What is Africa? A human perspective Luca Pagani,mIsabelle Crevecoeur 2018
.
.excerpt (concluding remarks)
2017, Schlebusch et al. 2017) pre-dating the inferred arrival of the Eurasian component in the area were, as expected, free from non-African genetic traces. On the other hand, Egyptian mummies from more than 2,000 years ago, hence pre-dating by at least 1000 years the inferred Eurasian migration, could be essentially described as “non-Africans” from a genetic perspective (Schuenemann et al. 2017). Similarly, and perhaps more unexpectedly, post-Neolithic remains from Morocco dating back to around 7kya (Fregel et al. 2018) already showed a predominant Eurasian genetic signature. These recent findings point to i) a long term genetic relationship between North Africa and West Eurasia and ii) potential biases towards more recent dates of current available methods for dating admixture events in modern populations.
The relative isolation of North Africa from the rest of the continent, often referred to as “Sub-Saharan Africa” due to the strong separation represented by the Sahara Desert, may imply that the consequences of these recent findings have only a limited impact on our understanding of the broader African demographic history. Such a reassurance may not hold in the light of pre-Neolithic findings, once again from Morocco. Human remains found at Taforalt and dating back to as early as 15kya (van de Loosdrecht et al. 2018) pre-date the Eurasian presence in the area by another 8,000 years and point to the Levantine Natufians (or pre-Natufians) as a plausible genetic source population. Such a deeply rooted, pre-Neolithic interaction between North Africa and West Asia may lead to envisage at least two (entirely speculative) scenarios.
The first one concerns the potential implications for a more, widespread presence of West Eurasian traces in contemporary West and Central Sub-Saharan populations. Currently available data points to the presence of Natufian-like or, in general, West Asian components in Morocco 15kya (van de Loosdrecht et al. 2018) and 7kya (Fregel et al. 2018). The period in between these two dates is known as the “African Humid Period”and was characterized by higher carrying capacity within the broader North African region and, among other features, by the so called “Green Sahara” (D’Atanasio et al. 2018). Such an ecological scenario may have facilitated some level of gene flow of the Natufian-like component attested in Morocco, towards the ancestors of contemporary West and Central Africans, which may have, in turn, spread over most Sub-Saharan populations, hitchhiking on the post-Neolithic expansion of Bantu speaking groups (de Filippo et al. 2012). If this was the case, the wide-spread nature of this component in a gradient-like manner all over Sub-Saharan African populations may make its detection particularly difficult. Overlooking such a presence may reflect in over- or under-estimating splits between Sub-Saharan populations, as already shown by Schlebusch and colleagues (Schlebusch et al. 2017) for the more recent Eurasian components in southern Africans hunter-gatherer populations.
Therefore, one may wonder whether the closer genetic relationship between West and Central Africans to Eurasians, compared to South African hunter-gatherer groups, should be seen as a simple South-to-North African differentiation towards East Africans and Eurasians, or whether the above mentioned Natufian-like leaking across the Green Sahara may partly account for such a genetic relationship. Furthermore, abrupt changes in the Natufian-like proportion within neighbouring African populations may create a genetic signature similar to the presence of deeply-rooted genetic components within the population with the smallest Eurasian fraction, similarly to what reported by Skoglund and colleagues (Skoglund et al. 2017).
A potential way to rule out this speculation would be to check whether genomic regions that appear as deeply divergent in population A are also particularly attracted by Eurasian-like genomes in population B used as “African reference” in this particular example. Additionally, one may apply local ancestry or chromopainter (Lawson et al. 2012) approaches to mask out genetic regions that are showing a Eurasian-like signature within contemporary African genomes. If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure.
