West Africa officially has zero history prior to E1b1a lineages expanding into it 10,000 years ago. It's "unclear" who or what was living there prior. Is it possible it was a Homo erectus and that explains their ghost DNA?
>>18472604>West Africa officially has zero history prior to E1b1a lineages expanding into it 10,000 years agoThe vast majority of the globe has zero history 10,000 years ago
>>18472604>e1b1That's Mein Führer's haplo tooThey must have been a special breed of men to expand like they did
>>18472635Hitler (((allegedly))) had E1b1b not E1b1a. The split between the two happened around modern day Ethiopia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. How they acquired his DNA is very questionable. And even if he did have E1b1b. Lots of Europeans have it and it goes back to Anatolian farmers 6000 years ago.
>Its possible it was homoerectusWe cant know it, thats why its called "ghost archaic ancestry"Maybe its a population we have never known andits lost in history, as most of the others "ghost archaic populations"
>the archeological record is incomplete in a region that has seen limited professional focus>Must be fucking magic, let me self insert mythic racial historyOp is a faggot
>>18472604We know that Pygmy's were living there.> Homo erectusLast I checked, the ghost DNA was either heidelbergensis (proto-Neandersovans), archaic sapiens, both, or something we've never seen before. Could also be Homo Naledi, but I have some serious doubts about that.
>>18472604the jews messing with the evidence
>>18472682Modern-day sub-Saharan Africans have been proven to have admixture with an unidentified extinct archaic hominid (most likely Homo erectus or Homo habilis). A "ghost DNA" that makes up 20% of their genome. This is not found in non-sub Saharan Africans. If the rest of the world came from sub-Saharan Africans. Why don't they show the admixture of this archaic hominid as well? Did the "people who left Africa" forget to take this with them?
>>18472742> A "ghost DNA" that makes up 20% of their genome. This is not found in non-sub Saharan Africans. Literally none of these things are true. The study that "20%" figure is derived from found this pattern in Eurasians. Furthermore, that study did not find them to be 20% non-Sapiens, it found them to be somewhere between 2-19% non-Sapiens on average, with 6.6% and 7% being suggested as the true average for the Yoruba and Mende. God, you faggots are so retarded.
>>18472742>>18472747> most likely Homo erectus or Homo habilisThat's also completely unfounded. I wish you idiots could actually read.> Modern-day sub-Saharan AfricansThe study also focused on Niger-Congoids.
>>18472750Furthermore, later studies suggest the event to predate OOA and actually support Homo Erectus having a legacy in modern-fay Melanesians, not niggers.
>>18472747
>>18472756>>18472747
>>18472747https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-originsGet mad.
>>18472761You are retarded. That references the study I was reffering to, which you should read yourself for full context.
>>18472750AFRO-Asiatic East Africans like Ethiopian and Somalians who are half Nilotic nigger mutts also had it until West Asian Semite caucasoids deluded their archaic nigger genes.
>>18472742>>18472604Holy shit just say you failed HS biology and move on.
>>18472754>>18472742
>>18473113These admixture estimates for all groups are definitely underestimated.https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.03.709416v1.fullRegarding archaic admixture in Niger-Congoids and Melanesians respectively.
>>18473113(The "East Africans" here are actually Bantus with Nilotic admixture).
>>18472604red pygmies lived there
