posted
It's just a synthesis of what we already know basically IBMs being the product of back migrations, long continuity in the region as seen with IAM and late neolithic european migration.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
At face value this paper is garbage as it pushes many invalid talking points that don't make any sense. First it uses Morocco as the epicenter of "North Africa" when it is not now and never has been the primary "locus" of North African populations or cultural evolution. There is no discussion of the Nile Valley, the Sahara before and after the wet phase and so forth. It also does not follow any genetic studies as they show clearly the flow of genetics and populations within Africa from East to West and South to North. Not only that, it completely ignores the 40,000 years of actual archaeological data from the Upper Nile Valley from between Sudan and Egypt that shows a clear record of evolution for various subsistence strategies leading to the rise of the Neolithic. It is nothing more than the same old same distortion of facts in order to reinforce wrong conclusions. As the extract linked above explicitly says, they are using ancient genomes from 5,000 years ago in Morocco as being representative of ALL of North Africa which is absolutely ludicrous. This is a geographic area larger than the entirety of Western Europe, where they never to DNA models based on single sets of genomes from one region to model the entire region. So it is bull sh*t. They are deliberately dragging their feet on DNA from the Nile Valley, Red Sea region, Sahel, Sahara, Sudan and Horn, where they know the oldest continuous tradition of human activity exists because they need to promote the narrative that "North Africa" history starts only in areas close to Europe.
So this is what they are saying:
quote: Prehistoric research in North Africa has largely focused on the Lower and Middle Paleolithic periods as exemplified by the discovery of the oldest early modern human in Morocco (Richter et al., 2017) and the older stone artifacts and cut-marked bones in Algeria (Sahnouni et al., 2018). On the other hand, how populations transitioned to farming in North Africa has received less attention. Paleolithic North Africa is characterized by the Aterian culture that flourished about 30,000 BCE, and was later replaced by the Upper Paleolithic Iberomaurusian industry (~15,000 BCE). By ~12,000 BCE the Mesolithic Capsian culture appeared in the Maghreb, transitioning to farming communities in the 6th millennia BCE (Naylor 2015).
But these are *NOT* the oldest tool industries in North Africa because those are found in the Nile Valley. So right off the bat they are excluding the Nile in order to pretend that all the main events in North African history started with Morocco. That is just deliberate disinformation and distortion. And when they do study the Nile they always do so not for the purposes of understanding African history in an African context, they always do it in the context of Eurasia.
Discusses the ancient Nile valley and whether it was a corridor for Eurasians migrating from Europe into Africa or Africans migrating to Europe. Knowing full well that the Nile is completely in Africa and therefore mostly a corridor for Africans moving along it. But this is the game they like the play.
This is why they are not really talking about All of North Africa as opposed to breaking up North Africa into different regions with different studies for each region. And never is there really a single study covering the entire area from Morocco to the Sahara and Lake Chad into the Nile Valley and Red Sea. They know this area is too big to such generalizations yet they still use the term "North Africa" as if it means all of these areas when, as in this paper, they are exclusively focusing on one small part of it.
And this divided history can be seen in the tool industries discussed. The oldest being the Khormusan, which is centered on the Nile Valley and then followed by the Halfan, which then is followed by the rise of various Neolitic traditions which descent from those previous two all of which are centered between Egypt and Sudan from which you got the rise of advanced early cultures between Egypt and Sudan that led to the rise of civilization on the Nile. Not only that, but there is evidence that the Natufian industry is also related to these older Nile Valley industries probably showing a continuous evolution from Africa into "Eurasia". On the other hand, the Iberomaurisan is a tool industry not as old as the Khormusan and with no direct relationship to the continuous evolutionary tool ages found on the Nile but yet they still claim the Iberomaurisan in this paper as the "beginning" of tool industries in North Africa, which is absurd as if Europe is the origin of tool industries in Africa when they are older in Africa and tied more directly into the early Neolithic tradition than Europe.
quote: Introduction
The Nile Valley geographically links eastern Africa to North Africa and the Levant, and is therefore key in discussions of modern human dispersals out-of and back-into-Africa during the Upper Pleistocene [1–6]. However, the number, routes and timing of these dispersals are highly controversial [7]. Archaeological evidence supporting the ‘northern’ route out of Africa through the Nile Valley is sparse and debated ([8], but see [9,10]) and human remains from this period, all attributed to modern human remains, remain few [11–14]. Most of the evidence for Pleistocene dispersals thus comes from genetic results. Comparisons between the archaeological record of the Nile Valley and adjacent regions are at the heart of testing dispersal hypotheses and their archaeological visibility.
The Late Pleistocene (~75-15ka) corresponds to a period of major climatic changes, including a global decrease in precipitation. In northern Africa, this period is characterised by an oscillation between semi-arid and extremely arid conditions, the latter of which prevail particularly during the 'Last Glacial Maximum' (LGM, ~23-18ka). The Sahara expands, with only one wet phase identified (~50-45ka [15]), until the abrupt onset of the African Humid Period (~15ka [16]). The shift to more arid conditions is also associated with the lowering of sea level and the desiccation of some major eastern African lakes during the LGM (e.g. [17–19]). This has important consequences for the behaviour of the River Nile, its role as an ecological refugium, and on human populations living in its vicinity.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] At face value this paper is garbage as it pushes many invalid talking points that don't make any sense. First it uses Morocco as the epicenter of "North Africa" when it is not now and never has been the primary "locus" of North African populations or cultural evolution. There is no discussion of the Nile Valley,
one could argue this is epicenter of all humanity, although it's a guess
_____________________________
As for the term "North Africa" used in anthropology I am against it and what you said here contributes to that The geography of it can be defined in several not agreed upon ways. I agree that the Maghreb should be considered different from the Eastern part which is oriented along a river system, the Nile
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Doug The oldest samples are from there and the iberomaurusian culture stretch from Morocco to Tunisia so it can give us a good view on these ancient populations who lived in North Africa. Egypt is complex and constitutes its own world. Moreover it is geopolitically considered as part of the middle east not North africa :
And yes these studies about iberomaurusians and late neolithic moroccans can be really useful since such components are present among most if not all modern berbers. These studies show that modern north africans have retained 30-50% of mesolithic ancestry related to Iberomaurusians and 30-50% early european farmer ancestry which is explained by these late neolithic migrations to "morocco".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egypt is complex and constitutes its own world. Moreover it is geopolitically considered as part of the middle east not North africa
this is anthropology modern geopolitical categorizations don't matter. Also the map here excludes your own point about Iberomaurusians, Morocco isn't part of it and on the flip side U6 is not prominent in Egypt nor M81
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egypt is complex and constitutes its own world. Moreover it is geopolitically considered as part of the middle east not North africa
this is anthropology modern geopolitical categorizations don't matter. Also the map here excludes your own point about Iberomaurusians, Morocco isn't part of it and on the flip side U6 is not prominent in Egypt nor M81
also if possible please remove the repeat of that large Doug post and just say @Doug, no need to repeat such a big block of text although I appreciate the amount Doug put in, thanks
Yes but in these kind of works by "North Africa" they in general talk about the berber world. Egypt is always seen as the middle east and not as a proper north african country even though geographically it is.