The second scenario that stems from the presence of a non-African component in Morocco at least 15kya is a more radical one, and it reflects back on what we may call, genetically, Africa. Putting together genetic evidence for a Northern exit OoA (Pagani et al. 2015) with the archaeological and palaeoclimatic evidence for a drastic reduction of human presence along the lower Nile Valley from MSI4 (60-70kya) until 25kya (Vermeersch et al., 1990; Van Peer, 2004; Vermeersch& Van Neer, 2015), one may postulate that the progressive drying out of the North-East African region from 70kya triggered a population fragmentation in the area. The majority of these fragmented human groups may have, eventually, died out or merged back with the broader Sub-Saharan population. A small subset of them may instead have reached the Mediterranean shores and, subsequently, expanded West, along the North African coast and East, towards Eurasia and eventually admixed with and replaced pre-existing Neanderthal groups in West Asia (Green et al. 2010). This hypothesis is consistent with the fossil record in lower Egypt and upper Nubia during this Late Pleistocene period and until the beginning of the Holocene. Indeed, the oldest and only complete skeleton in this area, the Nazlet Khater 2 individual, dated around 40 Kya, exhibits a combination of plesiomorphic and unique morphometric features that lie outside of extant phenotipyc diversity and could be the consequence of fractioning population in the middle part of the Nile valley at a time of extreme climatic conditions (Crevecoeur, 2008). Such robust phenotype can be detected in subsequent samples in the area dated at around 14-12ky (Wendorf, 1968; Anderson, 1968; Irish, 2005; Crevecoeur, 2008; Antoine et al., 2013) and up to 9kya (Honegger, 2006; Crevecoeur, 2012; Honegger & Williams, 2015), while the fossil record in the northern part of the Nile Valley between 70 and 10.5kya has so far yielded little or no evidence of human presence (Kuper and Kröpelin 2006 Science). Human remains from the Nubian region dating to after 8kya show instead more gracile morphologies (Honegger & Williams, 2015, Crevecoeur 2012), consistent with a reopening of the Nile Valley corridor. The admixture of allegedly African-like middle/lower Nile Valley “more robust” groups with Levantine or North-West African “more gracile” groups after 8kya is compatible with contemporary Egyptians harbouring within their African genetic components (hence the component contributed by the more robust groups) the haplotypes that are most represented outside of Africa today (Pagani et al. 2015). Such a scenario would imply the following:
i) a potential cause for the genetic bottleneck that characterizes all non-African group was the progressive increase of aridity of the Nile corridor, rather than the expansion out of Africa of a few wanderers during environmentally permissive conditions;
ii) such a bottleneck did not take place at the gateways of Africa but, rather, within Africa (along the Nile basin), and
iii) as a consequence of the MIS4 arid period, all subsequent coastal North African populations should be considered “non-Africans” from a genetic viewpoint or, in other words, they should be expected to share the same 70kya genetic bottleneck signature that characterizes all contemporary non-Africans.
An interesting implication of this highly speculative scenario would be the presence, in North-Africa, of genetically non-African populations since 60-70kya and, if our understanding of the whereabouts of the human-Neanderthal introgression are correct, then these North African populations should be predominantly free from any archaic genetic signature.
Recent ancient DNA studies on West Asian and European populations inferred the presence of a “Basal Eurasian” population (Lazaridis et al. 2014), which is thought to have originated from the same OoA expansion, but to have diverged from other human groups prior to the separation between extant West and East Eurasians and, in all likelihood, even prior to the Neanderthal introgression event (~55kya, Fu et al. 2014). Notably, among modern and ancient populations for which DNA is available to date, Levantine Natufians are among the ones with the highest presence of this so-called “Basal Eurasian” component (Lazaridis et al. 2016). The hypothetical scenario outlined here may therefore point to an identification of Basal Eurasian groups with the populations that inhabited North Africa after the bottleneck event that took place 60-70kya along the Nile Valley and that acted as a Neanderthal-free, non-African reservoir.
The separation between Basal Eurasian groups in North Africa and other Eurasians out of Africa may have been facilitated by the reported reduction or absence of human presence along the northern Nile valley between 70kya and 10kya (Vermeersch & Van Neer, 2015, Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006). These two groups may have come again into contact after 25kya, consistently with a potential coastal connection pointed out by the Levantine (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2014) and North African (Douka et al. 2014, Jacobs et al., 2017. Barton et al. 2013) material culture.
The re-opening of the North Africa – West Asia connection may then have facilitated the entrance of the basal Eurasian component into Eurasia (Lazaridis et al. 2014, Lazaridis et al. 2016) as well as the arrival of Levantine components in North-West Africa. In this light, the Natufian-like component in 15kya Taforalt (van de Loosdrecht et al. 2018) may be seen as an autochthonous North African component enriched by Levantine contacts post 25kya, while the Sub-Saharan signature within the same genomes as the consequence of a relatively recent gene flow from Sub-Saharan human groups.
Morphological or genetic analyses on North African human remains dating between 70 and 25kya are needed to conclude whether the Sinai isthmus or the Saharan belt are to be considered as the ultimate gateways of Africa.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Where is your commentary? What do you think of his opinion?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
No one is reading this giant ass wall of text. ADD some commentary or Im closing and you can make this thread again.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: No one is reading this giant ass wall of text. ADD some commentary or Im closing and you can make this thread again.
Can you just purge the wall of text and leave the thread?
I want to make a pertinent post and i would like it to exist in this thread.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I called that shit last year. Its like he wrote that publication with everything i said in mind. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: No one is reading this giant ass wall of text. ADD some commentary or Im closing and you can make this thread again.
