they're, um, trying to, you know, bring the genes necessary, the antibodies necessary into the gene pool to better cope with the area in which they're migrating into. And this right here is from Hunter-Hunter-gatherer genomic diversity suggests a Southern African origin of modern humans. And, uh, this was by Brienne Henn, Department of Genetics, Stanford University, and it was published, uh, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on March 29th, 2011. Um, the article I read before this was after this article, but I just wanted to make a point out of it first, so I put it there. But it's a newer article, and it speaks on the West Africans, or ourselves, having a, uh, a deeper branch than the, uh, South Africans do, which will make us the origin of modern humans. And, uh, now I'm going to go back into the article I was in beforehand, but I just wanted to present it here so y'all would know we were switching and I wouldn't just be flowing from article to article and leaving y'all lost.
Um, this right here is about the Near Eastern admixture into the indigenous peoples of East Africa. Cuz I've already shown and proved that the indigenous peoples of East sub-Saharan Africa were these A and B populations, and even in East Africa, uh, they were these A and B populations that were indigenous to these regions. So let's get into it. Western Eurasian-related ancestry is pervasive in Eastern Africa today, and the timing of this admixture has been estimated to about 3,000 years ago on average. We found that the 3100 BP individual, Tanzania Loo Manda, associated with a Savannah pastoral Neolithic archaeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38%, give or take 1%, of her ancestry related to nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant. And we can exclude source populations related to early farming populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Neolithic farmers, and alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Neolithic farmers and Tanzania Lux 3100 descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East. So let's get more into it. We fit the remaining approximately 23% of Tanzania L31 as most closely related to Ethiopia 4100 BP, or allowing for a three-way mixture, also for a source closely related to the Dinka. The 11,000-year-old related ancestry in this case is 39%, give or take 1%. While these findings show that a Levant Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day East Africans, present-day Cushitic speakers, such as the Somali, cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania Lada 3100 BP ancestry. The best-fitting model for the Somali includes, uh, the 3100 BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16%, give or take, Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry. So we seeing a lot of Near Eastern ancestry coming into this region 3,100 years ago, and we know what comes along with that.
So, so you heating up, bro. You heating up, brother. Hey, hey, add what you want to add, bro. Brother, are you saying that the East Africans have an Iranian Neolithic component? Is that what this is?
That's, and you know that's European. Come on, man. I'm just saying, bro. This, this flips the paradigm on its head because the paradigm that's been fed for us for years in society by these pro-African conscious brothers is that we've been in Africa and that's all we are. Africa, Africa, Africa, the continent of Africa. But what you're showing right now is that there's an Iranian, a Neolithic Iranian component and an 11 farmer component in these East Africans. Very powerful information, brother.
Hey, and you know what that, what that marks the J marker, bro. Ancient Iranian Neolithic, and they came down from Georgia and would put him right there up in the land of Japheth. You know what I'm saying? And they go back to C-F. Jay, go back to C-F. We know that. Come on, man. That, that's showing that this J marker they trying so hard to make into, you know what I'm saying, the House of Israel, the House of Shem, just don't fit the model, bro. It just don't. And this is based on, on the record, into the archaeological record, facts that we can find. Anybody can go look this up and see this information, man.
Yeah, but this, this suggests that ancestry related to Iranian Neolithic appeared in East Africa after the early gene flow related to Levantine Neolithic populations, a scenario that is made more plausible by the genetic evidence of admixture of Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry throughout the Levant by the time of the Bronze Age, and in ancient Egypt by the Iron Age. So check this. I want to make this point. So that J marker was already in the Levant by the Bronze Age. Before the Bronze Age, you don't get Abraham coming into the region to the middle Bronze Age. So how the hell does the J marker descend from Abraham if it was already there? It don't even make sense. It don't add up, man. Y'all need to go on ahead and push that off and get rid of that. Um, again, uh, yeah, in ancient Egypt by the Iron Age.