I don't understand the rest of your answer, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egypt is complex and constitutes its own world. Moreover it is geopolitically considered as part of the middle east not North africa
this is anthropology modern geopolitical categorizations don't matter. Also the map here excludes your own point about Iberomaurusians, Morocco isn't part of it and on the flip side U6 is not prominent in Egypt nor M81
also if possible please remove the repeat of that large Doug post and just say @Doug, no need to repeat such a big block of text although I appreciate the amount Doug put in, thanks
Yes but in these kind of works by "North Africa" they in general talk about the berber world. Egypt is always seen as the middle east and not as a proper north african country even though geographically it is.
I don't understand the rest of your answer, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote.
Contemporary researchers don't call Egypt part of the "Middle East". They call it part of "North Africa" but I think it's better to call it part of the Nile Valley
and about the West the Mahgreb, the Egyptians made a distinction themselves with their Western Desert Libyans depictions, similarly distinguishing themselves from Middle Eastern Asiatics and Nehesy groups to the south. We also observe the decline of both M81 and U6 as looking from West to East
"North Africa" "Middle East" and "Near East" are modern, arbitrary categories in regard to ancient periods as per anthropology, in my opinion obsolete "Maghreb" and "Nile Valley" seem a lot clearer for anthropological purposes but not to say there is no overlap either
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, the problem with this paper is it proposes that the Aterian tool industry is the cradle of human stone tool culture in "North Africa" going back 30,000 years ago. And that this culture is supposedly centered in and around Morocco which of course is near to Europe. However, the problem with this is that the Aterian was NOT the epicenter of human stone tool culture in North Africa and never has been.
quote: The Neolithic revolution, which is the transition from hunting and gathering to farming, started in the Near East around 13,000 BCE. How human populations acquired agricultural and herding technologies has historically been the focus of a heated debate. Two opposing models can be applied to explain the Neolithic transition: the demic diffusion model and the cultural diffusion model. The first one argues that the Neolithic revolution involved the movement of people, in such a way that the arrival of agricultural and herding techniques was the result of the migration of farmers, who would admix with or replace previous hunter-gatherer populations. The other model proposes that the Neolithic transition was the result of the movement of ideas. In this scenario, local hunter-gatherer populations would acquire agricultural and herding technologies from neighbouring populations, without genetic admixture.
The point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:
quote: The technological character of the Aterian has been debated for almost a century, but has until recently eluded definition. The problems defining the industry have related to its research history and the fact that a number of similarities have been observed between the Aterian and other North African stone tool industries of the same date. Levallois reduction is widespread across the whole of North Africa throughout the Middle Stone Age, and scrapers and denticulates are ubiquitous. Bifacial foliates moreover represent a huge taxonomic category and the form and dimension of such foliates associated with tanged tools is extremely varied. There is also a significant variation of tanged tools themselves, with various forms representing both different tool types (e.g., knives, scrapers, points) and the degree tool resharpening.
More recently, a large-scale study of North African stone tool assemblages, including Aterian assemblages, indicated that the traditional concept of stone tool industries is problematic in the North African Middle Stone Age. Although the term Aterian defines Middle Stone Age assemblages from North Africa with tanged tools, the concept of an Aterian industry obfuscates other similarities between tanged tool assemblages and other non-Aterian North African assemblages of the same date. For example, bifacial leaf points are found widely across North Africa in assemblages that lack tanged tools and Levallois flakes and cores are near ubiquitous. Instead of elaborating discrete industries, the findings of the comparative study suggest that North Africa during the Last Interglacial comprised a network of related technologies whose similarities and differences correlated with geographical distance and the palaeohydrology of a Green Sahara. Assemblages with tanged tools may therefore reflect particular activities involving the use of such tool types, and may not necessarily reflect a substantively different archaeological culture to others from the same period in North Africa. The findings are significant because they suggest that current archaeological nomenclatures do not reflect the true variability of the archaeological record of North Africa during the Middle Stone Age from the Last Interglacial, and hints at how early modern humans dispersed into previously uninhabitable environments. This notwithstanding, the term still usefully denotes the presence of tanged tools in North African Middle Stone Age assemblages.
On top of that, the oldest human stone tool cultures and continuous record of evolution of cultures from the Paleolithic to Neolithic is in the Nile Valley, but here this paper is proposing Morocco as a better location of study and representative of all North Africa which again is false.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:"
Honestly I don't think that it's even that much the fret about. We know that "Europeans" at the time were not even white. We are talking about the "Negroid" hunter and gatherers like the Grimaldi.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "The point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:"
Honestly I don't think that it's even that much the fret about. We know that "Europeans" at the time were not even white. We are talking about the "Negroid" hunter and gatherers like the Grimaldi.