Did you look at this thread:
Henn and the - 2018 SMBE Symposium
there's MORE text there with no commentary
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
Pagani via Lioness: "The admixture of allegedly African-like middle/lower Nile Valley “more robust” groups with Levantine or North-West African “more gracile” groups after 8kya is compatible with contemporary Egyptians harbouring within their African genetic components (hence the component contributed by the more robust groups) the haplotypes that are most represented outside of Africa today (Pagani et al. 2015). Such a scenario would imply the following:
i) a potential cause for the genetic bottleneck that characterizes all non-African group was the progressive increase of aridity of the Nile corridor, rather than the expansion out of Africa of a few wanderers during environmentally permissive conditions;
ii) such a bottleneck did not take place at the gateways of Africa but, rather, within Africa (along the Nile basin), and iii) as a consequence of the MIS4 arid period, all subsequent coastal North African populations should be considered “non-Africans” from a genetic viewpoint or, in other words, they should be expected to share the same 70kya genetic bottleneck signature that characterizes all contemporary non-Africans."
Finally the pig-headed bastards are giving in to the ridiculously obvious. I find it absurd that he prefaces the above scenario as "highly speculative." WTF! The moronic Eurasian back-migration theories into Africa that would have only been possible through prehistoric time machines were not "highly speculative?"
They now see the shit is about to hit the fan, so they are now running for cover.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Whoa! Whoa! Hold up! There is lot's of commentary. I hate reading or trying to read wall text myself that is why I am the "quote miner". Ask Swenet. He! HE! HE!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: No one is reading this giant ass wall of text. ADD some commentary or Im closing and you can make this thread again.
Did you look at this thread:
Henn and the - 2018 SMBE Symposium
there's MORE text there with no commentary
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
But The problem is not that "Eurasians" first appeared IN Africa. But they first appeared not in North Africa but .....southern East Africa. Deep in sub-Saharan Africa
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If we look at the question "What is Africa" it is a continent
A continent is one of several very large landmasses of the world. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Ordered from largest in area to smallest, they are: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.
Geologically, the continents largely correspond to areas of continental crust that are found on the continental plates.
^^^ this concept, this naming has existed long before genetics and we continue to correlate people to this geographical/political concept
^^ this is just the paternal side of a DNA world map
Nevertheless we may come to a point in viewing people directly by DNA with increasingly less emphasis on continental identity . The other recent article Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter? (thread title:Humans didn't evolve from a single ancestral African population) also might lead in a new direction, that DNA maps human beings in a different way than does a political-geographic map
Therefore, five or ten years from now in terms of anthropology we might find ourselves less concerned with "What is African" "what is European" or "What is Asian"
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Let me get on record telling you the last part of the trick. To convince the world that "Eurasians" are a Sister Group to Africans. I am laughing just thinking about it:
Genetic gatekeepers et al (2020) :"We now have evidence this change of phylogeny places Eurasians and most Sub Saharan Africans on the tree as Sister Groups". Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. They are trying to claim North Africa because they realize BE/Eurasian emerged from Africa. But the Skoglund paper as I said before smashed that speculation into smithereens. Malawi_Hora-8100BP!!!!! And Luxmanda carrying 60% Sardinian ancestry fugked up their whole theory. Lol! More to come!!! He! He! HE!
YES! Don't you get it? Basal Eurasian was IN SSAfrica BEFORE Europe/LA Brana. He! He! He!
"They now see the shit is about to hit the fan, so they are now running for cover." Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Whoa! Whoa! Hold up! There is lot's of commentary. I hate reading or trying to read wall text myself that is why I am the "quote miner". Ask Swenet. He! HE! HE!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: No one is reading this giant ass wall of text. ADD some commentary or Im closing and you can make this thread again.
Did you look at this thread:
Henn and the - 2018 SMBE Symposium
there's MORE text there with no commentary
Sometimes I like to post information and I don't have an opinion on it yet and want people to get an unbiased look at it.
It's more generous sometimes to post the article like I see Evergreen does without putting in some comment right off the bat like " look what what these idiots are saying now"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Let me get on record telling you the last part of the trick. To convince the world that "Eurasians" are a Sister Group to Africans. I am laughing just thinking about it:
they have finally come around to xyymanism
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Political implications? Exactly what political implications are you talking bout? WHy would they be anything significant? WHat's changed?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So...Arabia, Levant and southern Europe is an extension of Africa....Lioness? Pay me a dollar
-- Quotes: " , it is important to understand what we mean by “Africa”. From a static, geographic point of view such a definition is trivial and, even considering fluctuations of the shore levels, Gibraltar Straight to the North-West, Sinai isthmus to the North-East and Bab el-Mandeb Straight to the East can be regarded as the long-term gateways out of Africa, the latter two traditionally deemed as favoured exit points for the OoA. This said, however, palaeoclimatic understanding of the potential expansion of ecological niches (Breeze et al. 2016) are important to distinguish what should be seen as crossing of a major barrier, from what was simply a temporary stretching of an African environment across the above mentioned gateways. Palaeoanthropological research has indeed pointed to the Levant (Stringer et al. 1989, Grün et al. 2005, Hershkovitz et al. 2018) and more recently even to Arabia (Groucutt et al. 2018) as places inhabited by humans well before the major 70kya OoA expansion. So should these early remains be considered as failed OoA expansions, or should one simply assume that the African human niche stretched all the way to Levant or to the Arabian peninsula ...((insert and Gibraltar))during certain time periods and under certain conditions? And, in contemplating this second hypothesis, how far from Africa should a human remain dating between 200 and 70kya be found to be considered “non-African” both geographically and ecologically?"