Moving on. In contrast to the Malawi and Zanzibar individuals, all three ancient South Africans show affinities to the ancestry predominant in present-day two speakers of the Southern Kalahari, more than to the present-day Juǀʼhoan speakers of the Northern Kalahari. Ever the 1200-year-old sample from the Western Cape that is found in a pastoralist context has a specific similarity in in clustering analysis to present-day Khoi-Khoi speaking pastoralist populations such as the Nama. And like them, it has an affinity to three groups: Khoisan, Western Eurasians, and East Africans. This supports the hypothesis that that a non-Bantu-related population carried East African and Levantine ancestry to South Africa by at least 1200 years ago, providing direct evidence for claims previously made by analysis of present-day populations.
Man, you can't make this stuff up, man. And I don't see why a lot of Afrocentric people are so against the simple facts. Why? Because they, I believe they've made this Afrocentric into a religion, bro, with axes that cannot be broken. And so when you show them that, hey, these people descend directly from the indigenous peoples that mostly populated Europe, you cannot, I would not call them an African people because of that descent. They want to act like, well, no, if you just own the continent now, you African. So you going to tell me the Europeans in South Africa, now you going to consider them African? Are you going to consider these J markers, these R1b markers, are you going to consider all them African? I mean, that's the big, it's the biggest mark in Europe right now. So you going to make that African now? Nah, they ain't going to want to do that. But, but when it fits their narrative, then everything they want, everything to be there.
All right, we used our modeling framework to show that African pastoralist individuals from the Western Cape consisted of an admixture of two streams of ancestry related to non-Southern African populations, with 40% (3% give or take 2.3%) ancestry related to Tanzania L M of 3100 BP, and I'm going to show you the Y markers of these people, 54% give or take 70% when restricting analysis to sequences of postmortem damage, and the remainder being related to South African 2000-year-old hunter-gatherers. This supports the hypothesis that the Savannah pastoralist Neolithic agricultural tradition in East Africa is a plausible source for the spreading of herding to South Africa. Even the Juǀʼhoan San group, with the least genetic affinity to the East Africans, has 9% give or take 1% of their ancestry most closely related to Tanzania Luxman at 3100 BP, consistent with previous findings that the ancestry of all present-day Khoisan and Khoe were affected by agro-pastoralist migrations in the last two millennia. So again, 200 years ago, sub-Saharan Africa didn't look nothing like it's looking today, especially on the Eastern side and in South Africa. And this right here, uh, came from, uh, ancient West Eurasian ancestry, uh, well, this, yeah, starting here, it's going to be ancient West Eurasian ancestry in Southern and Eastern Africa by Joseph Pickrell. And it says, "The history of South Africa involved interaction between indigenous hunter-gatherers and a range of populations that moved into the region. Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations, South African hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants. One one involved populations related to Niger-Congo speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to Western Eurasian, Europe, or Middle Eastern populations. We date the latter admixture event to 900 to 1800 years ago and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe languages. A similar signal of Western Eurasian ancestors present throughout Eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence of two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations. The earlier of the involved populations related to Western Eurasians, and which dated to 2700 to 3300 years ago. We construct the allele frequencies of the putative Western Eurasian populations in East Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the Western Eurasian ancestry in South Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that Western Eurasian ancestry entered South Africa directly through Eastern Africa." So again, this agriculture was not spontaneously just popped up in sub-Saharan Africa like a lot of them tried to argue, like it just spontaneously popped up out of nowhere. No, there were people from the Near East that brought this down into the region. Hunting-gatherer populations have inhabited Southern Africa for tens of thousands of years. With approximately the last 2,000 years, these populations were joined by food-producing groups, both pastoralists and agriculturalists, and a culturally diverse set of populations occurred occupied regions today. Because written history is unavailable until recently in Southern Africa, inferences about migration patterns leading to the present-day distribution of populations have largely been informed by archaeological archaeology and linguistics. Genetic data are an additional source of information about population history. And I want to emphasize a point right here. Notice what they doing. They're doing interdisciplinary studies. They're saying we need to add the archaeology with the linguistics and then use extra supporting sources in the genetic data. And that's a lot of what we like to do here. We like, like to use interdisciplinary studies. We like to bring the history, the archaeology, any writings we can find, oral traditions we can find from the people. Like I mentioned again about how a lot of these people, especially in ancient times, who descend from Shem, speak Indo-European. These A and B speak click languages, and the D that was in that region would have spoke more of a Proto-Afroasiatic language. Um, but extracting this information remains challenging. Studies of diversity in South Africa have highlighted the influence of precolonial