|
Post by Shymmex on Feb 9, 2016 18:26:27 GMT
Complex genetic ancestry of Americans uncovered: Genetic fingerprints of slave trade and colonizationDate: March 24, 2015 Source: University of Oxford Summary: By comparing the genes of current-day North and South Americans with African and European populations, a study has found the genetic fingerprints of the slave trade and colonization that shaped migrations to the Americas hundreds of years ago. By comparing the genes of current-day North and South Americans with African and European populations, an Oxford University study has found the genetic fingerprints of the slave trade and colonization that shaped migrations to the Americas hundreds of years ago. The team, which also included researchers from UCL (University College London) and the Universita' del Sacro Cuore of Rome, analyzed more than 4,000 previously collected DNA samples from 64 different populations, covering multiple locations in Europe, Africa and the Americas. Since migration has generally flowed from Africa and Europe to the Americas over the last few hundred years, the team compared the 'donor' African and European populations with 'recipient' American populations to track where the ancestors of current-day North and South Americans came from. 'We found that the genetic profile of Americans is much more complex than previously thought,' said study leader Professor Cristian Capelli from the Department of Zoology at Oxford University. The study found that: - While Spaniards provide the majority of European ancestry in continental American Hispanic/Latino populations, the most common European genetic source in African-Americans and Barbadians comes from Great Britain. - The Basques, a distinct ethnic group spread across current-day Spain and France, provided a small but distinct genetic contribution to current-day Continental South American populations, including the Maya in Mexico. - The Caribbean Islands of Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are genetically similar to each other and distinct from the other populations, probably reflecting a different migration pattern between the Caribbean and mainland America. Compared to South Americans, people from Caribbean countries (such as the Barbados) had a larger genetic contribution from Africa. - The ancestors of current-day Yoruba people from West Africa (one of the largest African ethnic groups) provided the largest contribution of genes from Africa to all current-day American populations.
- The proportion of African ancestry varied across the continent, from virtually zero (in the Maya people from Mexico) to 87% in current-day Barbados. - South Italy and Sicily also provided a significant European genetic contribution to Colombia and Puerto Rico, in line with the known history of Italian emigrants to the Americas in the late 19th and early 20th century One of the African-American groups from the USA had French ancestry, in agreement with historical French immigration into the colonial Southern United States. - The proportion of genes from European versus African sources varied greatly from individual to individual within recipient populations. The research team analyzed DNA samples collected from people in Barbados, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Puerto Rico and African-Americans in the USA. The scientists used a technique called haplotype-based analysis to compare the pattern of genes in these 'recipient populations' to 'donor populations' in areas where migrants to America came from. 'We firstly grouped subsets of people in Africa and Europe who were genetically similar and used this fine scale resolution to find which combinations of these clusters resulted in the sort of mixtures that we now see in people across the Americas', said study author Dr Francesco Montinaro from Oxford University's Department of Zoology. 'We can see the huge genetic impact that the slave trade had on American populations and our data match historical records', said study author Dr Garrett Hellenthal from the UCL Genetics Institute, 'The majority of African Americans have ancestry similar to the Yoruba people in West Africa, confirming that most African slaves came from this region. In areas of the Americas historically under Spanish rule, populations also have ancestry related to what is now Senegal and Gambia. Records show that around a third of the slaves sent to Spanish America in the 17th Century came from this region, and we can see the genetic evidence of this in modern Americans really clearly.' These genetic findings also uncover previously unknown migration. 'We found a clear genetic contribution from the Basques in modern-day Maya in Mexico', said Oxford University's Professor Cristian Capelli. 'This suggests that the Basque also took part in the colonization of the Americas, coming over either with the Spanish conquistadores or in later waves of migration. 'The differences in European ancestry between the Caribbean islands and mainland American population that we found were also previously unknown. It is likely that these differences reflect different patterns of migration between the Caribbean and mainland America. 'These results show just how powerful a genetic approach can be when it comes to uncovering hidden patterns of ancestry. We hope to use the same approach to look at other populations with diverse genetic contributions, such as Brazilians', said Professor Capelli. Source
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Feb 9, 2016 18:28:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Belmot on Feb 9, 2016 19:43:44 GMT
Interesting.... I'd love to see the results for brazil and other carribean countries. Yoruba gene is really strong.
|
|
|
Post by Omo Oba of the Source on Feb 9, 2016 19:51:40 GMT
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ajanaku on Feb 9, 2016 19:52:57 GMT
'We can see the huge genetic impact that the slave trade had on American populations and our data match historical records', said study author Dr Garrett Hellenthal from the UCL Genetics Institute, 'The majority of African Americans have ancestry similar to the Yoruba people in West Africa, confirming that most African slaves came from this region..."