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
If they weren't so racist and prejudicial they would have come to that conclusion a long time ago. The data has always been there and now it too much to ignore and sweep under the rug. Yes, Southern Europe, Gibraltar, Levant and Arabia has always been a homeland of Africans since pre-history and yes, Europeans are a subset of Africans.
But here is a kicker.......In that Henn thread you quoted above....the data emerging is that Oceanians and Andaman Islanders are ancestral to East Asians and from the same OOA which is different to most modern Europeans.....ie TWO MAJOR migration. I called it.
Let me get on record telling you the last part of the trick. To convince the world that "Eurasians" are a Sister Group to Africans. :D I am laughing just thinking about it:
Let me get on record telling you the last part of the trick. To convince the world that "Eurasians" are a Sister Group to Africans. I am laughing just thinking about it:
they have finally come around to xyymanism
You are not paying attention. Eurasians have always been a "subset" of Africans. The new argument will be that they are sister groups....Related by a common unknown ancestor.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Let me get on record telling you the last part of the trick. To convince the world that "Eurasians" are a Sister Group to Africans. I am laughing just thinking about it:
Genetic gatekeepers et al (2020) :"We now have evidence this change of phylogeny places Eurasians and most Sub Saharan Africans on the tree as Sister Groups".
To do that they'll have to claim all of North Africa going back to the MSA, unless they gonna roll with the Out of North Africa (OONA) to which "SSA's" and Eurasians descend from a N.Afican parent.... But that will just be prolonging the inevitable defeat.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
AH! HA! hA! HA! How can "Eurasian" be a subset of Africans and at the same time be siblings? Do you think before you speak? That is INCEST! "Your daddy is your brother"? And I am sure you are convinced what you said there makes sense....? SMH
You just can't help being a "wannabe"?
++
It will definitely be a prolong defeat because of that Skoglund paper.
"To do that they'll have to claim all of North Africa going back to the MSA, unless they gonna roll with the Out of North Africa (OONA) to which "SSA's" and Eurasians descend from a N.Afican parent.... But that will just be prolonging the inevitable defeat."
---------- Quote:" Recent availability of African ancient DNA specimens, however, showed that the Eurasian presence in the continent may **not be as recent** as understood from modern data. On one hand, ancient samples from East Africa (Gallego Llorente et al. 2015) and South Africa (Skoglund et al. 2017, Schlebusch et al. 2017) pre-dating the **inferred** arrival of the Eurasian component in the area were, as expected, free from non-African genetic traces. (This is a lie!!!!!)On the other hand, Egyptian mummies from more than 2,000 years ago, hence pre-dating by at least 1000 years the inferred Eurasian migration, could be essentially described as “non-Africans” from a genetic perspective (Schuenemann et al. 2017). Similarly, and perhaps more unexpectedly, post-Neolithic remains from Morocco dating back to around 7kya (Fregel et al. 2018) already showed a** predominant** Eurasian genetic signature." -----------------
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Political implications? Exactly what political implications are you talking bout? WHy would they be anything significant? WHat's changed?
Superstoopit = A population born and bred in Africa is not African. Don't expect this stupidity to apply to any but Africa and Africans. Repugnance and social distancing is behind this cognizant dissonance.
Meanwhile The Greek political notions of continents originally included Africa as part of Asia, then the Nile as the dividing line.
Independent minded Africans understand Africa includes Cypress and the east Mediterranean littoral are African and by extension the breakaway Arabian subplate completes the African continent. Not sure why Napoleon included Iberia.