Early "Europeans" who carry "European genotypes"
Regardless of what later Early Europeans looked like, but the biggest issue is the outright falsehoods implicit in the paper itself as I pointed out. Starting with the presence of any kind of European presence in Africa is putting the cart before the horse. And yes all of this is about downplaying Africa itself as the cradle of stone tools as the oldest stone tools in the world are found in Africa going back millions of years. Notice this article is within a larger journal called "Africa: the Cradle of Human Diversity", but what does that really mean, if they are focusing on LATER interactions between Europe and Africa, which contradicts the point. It can only be a cradle if such diversity in subsistence methods (ie. hunting, fishing, gathering, tool making, etc) first originated in Africa prior to anywhere else, which they did. But it sounds like they are simply muddying the waters by picking certain regions and time periods to focus on in making broad generalizations totally out of context.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Again, the problem with this paper is it proposes that the Aterian tool industry is the cradle of human stone tool culture in "North Africa" going back 30,000 years ago. And that this culture is supposedly centered in and around Morocco which of course is near to Europe. However, the problem with this is that the Aterian was NOT the epicenter of human stone tool culture in North Africa and never has been.
point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:
[QUOTE] The technological character of the Aterian has been debated for almost a century, but has until recently eluded definition. The problems defining the industry have related to its research history and the fact that a number of similarities have been observed between the Aterian and other North African stone tool industries of the same date. Levallois reduction is widespread across the whole of North Africa throughout the Middle Stone Age, and scrapers and denticulates are ubiquitous. Bifacial foliates moreover represent a huge taxonomic category and the form and dimension of such foliates associated with tanged tools is extremely varied. There is also a significant variation of tanged tools themselves, with various forms representing both different tool types (e.g., knives, scrapers, points) and the degree tool resharpening.
hahahah wtf what kind of paranoid post is that ? So now you'll refuse any paper on Morocco because it's close to Europe ? The paper literally said nothing about the origin of aterians nor did they say Iberomaurusians came from Europe.
And Aterian culture wasn't only found in Morocco :
quote:The Aterian has been reported on the northern shores of Lake Chad for up to 25,000 years. It has been recognized south of the Tropic of Cancer (20th parallel), from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, from the Mediterranean to Chad, its industrial structure seems to have always preserved its technological constants and its stalk.
hahahah wtf what kind of paranoid post is that ? So now you'll refuse any paper on Morocco because it's close to Europe ? The paper literally said nothing about the origin of aterians nor did they say Iberomaurusians came from Europe.
There is nothing 'paranoid' about the fact that most of North Africa isn't close to Europe. Morocco is the closest point in Africa to Europe. There is no contiguous landmass connecting Europe to Africa directly. Therefore, any overlap in DNA between Europe and Africa in places like Morocco are not representative of all North Africans. This is the point I am making. "Berbers" don't all have the same DNA markers either and in ancient times Berber languages stretched from Senegal to Northern Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And Aterian culture wasn't only found in Morocco :
quote:The Aterian has been reported on the northern shores of Lake Chad for up to 25,000 years. It has been recognized south of the Tropic of Cancer (20th parallel), from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, from the Mediterranean to Chad, its industrial structure seems to have always preserved its technological constants and its stalk.
OK. And the people around lake Chad do not have the same DNA signature as those in Morocco. "North Africa" is not a monolithic cultural and genetic region. Again, they are trying to use Morocco as representative of all North Africa in ancient times when it is not and was not. During the last Saharan Wet Phase the Sahara was more densely populated at around the same time frame as this study. Those people did not have the same DNA lineages as those around Morocco. That is simply false and therefore using Morocco as a proxy for ALL of North Africa is simply false. Not to mention that within these countries like Tunisia and Algeria there is diversity within them from North to South. So this attempt to lump all these people into a single monoculture is nonsense.
The geographic area of North Africa is large enough to fit most of Western Europe into it. Yet nobody treats Western Europe as a monolith genetically when doing ancient DNA studies. Yet in Africa they take one small sample of DNA from one part of Africa and try and generalize over a large area from that one sample which is not valid science.
Notice when the DNA study on the spread of agriculture in Western Europe was produced, it contained samples of ancient and modern DNA across a large area of Western Europe. It wasn't just limited to say Italy.
And this is explicitly was the paper is saying:
quote: Ancient DNA obtained directly from hunter-gatherer and early farmer human remains from Morocco has provided the first paleogenomic evidence on the Neolithic transition in North Africa (Fregel et al., 2018, van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018). The picture drew from these studies points to a complex scenario where both cultural and demic diffusion led to the acquisition of farming and herding technologies. Upper Paleolithic and Early Neolithic populations in North Africa share the same genetic makeup, related to a back migration from Eurasia in Paleolithic times. This component is characterized by African autochthonous lineages U6 and M1 from the mitochondrial DNA and sublineages of E-M35 from the Y-chromosome. From a genome-wide perspective, Moroccan Upper Paleolithic and Early Neolithic populations are characterized by an autochthonous Maghrebi component still retained in present-day North Africans, following an east-to-west cline. Altogether, these results evidence that the early steps of farming and herding acquisition in North Africa happened through an in situ development process or mediated by the acculturation of local hunter-gatherer populations.
Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco are characterized by a mixture of both the autochthonous Maghrebi component and gene flow from early farmers in Europe. Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome lineages in North African Late Neolithic are different from those in previous periods and have a clear affiliation to early farmers in the Near East and Europe. Genome-wide data indicate that Late Neolithic communities in Morocco had a Neolithic European component, most probably related to the migration of early farmers from Iberia. Genetic evidence from the indigenous people of the Canary Islands suggests that the impact of the European Neolithic gene flow could have been heterogeneous and that additional European ancestry could have reached North Africa between the 4th millennium BCE and the 1st century CE, probably related to the expansion of the Bell-Beaker culture in the Mediterranean.