Shymmex, that was highly educative and informative.
I'm proud of Niggers like Nas "Oludara" Jones and Tupac Amaru Shakur, the son of "Afeni" Shakur...
...too bad most of these famous African Americans do not flaunt their "African-ness". Except for Niggers like Malcolm X and Mohammed Ali who visited Nigeria based on pride for their roots and heritage, other who come do so for monetary benefits.
...just thinking. It's probable that my great-great-great grandfather and Beyonce's great-great-great grandfather were blood brothers. Meaning, she might just be my lost cousin sort of. I like that babe sha...
|
|
|
Post by Omoluabi on Feb 9, 2016 19:59:56 GMT
This is very interesting...
The tentacles of the Yoruba race is even wider than we think
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Feb 9, 2016 20:27:56 GMT
The paper is open access, and its full contents can be found on this page. From skimming the paper, it appears that "Yoruba" are being used in it as a proxy for "West Africans from within the Nigerian subregion"; this is common in population genetics studies, as the Yoruba are pretty much the only group in Nigeria for which good genetic data exists. What data I've seen for other groups in Nigeria suggests that the genetic distance between the Yoruba and the Edos, Nupes, Igalas, Igbos and other Benue-Congo speakers is vanishingly small, and the differences that exist between these groups are cultural rather than biological. As such, people descended from any of these other populations will also cluster with "Yoruba" in the setting of a study like this one. It isn't surprising that most people with black people in the Americas will cluster with us, as it's well known that most slaves were taken from either the Bight of Benin or the Bight of Biafra, but I wouldn't conclude from this that African Americans are primarily of Yoruba ancestry. The fact is that Yoruba people didn't become significant victims of the slave trade until the collapse of the Oyo Empire, and by that time the British ban on the slave traffic had already come into force, with America banning all slave importation in the same year. By the time large numbers of Yorubas were being captured and sold, most slaves were heading to Latin America rather than the USA. What all of this means is that African Americans are much more likely to be descended from the Igbo slaves sold by their Aro "brethren", or by Efik/Ibibio traders, than to have any Yoruba roots (unless they have recent Latin American ancestry).
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Feb 9, 2016 20:42:28 GMT
The paper is open access, and its full contents can be found on this page. From skimming the paper, it appears that "Yoruba" are being used in it as a proxy for "West Africans from within the Nigerian subregion"; this is common in population genetics studies, as the Yoruba are pretty much the only group in Nigeria for which good genetic data exists. What data I've seen for other groups in Nigeria suggests that the genetic distance between the Yoruba and the Edos, Nupes, Igalas, Igbos and other Benue-Congo speakers is vanishingly small, and the differences that exist between these groups are cultural rather than biological. As such, people descended from any of these other populations will also cluster with "Yoruba" in the setting of a study like this one. It isn't surprising that most people with black people in the Americas will cluster with us, as it's well known that most slaves were taken from either the Bight of Benin or the Bight of Biafra, but I wouldn't conclude from this that African Americans are primarily of Yoruba ancestry. The fact is that Yoruba people didn't become significant victims of the slave trade until the collapse of the Oyo Empire, and by that time the British ban on the slave traffic had already come into force, with America banning all slave importation in the same year. By the time large numbers of Yorubas were being captured and sold, most slaves were heading to Latin America rather than the USA. What all of this means is that African Americans are much more likely to be descended from the Igbo slaves sold by their Aro "brethren", or by Efik/Ibibio traders, than to have any Yoruba roots (unless they have recent Latin American ancestry). Your postulation is a tad wrong cos genetic cluster is done primarily based on haplogroup/haplotype. When you use that as a premise - Igbos are distinct from Yorubas since they have a large Bantu admixture. Then Efik/Ibibio are Bantus and are no different from the other Bantu groups in Cameroun and central Africa. Black folks didn't get to the US via slavery alone and this opens another chapter for more scholarship about black history on the anomaly of this research. Also, most DNA tests they conduct show Igbo and Yoruba as distinct groups, while Igbo, Efik, and folks in South and Central Cameroon - apart from the Bamilekes - are in the same cluster. Yorubas don't have Bantu admixture, so we can't be in the same cluster with Igbos.