For more on this see the 2007 thread Where in Africa does Africa start? link which includes genetic implications.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW- You people realize Lucas Martin, RIP, was way ahead of the game?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Political implications? Exactly what political implications are you talking bout? WHy would they be anything significant? WHat's changed?
quote: [i) a potential cause for the genetic bottleneck that characterizes all non-African group was the progressive increase of aridity of the Nile corridor, rather than the expansion out of Africa of a few wanderers during environmentally permissive conditions;
ii) such a bottleneck did not take place at the gateways of Africa but, rather, within Africa (along the Nile basin), and
iii) as a consequence of the MIS4 arid period, all subsequent coastal North African populations should be considered “non-Africans” from a genetic viewpoint or, in other words, they should be expected to share the same 70kya genetic bottleneck signature that characterizes all contemporary non-Africans. k
Thing that changed is that North Africa no longer exists, it's part of Eurasia,
Where it's leading
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Thing that changed is that North Africa no longer exists, it's part of Eurasia,
Where it's leading
Wait, what? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Www Wwwhhaaaat?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Thing that changed is that North Africa no longer exists, it's part of Eurasia,
Where it's leading
Hmm, seems like old news though. For decades on end an assortment of folk - academic and non-academic have been claiming North Africa to be "Eurasian." And the ascent of the Arab/Islamic era has long refocused the area politically as a part of the modern "Middle East" not Africa. That's why I asked what's changed.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by the Tukler: Superstoopit = A population born and bred in Africa is not African. Don't expect this stupidity to apply to any but Africa and Africans. Repugnance and social distancing is behind this cognizant dissonance.
Meanwhile The Greek political notions of continents originally included Africa as part of Asia, then the Nile as the dividing line.
Independent minded Africans understand Africa includes Cypress and the east Mediterranean littoral are African and by extension the breakaway Arabian subplate completes the African continent. Not sure why Napoleon included Iberia.
Sure, when many face the reality of African ancestry or provenance, a paralyzing dissonance or denialism immediately kicks in, like those modern Egyptians who think the ancients sprang up pristine-pure and spontaneously out of the waters of the Nile, cuz heaven forbid that they have any links with those dreaded "Africans" on the continent.. Likewise the bogus "true" types that Eurocentrics strangely, seldom apply to Europeans..
But on your map, are you making the analogy that as the OP article claims that the boundaries of Africa are permeable and fuzzy, so also the boundaries of "Europe" genetically should also be called into question? If your map extends into parts of southern Europe, would your analogy be then- why can't Africa likewise genetically extend into Southern EUrope? Hence one can ask just as well- What is Europe?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
What is Africa? A human perspective Luca Pagani,mIsabelle Crevecoeur 2018
.
more excerpts
To fully understand the past evolutionary history of our species, as well as the dynamics that led to the Out of Africa (OoA) expansion, it is important to understand what we mean by “Africa”. From a static, geographic point of view such a definition is trivial and, even considering fluctuations of the shore levels, Gibraltar Straight to the North-West, Sinai isthmus to the North-East and Bab el-Mandeb Straight to the East can be regarded as the long-term gateways out of Africa, the latter two traditionally deemed as favoured exit points for the OoA. This said, however, palaeoclimatic understanding of the potential expansion of ecological niches (Breeze et al. 2016) are important to distinguish what should be seen as crossing of a major barrier, from what was simply a temporary stretching of an African environment across the above mentioned gateways. Palaeoanthropological research has indeed pointed to the Levant (Stringer et al. 1989, Grün et al. 2005, Hershkovitz et al. 2018) and more recently even to Arabia (Groucutt et al. 2018) as places inhabited by humans well before the major 70kya OoA expansion. So should these early remains be considered as failed OoA expansions, or should one simply assume that the African human niche stretched all the way to Levant or to the Arabian peninsula during certain time periods and under certain conditions? And, in contemplating this second hypothesis, how far from Africa should a human remain dating between 200 and 70kya be found to be considered “non-African” both geographically and ecologically?
post-Neolithic remains from Morocco dating back to around 7kya (Fregel et al. 2018) already showed a predominant Eurasian genetic signature. These recent findings point to
i) a long term genetic relationship between North Africa and West Eurasia and
ii) potential biases towards more recent dates of current available methods for dating admixture events in modern populations.
The relative isolation of North Africa from the rest of the continent, often referred to as “Sub-Saharan Africa” due to the strong separation represented by the Sahara Desert, may imply that the consequences of these recent findings have only a limited impact on our understanding of the broader African demographic history. Such a reassurance may not hold in the light of pre-Neolithic findings, once again from Morocco. Human remains found at Taforalt and dating back to as early as 15kya (van de Loosdrecht et al. 2018) pre-date the Eurasian presence in the area by another 8,000 years and point to the Levantine Natufians (or pre-Natufians) as a plausible genetic source population. Such a deeply rooted, pre-Neolithic interaction between North Africa and West Asia may lead to envisage at least two (entirely speculative) scenarios.
A potential way to rule out this speculation would be to check whether genomic regions that appear as deeply divergent in population A are also particularly attracted by Eurasian-like genomes in population B used as “African reference” in this particular example. Additionally, one may apply local ancestry or chromopainter (Lawson et al. 2012) approaches to mask out genetic regions that are showing a Eurasian-like signature within contemporary African genomes.