population admixture on the genetic structure of populations in the region, but have come to different conclusions about the historical scenarios that led to the admixture. In particular, although there is agreement about the arrival of Bantu-speaking agriculturalist populations had a major demographic impact in many populations, the importance of population movements from other parts of Africa or the world is is unclear. Slush argued for East African ancestry specifically in the Nama, a pastoralist population, while Picra raised the possibility, raised this possibility not just for the Nama, but for several Khoe-speaking populations. Identifying the sources of non-Khoe ancestry in South Africa could shed light on the historical processes that led to the extensive linguistic and cultural diversity of the region. Here we develop techniques based on the extent of lineage disequilibrium to thoroughly examine the signal of admixture in South African Khoe-San, defined here as indigenous populations speaking non-Bantu languages with click consonants, without implying cultural, linguistic, or genetic homogeneity of Khoe-San groups. First, we show that all Khoe-San populations have some nonzero proportion of West Eurasian ancestry. Throughout this paper, we will use geographic labels to refer to ancestry with the caveat that the geographic labels are derived from modern populations. That is, when we refer to Western Eurasian ancestry in South Africa, we are using this as a shorthand for more precise, or more accurate phrasing of ancestry most closely related to populations currently living in Western Eurasia and populations currently living in South Africa. So y'all can just understand what they mean because I don't like to leave y'all guessing too much. I wanted to make sure I add at that point so y'all know exactly what the article said. Second, we show that there are multiple waves of population mixture in the history of many Southern and Eastern African populations, and that Western Eurasian ancestry entered East Africa on average 2700 to 3300 years ago, and Southern Africa 900 to 1800 years ago. Third, we infer the allele frequencies of ancestral West West Eurasian populations in East Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the West Eurasian ancestry in South Africa. Thus, we argue the most possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Southern Africa is indirect gene flow via East Africa. Pretty much, uh, reiterating what was said in earlier parts of it. Um, I don't want to be too redundant, so I might skip over certain portions of of the article. Um, I'mma skip that first sentence. And the largest amplitudes of obtained with European populations is frequently taken literally. This would seem to implicate Europe as a source of admixture, although Middle Eastern populations are also among the best proxies. The estimated date of gene flow is 43 give or take two generations. That'd be 1,290 give or take 60 years, assuming 30 years per generation. This was something I was trying to explain to, uh, Rob Born the other day when we was on that. They keep trying to do their best to not understand that the amount of DNA that's in these people is directly related to ancient admixture, which means a long, long time. The less ancestry they have, the further back in time that admixture took place. And they use 30 years as a general generation for, you know, to a time where they have more kids and procreate. But moving on, before the present, consistent with our previous estimated date, the date is well before the historical arrival of European colonists to the region. So it wasn't through colonialism that this came. So this leads the Middle East as the best proxy. We next test the robustness of this result. We confirm that this observation is consistent across panels of SNPs with varied ascertainment. We then consider hunter-gatherer populations from other regions of Africa. In particular, we perform the same analysis on the Biaka and the Umuti of Central Africa. As expected, the inferred source of admixture in these populations is a sub-Saharan African population most closely related to the Yoruba, a Niger-Congo speaking agriculturalist group from Nigeria. We thus conclude that there is a signal of both allele frequencies and lineage disequilibrium that Jan North admixture with a population more closely related to Western Eurasian, I.E. European or Middle Eastern, rather than Eastern Eurasian populations, and that this signal is absent from the hunter-gatherer populations in Central Africa. S. S., which is pretty much saying that this is brought in from outside because if it was already there, the hunter-gatherer populations in Central Africa should have it as well. Significance is the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist populations of South Africa are among the culturally, linguistically, and genetically most diverse human populations. However, little is known about their history. We show that all of these populations have some ancestry most closely related to Europeans and Middle Easterns, and use this to reconstruct the history of population movement between Eurasia, Eastern Africa, and Southern Africa. And a lot of this seems like a lot of reiteration, but I like to give two or three witnesses. So I like to pull it from multiple sources to show and confirm the point that I'm making, you know, because a lot of people like to just give you one article and then just run with that one article. But then you may find other articles that came out later that may conflict that. So I like to find some of the more present articles and some of the more earlier articles that found that came to the same conclusion. And over here to the right, you see, uh, a lot of people are part of haplogroup B. We do not descend from them people, you know what I'm saying? I'm sorry. My ancestors were pastoralists, they were agriculturalists, and we have a tradition of going back to the first agriculturalists. Um, our ancestors in the House of Shem. Moving on.