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Feb 9, 2016 21:15:52 GMT
Your postulation is a tad wrong cos genetic cluster is done primarily based on haplogroup/haplotype. When you use that as a premise - Igbos are distinct from Yorubas since they have a large Bantu admixture. Then Efik/Ibibio are Bantus and are no different from the other Bantu groups in Cameroun and central Africa. Black folks didn't get to the US via slavery alone and this opens another chapter for more scholarship about black history on the anomaly of this research. Also, most DNA tests they conduct show Igbo and Yoruba as distinct groups, while Igbo, Efik, and folks in South and Central Cameroon - apart from the Bamilekes - are in the same cluster. Yorubas don't have Bantu admixture, so we can't be in the same cluster with Igbos. Sorry, you're just wrong on this - see this paper, for instance, which gives the F_st score for Yoruba and Igbo samples as less than 0.4%, or this one, which states that All the data that I've seen, starting from Cavalli-Sforza's book " The History and Geography of Human Genes" way back in the 1996, has always indicated the same thing, and it's exactly what would expect from neighboring populations which have been settled in the same areas for thousands of years. Yorubas and Igbos are very genetically similar, just as the Irish and the English are, or the Koreans and the Japanese. Population genetics is something I've been interested in for a long time, which is why I know that the reason why the best genetic data exists for the Yoruba is due to the International HapMap Project. The idea of "Bantu" admixture is almost by definition suspect, as it mixes population genetics with linguistics in an unsound way. It's well known that the original area from which the Bantu languages began their spread is in the Cross-River area, and indeed, all of the Bantu languages constitute just one branch of the Benue-Congo tree (see, for example Roger Blench's paper). Given the origin of the Bantu languages, and its close proximity to the rest of the Benue-Congo languages, it's therefore no surprise that Bantu-speakers in Cameroon are closely related to neighboring populations in Nigeria - but this is in just the same way as one would expect for Yoruba-speakers to be closely related to neighboring groups in Benin or the Nigerian middle-belt. What this doesn't imply is that all Bantu-speakers constitute a clustered population distinct from others. In fact, quoting from the Nature Communications paper, we have the following: In other words, "Bantu" does not represent a distinct genetic cluster, while results from a multitude of papers suggests that most Nigerian populations other than than the Fulani do fall into a single cluster.
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Feb 10, 2016 16:22:11 GMT
Your postulation is a tad wrong cos genetic cluster is done primarily based on haplogroup/haplotype. When you use that as a premise - Igbos are distinct from Yorubas since they have a large Bantu admixture. Then Efik/Ibibio are Bantus and are no different from the other Bantu groups in Cameroun and central Africa. Black folks didn't get to the US via slavery alone and this opens another chapter for more scholarship about black history on the anomaly of this research. Also, most DNA tests they conduct show Igbo and Yoruba as distinct groups, while Igbo, Efik, and folks in South and Central Cameroon - apart from the Bamilekes - are in the same cluster. Yorubas don't have Bantu admixture, so we can't be in the same cluster with Igbos. Sorry, you're just wrong on this - see this paper, for instance, which gives the F_st score for Yoruba and Igbo samples as less than 0.4%, or this one, which states that All the data that I've seen, starting from Cavalli-Sforza's book " The History and Geography of Human Genes" way back in the 1996, has always indicated the same thing, and it's exactly what would expect from neighboring populations which have been settled in the same areas for thousands of years. Yorubas and Igbos are very genetically similar, just as the Irish and the English are, or the Koreans and the Japanese. Population genetics is something I've been interested in for a long time, which is why I know that the reason why the best genetic data exists for the Yoruba is due to the International HapMap Project. The idea of "Bantu" admixture is almost by definition suspect, as it mixes population genetics with linguistics in an unsound way. It's well known that the original area from which the Bantu languages began their spread is in the Cross-River area, and indeed, all of the Bantu languages constitute just one branch of the Benue-Congo tree (see, for example Roger Blench's paper). Given the origin of the Bantu languages, and its close proximity to the rest of the Benue-Congo languages, it's therefore no surprise that Bantu-speakers in Cameroon are closely related to neighboring populations in Nigeria - but this is in just the same way as one would expect for Yoruba-speakers to be closely related to neighboring groups in Benin or the Nigerian middle-belt. What this doesn't imply is that all Bantu-speakers constitute a clustered population distinct from others. In fact, quoting from the Nature Communications paper, we have the following: In other words, "Bantu" does not represent a distinct genetic cluster, while results from a multitude of papers suggests that most Nigerian populations other than than the Fulani do fall into a single cluster. I read everything. However, I honestly don't think the genetic markers that tagged Yorubas as being very similar to Igbos as conclusive, since they never alluded to the sample data they used and the part