If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure.
^^^key premise
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Damn... my man basically said Africans became non-African/Eurasians in Africa then mixed with Africans making Eurasian admixture widespread. That’s incredible.
do you like this idea politically ?
Are there political implications to this idea?
Keep in mind sometimes people come up with a concept that unfolds with political implications they were unaware of or develop in the future in a way unforeseen
Political implications? Exactly what political implications are you talking bout? WHy would they be anything significant? WHat's changed?
The politics of this boils down to the roots of modern European anthropology being in race science. And as such they have been trying to prove for the last 200 years or more that Europeans are the "superior branch" of human evolution. They can't. One aspect of showing this superiority was to claim ancient Egypt as "Eurasian" in origin and as such they need to claim North Africa as "Eurasian" going back into prehistory. So this is where they came up with the Hamitic race theories and brown whites and all sorts of nonsense propaganda to imply the origins of culture and civilization REQUIRED Eurasian inputs. All of this effort is required to uphold the CONTEMPORARY process of Eurasian global domination. There are plenty of people around the world who believe in this nonsense propaganda as much of the worlds anthropological and historical material ultimately comes from European institutions.
That is the politics of it and always has been.
The problem is some folks on this forum have been claiming quite loudly that genetics and science trumps all that and thus Africanists should leave the politics at home.....
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure.
Why? Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I called that shit last year. Its like he wrote that publication with everything i said in mind.
A shell game and the moving of two goalpost. The Neanderthal goalpost and the back migration goalpost. This is a cold case study on propaganda.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thought I was clear in the posted link?
Nothing nebulous about it. I could try to roundup my posts on Osei's defined Africa and supportive tectonic animations over the past 13 years. In a hard nutshell Africa's liquid borders are the 'Persian' Gulf, Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. Africa's solid border is the massive 'Rock' ie the Asian mountainlandss Turkey and Iran.
Islands immediate to the continent are also African.
Europe isn't a continent. It's the tail of the Asian kite.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote: Originally posted by the Tukuler: Superstoopit = A population born and bred in Africa is not African. Don't expect this stupidity to apply to any but Africa and Africans. Repugnance and social distancing is behind this cognizant dissonance.
Meanwhile The Greek political notions of continents originally included Africa as part of Asia, then the Nile as the dividing line.
Independent minded Africans understand Africa includes Cypress and the east Mediterranean littoral are African and by extension the breakaway Arabian subplate completes the African continent. Not sure why Napoleon included Iberia.
Sure, when many face the reality of African ancestry or provenance, a paralyzing dissonance or denialism immediately kicks in, like those modern Egyptians who think the ancients sprang up pristine-pure and spontaneously out of the waters of the Nile, cuz heaven forbid that they have any links with those dreaded "Africans" on the continent.. Likewise the bogus "true" types that Eurocentrics strangely, seldom apply to Europeans..
But on your map, are you making the analogy that as the OP article claims that the boundaries of Africa are permeable and fuzzy, so also the boundaries of "Europe" genetically should also be called into question? If your map extends into parts of southern Europe, would your analogy be then- why can't Africa likewise genetically extend into Southern EUrope? Hence one can ask just as well- What is Europe?
I don't agree with Napoleon. Carthaginian and Muslim al~Andalus hegemony got nothing to do with continental geology/geography.
Southern Europe is NOT Africa. I have no penis envy for Europe. Don't confuse me with just about everybody here who's only concern about Africa is Basal Eurasian, African transplants in Europe, or all Africans as some kind of pure Eurasian admixtures.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Middle East is considered part of Eurasia rather than Africa because it shares a much greater portions of it's borders with Eurasia, simple as that
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure. --Lucas Pagini
Why?
He's saying if Eurasians have overlapping genetics with Africans then there would be DNA evidence of that spread all across Africa. Instead the Natufian-like Eurasian genetic component is found in 15,000 year old remains in coastal Morocco
quote:
The admixture of allegedly African-like middle/lower Nile Valley “more robust” groups with Levantine or North-West African “more gracile” groups after 8kya is compatible with contemporary Egyptians harbouring within their African genetic components (hence the component contributed by the more robust groups) the haplotypes that are most represented outside of Africa today (Pagani et al. 2015). Such a scenario would imply the following:
i) a potential cause for the genetic bottleneck that characterizes all non-African group was the progressive increase of aridity of the Nile corridor, rather than the expansion out of Africa of a few wanderers during environmentally permissive conditions;
ii) such a bottleneck did not take place at the gateways of Africa but, rather, within Africa (along the Nile basin), and
iii) as a consequence of the MIS4 arid period, all subsequent coastal North African populations should be considered “non-Africans” from a genetic viewpoint or, in other words, they should be expected to share the same 70kya genetic bottleneck signature that characterizes all contemporary non-Africans.