All right, uh, signal of Western Eurasian relatedness is shared throughout Southern Africa. We, we next examine whether the signal of relatedness in Western Eurasia is present in other Khoisan populations. For each Khoisan population, we use all the to compute weighted LD decay curves using the test population as one reference and either the French or the Yoruba as the other reference. We include the, you use them as a control, just if people don't really know, you use it as a control. We include the Central African Umuti and Biaka populations as negative controls. In all Khoisan populations, the amplitude of the LD decay curve is larger when using French as a reference than when using Yoruba as a reference. In contrast, for the Umuti and the Biaka, the larger amplitude is seen in using the Yoruba as a reference. And you can see these both in the chart right here and in figure two. It says, "Relationship with Western Eurasia is shared by all Khoisan populations," which is pretty much saying a lot of what we said there. Uh, we then fit the exponential decay model. Let me show y'all where I'm at. Decay model to each LD plotted at the inferred amplitudes A and B admixture times of each population. So you can look up here and see exactly what they're talking about in the article. I mean, this is pretty, pretty much the reflection of empirical data. I mean, anybody coming against this, they need to again, they need to source up when they come over here. We ain't trying to have no rhetoric battles. That's why they they happy to run over there and hop on, uh, the Clubhouse now. You can't show no camera, you can't share no work, you can't put no sources in the back chat, you can't do nothing but have pure rhetoric wars, and that's what they love to do. But over here at the Source, we like to show and prove what we doing, man. We like to to raise the bar on this right here, and our community.
Same image. A striking observation that emerges from this analysis is that in many of the South African populations, the inferred admixture times depend substantially on the second population used as the reference. Under a model of admixture of a single source population, the decay rate of the LD curve does not depend on the reference population used. This suggests that there are at least two separate non-Khoisan sources of ancestry in some of these Khoisan populations. In contrast.
For the Central African umuti and viaka that inferred times do not depend on the reference used. All right, so, uh, right over here in this chart, you can see the estimates of Eurasian ancestry in a lot of these groups. And I want to point it out, like the Nama got 14% West Eurasian ancestry, and that's in South Africa. They're the largest one. Um, I don't think it's, uh, really too relevant in a lot of the other groups, um, in South Africa. But when you get to East Africa, it's crazy. Like, Tigre, they're 50%. Uh, the Amhara, they're, they're almost 50%. Uh, the Afar, they're 46%. The Oromo, they're 41%. Somali, 38%. And they, and the Somali also got like 17% of that, uh, that Iranian Neolithic or them J markers. Um, the Ethiopian Somali, you got 38%. You know, like I said, it, it's pervasive in East Africa.
Uh, and right here it says, "A major open question concerns the initial source of the Western Asian ancestry in East Africa." The estimated mean time of gene flow in East Africa is about 3,000 years ago, and the amount of gene flow must have been quite extensive, which means they came in wiping people out, wiping the men out, and taking the women, because the Western Eurasian ancestor proportions are 40, 50% in some Ethiopian populations, as is illustrated by the table. Archaeological records from this region are sparse. So Pani speculated that this admixture was related to the biblical account of the kingdom of Sheba.