of Igboland they obtained from. DNA samples of Igbos from the Anambra axis would most likely be similar to Yorubas, due to the migration pattern of Onitsha and the Omanbala river area. The average Onitsha person would be genetically more related to Bini/Yoruba for example, than an Ngwa or Aro Igbo. While those from the Omanbala river axis, with claims to Nri, are mostly Igala people, who overtime became Igbos. And Igalas are similar to Yorubas, both linguistically and genetically. Also, have you taken time out to study the haplogroup E-V38? If you've, why do Igbos have almost the percentage of occurrence of E1b1a1a1f1a (YCC E1b1a7) defined by marker M191/P86, similar of Annang, Efik, and Ibibio - while Yorubas are E1b1a1a1f1a1 (YCC E1b1a7a) defined by marker P252/U174? Anyway, I've read the proper research paper for the publication, and it's flawed. It basically just grouped all the folks that aren't from Senegambia in West Africa, under the Yoruba marker. They could be Fon, Akan, or just any group. However, the only reason why I got carried away is cos I saw something in an article posted by the slave project a few years ago and it stated something similar. Also, there tends to be a disproportionate way in which most of the AAs doing DNA tests always end up having Yoruba ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Feb 11, 2016 7:24:41 GMT
Shymmex , You beat me to the gun! I had been planning to update the other thread I created concerning successive waves of migration into (and out of) Yorubaland but for work-related constraints. I know I am complicating matters here, but it clear that Mozabites also have Yoruba origins. Mozabites are of course Moors, if we follow the teachings of the Moorish temple You know what all this means, Ogagun Shymmex ? More spirited debates between moi and modern day, Fez hat-wearing denialists. Wait a minute... it also means Yoruba folk colonised Spain?
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Feb 11, 2016 7:37:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Feb 11, 2016 11:45:59 GMT
I read everything. However, I honestly don't think the genetic markers that tagged Yorubas as being very similar to Igbos as conclusive, since they never alluded to the sample data they used and the part of Igboland they obtained from. DNA samples of Igbos from the Anambra axis would most likely be similar to Yorubas, due to the migration pattern of Onitsha and the Omanbala river area. The average Onitsha person would be genetically more related to Bini/Yoruba for example, than an Ngwa or Aro Igbo. While those from the Omanbala river axis, with claims to Nri, are mostly Igala people, who overtime became Igbos. And Igalas are similar to Yorubas, both linguistically and genetically. Also, have you taken time out to study the haplogroup E-V38? If you've, why do Igbos have almost the percentage of occurrence of E1b1a1a1f1a (YCC E1b1a7) defined by marker M191/P86, similar of Annang, Efik, and Ibibio - while Yorubas are E1b1a1a1f1a1 (YCC E1b1a7a) defined by marker P252/U174? Anyway, I've read the proper research paper for the publication, and it's flawed. It basically just grouped all the folks that aren't from Senegambia in West Africa, under the Yoruba marker. They could be Fon, Akan, or just any group. However, the only reason why I got carried away is cos I saw something in an article posted by the slave project a few years ago and it stated something similar. Also, there tends to be a disproportionate way in which most of the AAs doing DNA tests always end up having Yoruba ancestry. Just from the naming of the E1b1a1a1f1a and E1b1a1a1f1a1 haplogroups, it's clear that E1b1a7a is a subgroup of E1b1a7, and given that its age is supposedly only 4,200 years, that seems perfectly in keeping with what we'd expect given what the archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests: that Igbos are "older" as a distinct ethnic grouping than Yorubas are. In less sensational language, the ancestral populations of at least some of today's Igbos were the first members of the stem YEAI population to start migrating southwards, while Yorubas and Igalas were probably the last to begin expanding from the home area of the Niger-Benue confluence. In any case, even this Y-chromosome data exaggerates the genetic divergence between Igbo and Yoruba populations, given the reality of polygamy common to all southern Nigerian populations. If you want to see just how genetically similar the two groups are across all markers including autosomal ones, you can look through the supplementary information linked at the bottom of this paper - any difference found in gene frequencies is so small as to be attributable entirely to sampling error. On a related note, I'm currently reading Bolaji Aremo's "How Yoruba and Igbo Became Different Languages", and it's quite fascinating just how similar so much of the core vocabulary between the languages - and in particular, how much more similar Central and South-East Yoruba versions of words are to their Igbo equivalents. It's common knowledge that "Standard" (North-West) Yoruba has the most linguistic innovations, but just how radically it's changed doesn't become obvious until one starts to see dialectical variations of terms and even full phrases that are considered archaic in Standard Yoruba, and yet which survive intact in Igbo dialects. Similarly, on the Igbo side, the linguistic influence of contact with the Cross-River and proto-Bantu populations is obvious, explaining the emergence of sounds like "mm" (e.g. "mmiri" for "omi"). As far as I can see, the cultural and linguistic impact of these groups on the Igbo is much stronger than any genetic impact they might have had.