Yet that conclusion does not apply to the Nile Valley or Sahara and therefore is blatantly wrong in claiming this applies to "all of north Africa".
And to see how this is blatantly false one only needs to look at places like Nabta Playa where the evidence for the transition to the Neolithic is much better documented archaeologically. Yet somehow Fregel is claiming that Morocco is a better site to study to understand the transition than Nabta Playa.
quote: Archaeological findings may indicate human occupation in the region dating to at least somewhere around the 10th and 8th millennium BC. Fred Wendorf, the site's discoverer, and ethno-linguist Christopher Ehret have suggested that the people who occupied this region at that time were early pastoralists, or like the Saami practiced semi-pastoralism (although this is disputed by other sources because the cattle remains found at Nabta have been shown to be morphologically wild in several studies, and nearby Saharan sites such as Uan Afada in Libya were penning wild Barbary sheep, an animal that was never domesticated). The people of that time consumed and stored wild sorghum, and used ceramics adorned by complicated painted patterns created perhaps by using combs made from fish bone and which belong to a general pottery tradition strongly associated with the southern parts of the Sahara (e.g. of the Khartoum mesolithic and various contemporary sites in Chad) of that period.
There is nothing 'paranoid' about the fact that most of North Africa isn't close to Europe. Morocco is the closest point in Africa to Europe. There is no contiguous landmass connecting Europe to Africa directly. Therefore, any overlap in DNA between Europe and Africa in places like Morocco are not representative of all North Africans. This is the point I am making. "Berbers" don't all have the same DNA markers either and in ancient times Berber languages stretched from Senegal to Northern Sudan.
It's not a reason to avoid every paper based on Morocco, it's more easy for these europeans to investigate in easily reachable areas and in safe countries with welcoming authorities ...you really think such scientists will take the risk to go as far as the algerian sahara or Mauritania ? Moreover the culture of the taforalt remains was found all along the maghrebi mediterranean shore so it can give us a good overview of who these NW african hunter-gatherers were.
It is representative since it would explain why all berbers have early european farmer ancestry (even fulanis got some of it) and these europeans could only take some specific roads.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. And the people around lake Chad do not have the same DNA signature as those in Morocco. "North Africa" is not a monolithic cultural and genetic region. Again, they are trying to use Morocco as representative of all North Africa in ancient times when it is not and was not. During the last Saharan Wet Phase the Sahara was more densely populated at around the same time frame as this study. Those people did not have the same DNA lineages as those around Morocco. That is simply false and therefore using Morocco as a proxy for ALL of North Africa is simply false. Not to mention that within these countries like Tunisia and Algeria there is diversity within them from North to South. So this attempt to lump all these people into a single monoculture is nonsense.
How do you know this if not a single aterian has been tested ? Morever the authors and I never implied north africa was monolithic but it would be quite anachronic to project the current or ancient state unto the paleolithic one. Like I said their culture is found all over the maghreb, and the remains are pretty much the same whether they are from tunisia or morocco so there is no reason to believe it was as diverse as today. Let's be happy with the datas we have for the moment.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Yet that conclusion does not apply to the Nile Valley or Sahara and therefore is blatantly wrong in claiming this applies to "all of north Africa".
And to see how this is blatantly false one only needs to look at places like Nabta Playa where the evidence for the transition to the Neolithic is much better documented archaeologically. Yet somehow Fregel is claiming that Morocco is a better site to study to understand the transition than Nabta Playa.
Come on you're really playing on semantics here simply because she used "north africa" instead of a more specific term. People aren't that dumb, they'll understand that paper is mostly focusing on Morocco. I've never seen someone using the taforalt/IAM results to draw conclusions about Egypt or the Sahara.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
There is nothing 'paranoid' about the fact that most of North Africa isn't close to Europe. Morocco is the closest point in Africa to Europe. There is no contiguous landmass connecting Europe to Africa directly. Therefore, any overlap in DNA between Europe and Africa in places like Morocco are not representative of all North Africans. This is the point I am making. "Berbers" don't all have the same DNA markers either and in ancient times Berber languages stretched from Senegal to Northern Sudan.
It's not a reason to avoid every paper based on Morocco, it's more easy for these europeans to investigate in easily reachable areas and in safe countries with welcoming authorities ...you really think such scientists will take the risk to go as far as the algerian sahara or Mauritania ? Moreover the culture of the taforalt remains was found all along the maghrebi mediterranean shore so it can give us a good overview of who these NW african hunter-gatherers were.
It is representative since it would explain why all berbers have early european farmer ancestry (even fulanis got some of it) and these europeans could only take some specific roads.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. And the people around lake Chad do not have the same DNA signature as those in Morocco. "North Africa" is not a monolithic cultural and genetic region. Again, they are trying to use Morocco as representative of all North Africa in ancient times when it is not and was not. During the last Saharan Wet Phase the Sahara was more densely populated at around the same time frame as this study. Those people did not have the same DNA lineages as those around Morocco. That is simply false and therefore using Morocco as a proxy for ALL of North Africa is simply false. Not to mention that within these countries like Tunisia and Algeria there is diversity within them from North to South. So this attempt to lump all these people into a single monoculture is nonsense.
How do you know this if not a single aterian has been tested ? Morever the authors and I never implied north africa was monolithic but it would be quite anachronic to project the current or ancient state unto the paleolithic one. Like I said their culture is found all over the maghreb, and the remains are pretty much the same whether they are from tunisia or morocco so there is no reason to believe it was as diverse as today. Let's be happy with the datas we have for the moment.
It is not all of North Africa and does not represent the history of tool making and animal domestication which have much earlier dates from places like Nabta Playa and Southern Libya. There is no amount of spinning that can make Morocco representative of all of North African history. It is not and there is no reason to try and pretend otherwise. They don't do this anywhere else in the world but in Africa they are quick to take a little bit of DNA and try and make broad conclusions that don't even make sense.