Now, this is, I'm sorry, James, don't, you can't gloss over that. A geneticist, hold on, brother. A geneticist, this is what for the ignorant people out there. A geneticist is using a biblical account to, to, uh, uh, bring forth parsimony and bring forth explanation and it shows explanatory power, um, of the biblical account in comparison to the genetic findings here. Hey, that's no lie, man. Um, a lot of people who don't know for, for that, for that Iron Age time period in that region of the world, the Bible is, is considered a historical record. The thing is, the scholars take all of the miracles and all of, you know, the other stuff and the prophetic stuff, and they'll set that to the side and look at the historical document that it is, you know what I'm saying? The history of a people. They look at it for what it is, and a lot of it correlates with the archaeology. We'll find it that shows and proves that this is a historical record.
Y'all have to understand with a lot of these ancient peoples, they, their mythos is so pervasive in their culture that their God is responsible for everything that happens to them, the good, the bad, and the ugly. So they write it from that perspective of what is God doing to us because of this. But they also have a record of saying that they had, um, an interaction or they have interactions with this God. And from a cultural perspective, I accept what my ancestors say because a lot of things that sparked me down this route wasn't me necessarily looking for a lot of this stuff. It was a lot me just chilling and then the idea pops in my head, "Hey, go look up this," you know, just cuz. And then you start looking up stuff and all these ideas that was just spontaneously popping in my head to go look up, I'm finding facts after facts after facts after facts about that. And that's why I be like, "It ain't me." And on that point, I don't think this is me. I think it's something outside of me that is that is directing me on this path. And that's why I give credence to following of God. But I don't infuse that into my scholarship like that. What I will infuse though into my scholarship is the historical accounts and where our mythos aligns with the historical and the archaeological record.
Um, all right, yeah, let's move on to the next part here. However, archaeological evidence is not completely absent. So which means that, uh, he gave it his parsimony, but there is archaeological evidence that we can show to to push that, uh, is not completely absent during this time period. Architecture in Ethiopia, culture of the Theat has an unmistakable Southern Arabian appearance in many details. Although there is some debate as to whether these patterns can be attributed to large movements of people versus elite-driven cultural practices. Additional linguistic evidence suggests that this time period was when Ethno-Semitic languages were introduced to Africa, presumably from Southern Arabia. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the highest levels of Western Eurasian ancestry in East Africa are found in the Amhara and the Tigre, who speak Ethno-Semitic languages and live in what is previously the territory of Theat and was later the kingdom of Axum.
So I think, man, um, like I said, the evidence is overwhelming. And for him to use a biblical account, and we did not only find archaeological but also linguistical evidence to help and support this migration. Pani, like the brother said, gives shows that there is explanatory power, uh, from the biblical narrative that can enlighten us, enlighten us on a lot of migration patterns that have taken place across the world. Because like I said, after the last glacial maximum, these migration patterns to different regions is fitting almost to a T the Genesis 10 table of nations. And that means that our ancestors knew what they were talking about when they wrote it down. And that this oral tradition is, if you want to look at it on a secular level, tens of thousands of years old, that has been kept through one generation of people and then finally canonized into what we call the Bible today. And that, that's powerful, man. For your tradition to go back tens of thousands of years.
And this right here is from Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East, publishing Nature, volume 536, on pages 419 through 424, published July 25th of 2016. And it was by Yosef Lazarus, senior staff scientist at Reich Lab, at David Reich Lab. And if you know David Reich, he is pretty much the person who discovered these methods that they're using today. Ancient DNA Biology and Disease, Harvard Medical School. David Reich, Harvard Medical School, Department of Genetics.