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Feb 11, 2016 11:52:23 GMT
Sorry, you're just wrong on this - see this paper, for instance, which gives the F_st score for Yoruba and Igbo samples as less than 0.4%, or this one, which states that All the data that I've seen, starting from Cavalli-Sforza's book " The History and Geography of Human Genes" way back in the 1996, has always indicated the same thing, and it's exactly what would expect from neighboring populations which have been settled in the same areas for thousands of years. Yorubas and Igbos are very genetically similar, just as the Irish and the English are, or the Koreans and the Japanese. Population genetics is something I've been interested in for a long time, which is why I know that the reason why the best genetic data exists for the Yoruba is due to the International HapMap Project. The idea of "Bantu" admixture is almost by definition suspect, as it mixes population genetics with linguistics in an unsound way. It's well known that the original area from which the Bantu languages began their spread is in the Cross-River area, and indeed, all of the Bantu languages constitute just one branch of the Benue-Congo tree (see, for example Roger Blench's paper). Given the origin of the Bantu languages, and its close proximity to the rest of the Benue-Congo languages, it's therefore no surprise that Bantu-speakers in Cameroon are closely related to neighboring populations in Nigeria - but this is in just the same way as one would expect for Yoruba-speakers to be closely related to neighboring groups in Benin or the Nigerian middle-belt. What this doesn't imply is that all Bantu-speakers constitute a clustered population distinct from others. In fact, quoting from the Nature Communications paper, we have the following: In other words, "Bantu" does not represent a distinct genetic cluster, while results from a multitude of papers suggests that most Nigerian populations other than than the Fulani do fall into a single cluster. I read everything. However, I honestly don't think the genetic markers that tagged Yorubas as being very similar to Igbos as conclusive, since they never alluded to the sample data they used and the part of Igboland they obtained from. DNA samples of Igbos from the Anambra axis would most likely be similar to Yorubas, due to the migration pattern of Onitsha and the Omanbala river area. The average Onitsha person would be genetically more related to Bini/Yoruba for example, than an Ngwa or Aro Igbo. While those from the Omanbala river axis, with claims to Nri, are mostly Igala people, who overtime became Igbos. And Igalas are similar to Yorubas, both linguistically and genetically. Also, have you taken time out to study the haplogroup E-V38? If you've, why do Igbos have almost the percentage of occurrence of E1b1a1a1f1a (YCC E1b1a7) defined by marker M191/P86, similar of Annang, Efik, and Ibibio - while Yorubas are E1b1a1a1f1a1 (YCC E1b1a7a) defined by marker P252/U174? Anyway, I've read the proper research paper for the publication, and it's flawed. It basically just grouped all the folks that aren't from Senegambia in West Africa, under the Yoruba marker. They could be Fon, Akan, or just any group. However, the only reason why I got carried away is cos I saw something in an article posted by the slave project a few years ago and it stated something similar. Also, there tends to be a disproportionate way in which most of the AAs doing DNA tests always end up having Yoruba ancestry. Yep - Yoruba-like
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Feb 11, 2016 12:45:05 GMT
Shymmex , You beat me to the gun! I had been planning to update the other thread I created concerning successive waves of migration into (and out of) Yorubaland but for work-related constraints. I know I am complicating matters here, but it clear that Mozabites also have Yoruba origins. Mozabites are of course Moors, if we follow the teachings of the Moorish temple You know what all this means, Ogagun Shymmex ? More spirited debates between moi and modern day, Fez hat-wearing denialists. Wait a minute... it also means Yoruba folk colonised Spain? Very interesting and enlightening angles. I've always maintained that almost all the groups in West Africa came from the same ancestors, with varying admixtures with other groups. The only distinct groups are the Hausas, Fulanis to an extent (they have a high degree of the West African DNA cluster though they also have different dominant DNA admixture from other groups), and the Bantu groups. It's just a pity that we don't have African folks doing these scholarship and it seems we're happy with settling with the story of our existence being based on folklore. Personally, I'll always maintain that we're the true offspring of those who ruled Nile Valley (Egypt, Sudan[Nubia], and Ethiopia), all the way to modern day Middle East and the whole of North Africa - during ancient time. And the migration westwards started after the different invasions. Also, the timeline of the migration waves lend credence to that. It's plausible that the Moors actually had bits of Yoruba ancestry cos the Moors came from West Africa.
|
|