Morphological or genetic analyses on North African human remains dating between 70 and 25kya are needed to conclude whether the Sinai isthmus or the Saharan belt are to be considered as the ultimate gateways of Africa.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure. --Lucas Pagini
Why?
He's saying if Eurasians have overlapping genetics with Africans then there would be DNA evidence of that spread all across Africa. Instead the Natufian-like Eurasian genetic component is found in 15,000 year old remains in coastal Morocco
He said that if there was overlap between any Eurasians and any Africans, the overlap would be something equally visible in all Africans. I'm not asking what he said, but why he said it. Why should those be the conditions?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Map showing areas of the pre-Cambrian rock formations in the Arabian plate and adjacent areas
Here we was a red line and the map key indicates it is a plate boundary indicated by a red line, thus the Arabian plate
Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's outer shell is divided into several plates that glide over the mantle, the rocky inner layer above the core.
Here we see a land mass where an animal or human could walk from Saudi Arabia to Iraq despite the theorized different techtonic plates there
The tectonic plate theory is a geological theory irrelevant to human and animal biology
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
He said that if there was overlap between any Eurasians and any Africans, the overlap would be something equally visible in all Africans. I'm not asking what he said, but why he said it.
He said it because he says in order to distinguish Eurasian admixture in Africa from genes they might have in common you have to analyze the locations in Africa where the overlap occurs. Does it occur all over Africa or does it occur in places that are near the coast of Africa that border Eurasia which are suggestive of incoming foreign migrants
I have never like the term "North Africa" for anthropology It can be define in at least 4 different ways
Looking at this population density map we see a dense portion around the coastal Morocco, Algeria , Tunisia
A better term to be dealing with is the Maghreb
as for Egypt we see the separation. It should be regarded differently, Nile River following
Mahgreb
Nile River
Horn
___________________
this is how it should be dealing with it, not "North Africa"
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure. --Lucas Pagini
Why?
He's saying if Eurasians have overlapping genetics with Africans then there would be DNA evidence of that spread all across Africa. Instead the Natufian-like Eurasian genetic component is found in 15,000 year old remains in coastal Morocco
He said that if there was overlap between any Eurasians and any Africans, the overlap would be something equally visible in all Africans. I'm not asking what he said, but why he said it. Why should those be the conditions?
Because if all Africans share the components in question it would be undetectable when determining population structure, and won’t effect split times, etc. Which can be the reason why we currently fail to consistently see overlap between modern Africans without outside admixture and non Africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"Which can be the reason why we currently fail to consistently see overlap between modern Africans without outside admixture and non Africans."
And that is why the Abusirs are 100% African.......Like the Saharawis who 80% Eurasian SNP but 100% SSA STRs. We need the STRs of the Abusirs!!!!!! They will not release it!!!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BTW- You people realize Lucas Martin, RIP, was way ahead of the game?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^ "I have never like the term "North Africa" for anthropology It can be define in at least 4 different ways"
Problem is North Africa can NEVER be part of "Eurasia". Why? See above. See Luxmanda and see Malawi-Hora-8100BP!!
BE probable originated not in North Africa but South of Tanzania!!!
"Basal Eurasian was in Africa before Europe" Lazaridis 2014 Skoglund 2018
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ^ "I have never like the term "North Africa" for anthropology It can be define in at least 4 different ways"
Problem is North Africa can NEVER be part of "Eurasia". Why? See above. See Luxmanda and see Malawi-Hora-8100BP!!
BE probable originated not in North Africa but South of Tanzania!!!
"Basal Eurasian was in Africa before Europe" Lazaridis 2014 Skoglund 2018
Generally the "North Africa" of many studies is the coastal region near the Mediterranean while downplaying inland areas which standard geographies have long considered to be part of "North Africa."
On your "Basal Eurasian" are you saying that such developed WITHIN Africa first before migrating out?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Also not quite clear on your map. For example do the Saharawi have 75% Eurasian admix and the Sandawe 32% per annotations on the right?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Saharawi, and other Sahel to Mediterranean populations, Eurasian frequencies will vary pending assignment of local indigenous DNA which usually classifies as Eurasian despite African genesis and range.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Can someone please explain why Basal Eurasian isnt simply people with Basal Eurasian haplogroups?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^@ Cardova - Sage answered your question.
Anyways - To all, notice Lucas Martin/DNATRibes had this figured out long time ago. My guess is they plugged Lazaridis 2014 dataset into their database and since then solved this puzzle of BE/EEF...and WHG and ANE
1. Notice EEF/BE is either in the Sahara or Yemen. 2. Notice BE crosses Gibraltar and/or Levant and Yemen. 3. Notice how the Horn is connected 4. Notice WHG is not only in Western Europe but more Asia 5. Notice WHG/ANE are indistinguishable 6. EEF/BE enters Europe from TWO African path. Iberia and Levant. They Also through Italy.