All right, here we go. Um, that there's an image of it right there to the right. So if you're looking it up, you'll know exactly what you're looking for. The the impact of the Near East farmers extend beyond the Near East. Farmers related to the Anatolia spread westward into Europe. Farmers related to those in the Levant spread southern into East Africa. Farmers related to those of Iran spread northward into the Eurasian Steppe. And people related both to the early farmers of Iran and to pastoralists of the Eurasian Steppe spread eastward into South Asia. Among the first farmers, those of the Levantine Trac, two-thirds of their ancestors to people related to the Natufian hunter-gatherers and one-third to peoples related to Anatolian farmers. Western Iranian first farmer clusters with a likely Mesolithic Hu 11b individual are more remotely are more are more remotely related with hunter-gatherers from Southern Caucasus and share alleles at the equal rate with Anatolian and 11 early farmers, highlighting the long-term isolation of Western Iran. During subsequent millennia, the early farming populations of the Near East expanded in all directions and mixed. As we can only model populations of the Chalcolithic and the subsequent Bronze Age as having ancestry from two or more sources. The Chalcolithic people of Western Iran can be modeled as a mixture of Neolithic people of Western Iran, the Levant, and the Caucasus hunter-gatherers. Subsequent with their position in the principal component analysis, which again goes to what I was saying, that J marker is closely related to these Caucasian hunters and gatherers. And y'all gonna have to explain that when y'all keep trying to make it a Semitic lineage.
Admixture from populations related to the Chalcolithic people of Western Iran had a wide impact, consistent with contributing 44% of their ancestry, contributing 44% of the ancestry of 11 time Bronze Age populations in the South and 33% of ancestry of Chalcolithic Northwest Anatolians in the West. Which means that these people migrated from that region down into Levant, which explains why people from Levant came into East Africa and they're carrying this, uh, Western Iranian, uh, hunter-gatherer lineage, admixture from populations related to Chalcolithic people of Iran had, yeah, did that part. 33% in West. Our analysis show that the ancient populations of the Chalcolithic Iran, and Chalcolithic Armenia, Bronze Age Armenia, and Chalcolithic Anatolia were all composed of the same ancestral components, albeit slightly different proportions. Our data document continuity across the hunter-gatherer/farming transition separately in the Southern Levant and in the Southern Caucasus-Iran Highlands. The qualitative evidence for this, uh, P component analysis, admixture and outgroup F3 analysis cluster 11 hunter-gatherers, 11, uh, Natufians with 11 farmers, and Iranian and Caucasian hunter-gatherers with Iranian farmers, as could be seen in these figures. Uh, I think I have some of them in here. If not, I can go to the article and show them towards the end. We confirmed this in the Levant by showing that its early farmers share significantly more alleles with Natufians than with the early farmers of Iran, which which means they have more mixture there. The early farmers of the Caucasus-Iran Highlands similarly share significantly more alleles with the hunter-gatherers of this region than with the early farmers of the Levant. It's significant.
Um, yeah, which is showing it. And here right here are the two images. Uh, I wish I could blow this up a little bit more, but, uh, what the images are pretty much showing in these African geographical locations with highlights in the back, it's pretty much just showing where a lot of these people were and where they're from. And, um, I really want to focus on the one more to the right because as you can see, this is right here. It's really showing like the purple right here is the Western Hunter-gatherers of Europe. The blue is the Eastern Hunter-gatherers. And anyone who's seen my genetic lineage, uh, presentation would know exactly what I'm talking about. And as you can see, that Iranian Neolithic is found right there with that Northeast Western Eurasian intersection spear that they're calling right here with this arrow right here, which is showing the genetic links between these two populations. So people can't get around that J marker going back to these, uh, Western Eurasian, I mean, not Western Eurasian, these European hunter-gatherers.