Recall the ceramic tradition of the Sahara and Sahel is older than anything in North Africa and along with that is evidence for penning "wild" animals like Barbary Sheep and Cattle. None of that is found in ancient sites in Morocco. So this is obviously not representative of anything but that one small region of "North Africa".
And the issue here is more of downplaying the fact that Africa has a long history of the gradual evolution towards agriculture without any interaction from elsewhere. We know that there are plenty of sites where there are tens of thousands of years of history that can be studied, yet they focused on Morocco for what reason? Those sites are not in morocco. Or at least they haven't been found.
quote: The Combined Prehistoric Expedition argued and continues to argue (Jórdeczka et al. 2011, 2013) for the remains to be assigned domesticated status (Bos taurus), on the basis that the reconstructed ecological conditions were inadequate for aurochs to have been supported without human intervention and control. It was this argument, and the presence of early pottery, which led them to designate these earliest occupation layers ‘Neolithic’ (see Smith 1992, 2005, 2013 for a critique of the history and terminology). Their independent African domestication model hypothesised that these early Holocene cattle were brought from the Nile Valley, where there was adequate pasture and water, when the rains returned to the desert
The main difference here is that Africa evolved towards agriculture with pottery from a very early time, as they gradually developed techniques to try and tame various indigenous animal species and plants. While in the "Near East" the rise of animal and plant domestication was without pottery. You cannot just skip over the history of evolution towards domestication in Africa and assume that everything just popped up in the "Near East" or Europe and simply was transported to Africa lock stock and barrel. African pottery predates Bell Beaker pottery by many thousands of years. That is a vast oversimplification of tens of thousands of years of history.
Bottom line they are just dragging their feet on getting ancient DNA from those places in Africa where the record of this transition is much more clear especially in regions of the Upper Sahara and Sahel which are not close to Europe, such as Nabta Playa and other sites in Southern Libya and Sudan.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "The point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:"
Honestly I don't think that it's even that much the fret about. We know that "Europeans" at the time were not even white. We are talking about the "Negroid" hunter and gatherers like the Grimaldi.
Early "Europeans" who carry "European genotypes"
Regardless of what later Early Europeans looked like, but the biggest issue is the outright falsehoods implicit in the paper itself as I pointed out. Starting with the presence of any kind of European presence in Africa is putting the cart before the horse. And yes all of this is about downplaying Africa itself as the cradle of stone tools as the oldest stone tools in the world are found in Africa going back millions of years. Notice this article is within a larger journal called "Africa: the Cradle of Human Diversity", but what does that really mean, if they are focusing on LATER interactions between Europe and Africa, which contradicts the point. It can only be a cradle if such diversity in subsistence methods (ie. hunting, fishing, gathering, tool making, etc) first originated in Africa prior to anywhere else, which they did. But it sounds like they are simply muddying the waters by picking certain regions and time periods to focus on in making broad generalizations totally out of context.
Doug you are on point. Europeans love to lie. They have taken North African Neanderthal remains and "re-named them AMH.
You are right about their failure to discuss archaeological sources they intentionally do this because the remains show the people were Black, by ignoring the archaeology people will subconsiously think the ancient folk were white--because of the people living in North Africa today. Europeans love to lie
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] At face value this paper is garbage as it pushes many invalid talking points that don't make any sense. First it uses Morocco as the epicenter of "North Africa" when it is not now and never has been the primary "locus" of North African populations or cultural evolution. There is no discussion of the Nile Valley,
one could argue this is epicenter of all humanity, although it's a guess
_____________________________
As for the term "North Africa" used in anthropology I am against it and what you said here contributes to that The geography of it can be defined in several not agreed upon ways. I agree that the Maghreb should be considered different from the Eastern part which is oriented along a river system, the Nile
It would be interesting to see the genome. And secondly, they used a new technic on the measurement to determent how old these remains are. Have they used the same methods on the previous findings?
quote:"An earlier origin for H. sapiens is further supported by an ancient-DNA study posted to the bioRxiv preprint server on 5 June6. Researchers led by Mattias Jakobsson at Uppsala University in Sweden sequenced the genome of a boy who lived in South Africa around 2,000 years ago — only the second ancient genome from sub-Saharan Africa to be sequenced.
They determined that his ancestors on the H. sapiens lineage split from those of some other present-day African populations more than 260,000 years ago.
Hublin says his team tried and failed to obtain DNA from the Jebel Irhoud bones. A genomic analysis could have clearly established whether the remains lie on the lineage that leads to modern humans."
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Doug The oldest samples are from there and the iberomaurusian culture stretch from Morocco to Tunisia so it can give us a good view on these ancient populations who lived in North Africa.
Isn't it ironing how much adversity there was when the oldest AMH was considered to have come from East Africa. But now that we have the Jebel Irhoud remains, it all of a sudden is welcomed?
I think the most disappointing part is the following:
quote:More recently, researchers have suggested that the Jebel Irhoud humans were an ‘archaic’ species that survived in North Africa until H. sapiens from south of the Sahara replaced them.
East Africa is where most scientists place our species’ origins: two of the oldest known H. sapiens fossils — 196,000 and 160,000-year-old skulls 3,4 — come from Ethiopia, and DNA studies of present-day populations around the globe point to an African origin some 200,000 years ago5.
[…]
Remains from Morocco dated to 315,000 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years — and suggest we didn't evolve only in East Africa.
“Until now, the common wisdom was that our species emerged probably rather quickly somewhere in a ‘Garden of Eden’ that was located most likely in sub-Saharan Africa,” says Jean-Jacques Hublin, an author of the study and a director at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Now, “I would say the Garden of Eden in Africa is probably Africa — and it’s a big, big garden.” Hublin was one of the leaders of the decade-long excavation at the Moroccan site, called Jebel Irhoud.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Egypt is complex and constitutes its own world. Moreover it is geopolitically considered as part of the middle east not North africa :
Untill we understand that what we call Egypt now, came from the ancient progenitor called the Nile Valley culture, which stems from further down South, into Central Sudan.