This is consistent with what I have been saying all along. 1. The Sahara pump through Iberia and the Levant. Remember that "Pillars of Hercules paper"? How did I know this. The author concluded by analyzing mtDNA haplogroup H that **all** haplotypes found in Europe was found in Africa but some found in Africa was **not** found in Europe PLUS haplotypes found in Italy vs Iberia were different. Later Rym Kefi provided similar data sets.
This was a slam dunk!!! Too easy. Now DNAtribes came to the same conclusion using autosomal DNA.
WHG/Dravidian type people occupied all of Eurasia until they were replaced by Neolithics during the late Holocene. These late Holocene peoples did not reach Far East Asia/Oceania or the Americas...I think. This is why La Brana and Kostenski 14 are related compared to modern Europeans.
Lucas Martin did not have Skoglund 2018 dataset to work with else he would have BE is Tanzania some place. That is why Yemen/South Arabia figures into this. IIRC Luxmanda is located off shores near Yemen. Right? He! He! He! This is to easy!!!
= Notice Like OP. Martin, RIP, has Africa extending into Arabia Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Lucas Martin wrote this back in 2014.
BE/EEF from the African Nile valley expanded into Europe, The Indus Valley as far as South East Asia. We know Skoglund paper was not published as yet. If Lucas Martin had the dataset for Luxmanda this would be all over. Lucas Martin knew that BE/EEF was African in origin based upon the data he had at the time. Now with data from Malawi we know when he suggested Botswana he was 100% correct. Botswana, Tanzania and Malwi is situated at the mouth of Nile is becoming increasingly important.
Quote: "Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). ****In**** the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and **Botswanan** populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian **(Indian Subcontinent)** populations
Similarly, another paper, "Towards a New History and Geography of Human Genes Informed by Ancient DNA" by Reich et. al. identifies Mediterranean (Sardinian-like) ancestry in several parts of the Middle East, Central Asia, the Indian Subcontinent and reaching as far as Southeast Asia.4 Although further analysis is needed, one possibility is that these widely shared ancestral components in part reflect the expansions of Early European Farmers (EEF) or related populations (such as Basal Eurasians) from the African Nile Valley and West Asian Fertile Crescent.5"
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is what David Reich had proposed BEFORE he started hooked up with Max Planck Inst. Notice he knew all along that Southern European/BE/EEF is started at the Mouth of the Nile near Botswana and Malawi and Tanzania. Then somewhere along his career he "changed his mind". Was it money?
So we have West African/North Africa component in Levant.
But more astonishing is South African Component in Arabia and the Harrapan Valley!!!!!!! WOW! Africans in the Harrapan Valley!!! Where did I hear that before? HE! HE! HE! That is why the it is impossible for the Abusir to be anything but pure African!
Towards a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA - Joseph K. Pickrell1,2*, David Reich3,4,5
Posted by 010 (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ^@ Cardova - Sage answered your question.
Anyways - To all, notice Lucas Martin/DNATRibes had this figured out long time ago. My guess is they plugged Lazaridis 2014 dataset into their database and since then solved this puzzle of BE/EEF...and WHG and ANE
1. Notice EEF/BE is either in the Sahara or Yemen. 2. Notice BE crosses Gibraltar and/or Levant and Yemen. 3. Notice how the Horn is connected 4. Notice WHG is not only in Western Europe but more Asia 5. Notice WHG/ANE are indistinguishable 6. EEF/BE enters Europe from TWO African path. Iberia and Levant. They Also through Italy.
This is consistent with what I have been saying all along. 1. The Sahara pump through Iberia and the Levant. Remember that "Pillars of Hercules paper"? How did I know this. The author concluded by analyzing mtDNA haplogroup H that **all** haplotypes found in Europe was found in Africa but some found in Africa was **not** found in Europe PLUS haplotypes found in Italy vs Iberia were different. Later Rym Kefi provided similar data sets.
This was a slam dunk!!! Too easy. Now DNAtribes came to the same conclusion using autosomal DNA.
WHG/Dravidian type people occupied all of Eurasia until they were replaced by Neolithics during the late Holocene. These late Holocene peoples did not reach Far East Asia/Oceania or the Americas...I think. This is why La Brana and Kostenski 14 are related compared to modern Europeans.
Lucas Martin did not have Skoglund 2018 dataset to work with else he would have BE is Tanzania some place. That is why Yemen/South Arabia figures into this. IIRC Luxmanda is located off shores near Yemen. Right? He! He! He! This is to easy!!!
= Notice Like OP. Martin, RIP, has Africa extending into Arabia
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