To further assess the robustness of our inferences, we develop a method of inferring the existence and genetic affinities of ancient populations from unobserved ghost populations. This method takes advantage of the insight that if an unsampled ghost population admixed with differentiated substratum populations, it is possible to extrapolate its identity by intersecting clients of populations with variable proportions of ghost and substratum ancestry. Applying this while withholding major populations will validate, will validated some of our key emphases, successfully infer mixture proportions consistent with those obtained when the populations are included in the analysis. Application of this method highlights the impact of ancient North Eurasians. That was a big part of what I presented in my, uh, Peoples of the Hunters and Gatherers of Ancient Europe, because a lot of them descend directly from the, um, ancient North Eurasian ancestry related to 2200 year, uh, 2200 BCE, Ma Malta Boy, Malta 1, and 15,000 BCE, Altai Gor Gora 2, on populations living in Europe, the Americas, and Eastern Eurasia. Eastern Eurasians can be modeled as having having array along an cline in different population proportions of ancient North Eurasian ancestry, ranging from 40% of it in Native Americans, matching previous finan, to no less than 5 to 10% in East Asian groups, including the Han Chinese. So yes, the Han Chinese descend from [ __ ]. And I just added this part because I thought it, it highlighted some areas that was significant to Jaff the presentation I did earlier. And I just wanted to highlight to just show, especially to emphasize that the J marker is related to these groups.
We also document a cline of ancient North Eurasian ancestry across the East-West extent of Eurasia. East hunter-gatherers derive three-fourths of their ancestry from the ancient North Eurasian. Scandinavian hunter-gatherers are a mix of East hunter-gatherers and West hunter-gatherers. And the West hunter-gatherers are a mix of East hunter-gatherers and Upper Paleolithic Be Beon from Switzerland. These are a lot of the people that carried the, uh, the alleles for the brighter skin. They were up towards Switzerland. And it came together with the alleles that were brought from the E11b populations coming out of the Near East to make the modern European we see today. As he looks Northwest Anatolians with ancestry from a population related to European hunter-gatherers are better modeled if this ancestry is taken as more extreme than Beon. And I was like, I already told you why I added that part in there because I do want to emphasize that this J marker is more related to the European hunter-gatherers than it is to anybody of the, any of the indigenous people to the Near East, which in my next presentation I will be showing and proving that they descend from Macro HAPLO group DE.
To further assess the robustness of our inferences, we develop a method. Oh yeah, I already read that part right there. I just added it again. Okay, moving on over here to this side over here. Application of this method highlights the impact of ancient North Eurasians. Oh shoot, I [Music] did. Long road. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Every day. Y is that's a V shed a fews for this. Hey, I want to see the fire. That's what I'm pure heart. Narrow path. 10 to can't be in it for yourself. That ain't how it go. Get this message to his people that don't make them go, go, go. Will make me. That's what I'm got. We can't miss. Te P. Yeah. Box me in. Thre a seed in the ground and we box it in. Put the law on my line, trying to reel them in. Yeah, my people at the bottom, wilding in their sin. Got to pull them up. They prize. Tell them that they special. Eyes wide, lost when they cross the waters on the bo. Yah, the real brother, he get all the our high value price check. Yah, strap the S now. Life V. Preparation for the feast. We going to make a toast. Branded us and bar sheet, send us to our co. I want to see the fire. That's what I'm pure heart. Narrow path. 10 to can't be in it for yourself. That ain't how it go. Get this message to his people that make him go. Will make [Music] me. Open the scriptures, read. Open your eyes and see. To the prophecy. We from the chosen seed. You want get all the glory. We just a piece of the story. To is mandatory. Got to keep moving forward. Prayer. Fear the vo. I can't stress enough. Got to stop messing up. Got to start tightening up. Stay on the narrow path. The light are brighten up. Real. Got to give them praise. Even on bad days. It's going to be better days. That's need a change. You got to change your ways. 10 toes down. I stand. I'm embedded to this truth. I get my right. Lay my life down. They don't understand. Keep seeking the father till the very end. I want to see the fire. That's what I'm in for. Pure heart. Narrow path. 10 to can't be in it for your. That a get this message to his people. Make make me. That's what I'm in. Got a. We can't miss the. I want to see the father. That's what I'm in it for. Pure heart. Now path. 10 to can't be in it for yourself. That ain't how it go. This to his people that'll make.