How are you going to rationalize that one away?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And yes these studies about iberomaurusians and late neolithic moroccans can be really useful since such components are present among most if not all modern berbers. These studies show that modern north africans have retained 30-50% of mesolithic ancestry related to Iberomaurusians and 30-50% early european farmer ancestry which is explained by these late neolithic migrations to "morocco".
I don't understand, What exactly is to you try to prove?
quote: First, this relatedness is attributed to the Berber migration from the African Sahara northwards in 10000–4000 BC, because of hyper-arid conditions [69
quote:Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
(Sabeh Frigi et al.,Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations, Human Biology, Volume 82, Number 4, August 2010, pp. 367-384)
quote:Firstly, E-M81 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa showing its highest concentrations in Northwestern Africa (76 % in Saharawis in Morocco (Arredi et al., 2004)) with cline frequencies decreasing eastward: Algeria (45 %), Libya (34 %) and Egypt (10 %) (Robino et al., 2008; Triki-Fendri et al., submitted; Arredi et al., 2004).
Besides, Ottoni et al., (2011) have reported that E-M81 appear to constitute a common paternal genetic matrix in the Tuareg populations where it was encountered at high frequency (89 %).
Hence, the distribution of this haplogroup in Africa closely matches the present area of Berber-speaking population’s allocation on the continent, suggesting a close haplogroup-ethnic group parallelism (Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2002; 2004; Arredi et al., 2004; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2011; Bekada et al., 2013). However, knowing that the Berber dialects have been replaced by Arabic in North African populations, carriers of E-M81 haplogroup are currently Arab-speaking peoples whose ancestors were Berber-speaking.
Outside of Africa, E-M81 is almost absent in the Middle East and in Europe (with the exception of Iberia and Sicily). The presence of E-M81 in the Iberian Peninsula (12 % in southern Portugal) (Cruciani et al., 2004) has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts linked to the Islamic influence, since it is typically Berber (Bosch et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2004; Beleza et al., 2006; Alvarez et al., 2009; Cruciani et al., 2007; Trombetta et al., 2011).
(S Triki-Fendri, A Rebai 2015, Synthetic review on the genetic relatedness between North Africa and Arabia deduced from paternal lineage distributions)
quote: Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.
(Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011), A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms)
(South-eastern Mediterranean peoples between 130,000 and 10,000 years ago (pp.1-8)Editors: Garcea, E. A. A)
(Cortés Sánchez, M., et al., The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia, Quat. Res. (2012), doi:10.1016/ j.yqres.2011.12.003)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Isn't it ironing how much adversity there was when the oldest AMH was considered to have come from East Africa. But now that we have the Jebel Irhoud remains, it all of a sudden is welcomed?
I think the most disappointing part is the following:
[QUOTE][i]More recently, researchers have suggested that the Jebel Irhoud humans were an ‘archaic’ species that survived in North Africa until H. sapiens from south of the Sahara replaced them.
East Africa is where most scientists place our species’ origins: two of the oldest known H. sapiens fossils — 196,000 and 160,000-year-old skulls 3,4 — come from Ethiopia, and DNA studies of present-day populations around the globe point to an African origin some 200,000 years ago5.
[…]
Remains from Morocco dated to 315,000 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years — and suggest we didn't evolve only in East Africa.
“Until now, the common wisdom was that our species emerged probably rather quickly somewhere in a ‘Garden of Eden’ that was located most likely in sub-Saharan Africa,” says Jean-Jacques Hublin, an author of the study and a director at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Now, “I would say the Garden of Eden in Africa is probably Africa — and it’s a big, big garden.” Hublin was one of the leaders of the decade-long excavation at the Moroccan site, called Jebel Irhoud.
I don't understand why you bring this.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Untill we understand that what we call Egypt now, came from the ancient progenitor called the Nile Valley culture, which stems from further down South, into Central Sudan.
There wasn't one Nile Valley culture only and you forget eastern saharans too.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I don't understand, What exactly is to you try to prove?
And I don't understand why you brought all of this while I was speaking about autosomal composition. I was talking about this :
quote:By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future paleogenomic efforts in North Africa will further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of the admixed populations we observe today."
And the issue here is more of downplaying the fact that Africa has a long history of the gradual evolution towards agriculture without any interaction from elsewhere. We know that there are plenty of sites where there are tens of thousands of years of history that can be studied, yet they focused on Morocco for what reason? Those sites are not in morocco. Or at least they haven't been found.
quote: The Combined Prehistoric Expedition argued and continues to argue (Jórdeczka et al. 2011, 2013) for the remains to be assigned domesticated status (Bos taurus), on the basis that the reconstructed ecological conditions were inadequate for aurochs to have been supported without human intervention and control. It was this argument, and the presence of early pottery, which led them to designate these earliest occupation layers ‘Neolithic’ (see Smith 1992, 2005, 2013 for a critique of the history and terminology). Their independent African domestication model hypothesised that these early Holocene cattle were brought from the Nile Valley, where there was adequate pasture and water, when the rains returned to the desert
The main difference here is that Africa evolved towards agriculture with pottery from a very early time, as they gradually developed techniques to try and tame various indigenous animal species and plants. While in the "Near East" the rise of animal and plant domestication was without pottery. You cannot just skip over the history of evolution towards domestication in Africa and assume that everything just popped up in the "Near East" or Europe and simply was transported to Africa lock stock and barrel. African pottery predates Bell Beaker pottery by many thousands of years. That is a vast oversimplification of tens of thousands of years of history.
[/QB]
You have a quote here form article about cattle domestication. The final paragraph says " Middle Euphrates Valley. "
Early North African Cattle Domestication and Its Ecological Setting: A Reassessment
The Combined Prehistoric Expedition argued and continues to argue (Jórdeczka et al. 2011, 2013) for the remains to be assigned domesticated status (Bos taurus), on the basis that the reconstructed ecological conditions were inadequate for aurochs to have been supported without human intervention and control. It was this argument, and the presence of early pottery, which led them to designate these earliest occupation layers ‘Neolithic’ (see Smith 1992, 2005, 2013 for a critique of the history and terminology). Their independent African domestication model hypothesised that these early Holocene cattle were brought from the Nile Valley, where there was adequate pasture and water, when the rains returned to the desert (Wendorf and Schild 1994).
_________________________
^^ So you have the wrong article to support your argument, it's this other article by Wendorf and Schild 1994
they say further:
_____________________
Early North African Cattle Domestication and Its Ecological Setting: A Reassessment
The single charcoal date of 9360 ± 70 bp from the Lower Level falls within the defined El Adam cultural entity and is listed by Wendorf and Schild (2001, Table 3.1) as ‘entity questionable’. However, the first study of plant remains (El Hadidi 1980) lists three types deriving from the Lower Level (El Adam phase). The majority of the plant remains derive from the Middle Level (El Nabta), while the remainder are from the Upper Level (Al Jerar). _________________________
^^ this article is arguing against what you are saying. There are many Wendorf and Schild articles in the reference which would support your position
Also in looking at your posts, the various article quotes don't show what article title or just the authors last name, so sometimes it's confusing as to if you are using the quote to criticize what's in the quote and what other quotes you might use to support your position. I don't think pottery alone prove agriculture but I have not read these Wendorf and Schild articles make additional claims for evidence I also don't make assumption about agriculture. There is more a need for agriculture and food storage in some places but not others. If food is not growing in some place there is a need for storage and developing grain. In some places like rains forests agriculture is difficult because there is tremendous weed growth and at the same time a lot more to forage and roots that are always available. Naturally a lot of agricultures will evolve out of necessity, in less abundant regions
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I don't understand why you bring this.
The topic was about Jebel Irhoud, wasn't it?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I don't understand why you bring this.
There wasn't one Nile Valley culture only and you forget eastern saharans too.
How many were there in Northeast Africa, according to you?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And I don't understand why you brought all of this while I was speaking about autosomal composition. I was talking about this
Just wondering.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia.
I haven't been in on this for a while. I have to be updated.
How is this any different from what I posted? If anything, doesn't it confirmed it.
quote: Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest.
Of course there is, the Greeks arrived before the Romans. And the story of Romulus and Remus is confirmed here.
I noticed these keywords:
quote: However, Late Neolithic individuals from North Africa are admixed, with a North African and a European component.
Unfortunately the table doesn't show the Tuareg. Perhaps they fall under the North and Saharawi in general?
quote:Europeans had dark skin, blue eyes 7,000 years ago
"The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin," Lalueza-Fox said.
quote:"Analysis of genes carried by Ice Age Europeans shows, among other things, that they had dark complexions and brown eyes. Only after 14,000 years ago did blue eyes begin to spread, and pale skin only appeared across much of the continent after 7,000 years ago - borne by early farmers from the Near East."
quote:"The first modern Britons, who lived about 10,000 years ago, had “dark to black” skin, a groundbreaking DNA analysis of Britain’s oldest complete skeleton has revealed."
quote: Compared with the rest of the African continent, North Africa has provided limited genomic data. Nonetheless, the genetic data available show a complex demographic scenario characterized by extensive admixture and drift. Despite the continuous gene flow from the Middle East, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, an autochthonous genetic component that dates back to pre-Holocene times is still present in North African groups. The comparison of ancient and modern genomes has evidenced a genetic continuity in the region since Epipaleolithic times. Later population movements, especially the gene flow from the Middle East associated with the Neolithic, have diluted the genetic autochthonous component, creating an east to west gradient. Recent historical movements, such as the Arabization, have also contributed to the genetic landscape observed currently in North Africa and have culturally transformed the region. Genome analyses have not shown evidence of a clear correlation between cultural and genetic diversity in North Africa, as there is no genetic pattern of differentiation between Tamazight (i.e. Berber) and Arab speakers as a whole. Besides the gene flow received from neighboring areas, the analysis of North African genomes has shown that the region has also acted as a source of gene flow since ancient times. As a result of the genetic uniqueness of North African groups and the lack of available data, there is an urgent need for the study of genetic variation in the region and its implications in health and disease.
Population history of North Africa based on modern and ancient genomes Marcel Lucas-Sánchez, Jose M Serradell, David Comas Author Notes Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 30, Issue R1, 1 March 2021, Pages R17–R23, https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddaa261
quote:Although useful to get a glimpse of the genetic history of a certain population, studies based on modern DNA variation are usually not suited for disentangling complex migration patterns. As several layers of migration have affected North Africa at different periods, recent human movements can erase or distort more ancient admixture signals. In these cases, obtaining ancient DNA from archaeological remains is more appropriate because it allows us to directly examining how the population changed through time. Because the two competing models proposed to explain the acquisition of farming technologies are based on either the existence or the absence of genetic admixture, ancient DNA analysis is a powerful tool to study the Neolithic transition. The reasoning behind this approach is quite simple: if the genetic composition of human remains from hunter-gatherers and farmers is similar, then the Neolithic transition happened through the movement of ideas rather than genes; on the other hand, if hunter-gatherers and early farmers are genetically different, then the spread of farming required the movement of people.
[…]
Genetic evidence from the indigenous people of the Canary Islands suggests that the impact of the European Neolithic gene flow could have been heterogeneous and that additional European ancestry could have reached North Africa between the 4th millennium BCE and the 1st century CE, probably related to the expansion of the Bell-Beaker culture in the Mediterranean.
Compared to ancient DNA evidence in Europe, our understanding of the genetic composition of prehistoric populations of North Africa is just a crude draft. Our present knowledge is only based on two specific archaeological sites from Morocco that are not representative of the whole North African region. Additional paleogenomics evidence from different archaeological sites from both western and eastern North Africa will be needed to comprehend the nuances of Neolithic transition on this region and the human movements that shaped Berber populations.
Chapter 7 Paleogenomics of the Neolithic Transition in North Africa
In: Africa, the Cradle of Human Diversity Author: Rosa Fregel
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The topic was about Jebel Irhoud, wasn't it?
no...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: How many were there in Northeast Africa, according to you?
Depends which period you want to look at
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Just wondering.
??? ..ok
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: How is this any different from what I posted? If anything it confirmed it.
none of what you said and posted actually adressed this.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Of course there is, the Greeks arrived before the Romans. And the story of Romulus and Remus is confirmed here.
Greeks only settled in cyrenaica not NW Africa and the authors were talking about late neolithic Morocco not VIth BC eastern libya. Moreover I don't see why you bring romulus and remus here ??
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Unfortunately the table doesn't show the Tuareg. Perhaps they fall under the North and Saharawi in general?
We actually do have some tuaregs here :
They have higher levels of SSA ancestry than other berbers which was expected.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Europeans had dark skin, blue eyes 7,000 years ago
"Analysis of genes carried by Ice Age Europeans shows, among other things, that they had dark complexions and brown eyes. Only after 14,000 years ago did blue eyes begin to spread, and pale skin only appeared across much of the continent after 7,000 years ago - borne by early farmers from the Near East." https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502
Yes but we're not talking about these europeans. We're talking about early european farmers not western hunter-gatherers and the former had SNPs for light skin :
quote:On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 11).
OK, I was under the assumption this was was mentioned?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Depends which period you want to look at
What do you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ??? ..ok
I haven't been in on this for a while. I have to be updated.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: none of what you said and posted actually adressed this.
It did shows North Africans going Into the Mediterranean.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Greeks only settled in cyrenaica not NW Africa and the authors were talking about late neolithic Morocco not VIth BC eastern libya. Moreover I don't see why you bring romulus and remus here ??
What is the population they connect to the late neolithic Morocco
The ancestral story of romulus and remus acknowledges to have moved into North Africa. That is why I brought it up.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: We actually do have some tuaregs here :
Ok, thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: We actually do have some tuaregs here : Yes but we're not talking about these europeans. We're talking about early european farmers not western hunter-gatherers and the former had SNPs for light skin :
Ok, I see a lot has changed throughout the last few years. I haven't followed these trends and latest papers, within the last few years. I have to read into the Kelif el Boroud (KEB) site.
Interesting to see how things have molded. Especially with the trends going on on social media. These trends seem to aline with "scientific discoveries".
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's just a synthesis of what we already know basically IBMs being the product of back migrations, long continuity in the region as seen with IAM and late neolithic european migration.
In order for people to "go back" they must have come from that place to begin with, correct?
What are the archeological findings that correlate with this history?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yet that conclusion does not apply to the Nile Valley or Sahara and therefore is blatantly wrong in claiming this applies to "all of north Africa".
And to see how this is blatantly false one only needs to look at places like Nabta Playa where the evidence for the transition to the Neolithic is much better documented archaeologically. Yet somehow Fregel is claiming that Morocco is a better site to study to understand the transition than Nabta Playa.
Come on you're really playing on semantics here simply because she used "north africa" instead of a more specific term. People aren't that dumb, they'll understand that paper is mostly focusing on Morocco. I've never seen someone using the taforalt/IAM results to draw conclusions about Egypt or the Sahara.
This part is interesting.
quote: IAM people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes.
quote: Ancient DNA obtained directly from hunter-gatherer and early farmer human remains from Morocco has provided the first paleogenomic evidence on the Neolithic transition in North Africa (Fregel et al., 2018, van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018).
If I am not mistaking Loosdrecht et al., 2018 explained the following:
quote: "For the Taforalt individuals to be considered as being Basal Eurasians, we expect that their genomes do not share significantly more alleles with the Neanderthal genome than that sub- Saharan Africans do."
(Marieke van de Loosdrecht, Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: OK, I was under the assumption this was was mentioned?
Not by me or the paper
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: What do you mean.
paleolithic,meso, neolithic, etc
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I haven't been in on this for a while. I have to be updated.
alright
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: It did shows North Africans going Into the Mediterranean.
what do you mean by this ?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: What is the population they connect to the late neolithic Morocco
The ancestral story of romulus and remus acknowledges to have moved into North Africa. That is why I brought it up.
They talked about early european farmers of Iberia (TOR in the paper) and do you have any source regarding romulus and remus I've never heard of this.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Ok, I see a lot has changed throughout the last few years. I haven't followed these trends and latest papers, within the last few years. I have to read into the Kelif el Boroud (KEB) site.
Alright no problem
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Interesting to see how things have molded. Especially with the trends going on on social media. These trends seem to aline with "scientific discoveries".
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: In order for people to "go back" they must have come from that place to begin with, correct?
What are the archeological findings that correlate with this history? [/QB]
It's more of an expression because the people who went back weren't necessarily similar to the people who first left Africa. Moreover don't forget the timeframe, we are talking about different back migrations at different periods.
Evidence are mostly genetic and anthropologic as far as I know even though we do have some like the cardium or bell beaker cultures some also hypothesized a foreign origin for the Dabban culture but I admit my knowledge is limited when it comes to prehistoric cultures especially when it comes to Egypt and the middle east.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Could that explain this:
quote: Ancient DNA obtained directly from hunter-gatherer and early farmer human remains from Morocco has provided the first paleogenomic evidence on the Neolithic transition in North Africa (Fregel et al., 2018, van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018).
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: If I am not mistaking Loosdrecht et al., 2018 explained the following:
quote: "For the Taforalt individuals to be considered as being Basal Eurasians, we expect that their genomes do not share significantly more alleles with the Neanderthal genome than that sub- Saharan Africans do."
(Marieke van de Loosdrecht, Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations)
Yes but they actually do :
quote:This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
posted
The bottom line point I am making is that the Neolithic transition in Africa took place first in the Sahara and Nile Valley. This is supported clearly by current archeology including earliest evidence towards cattle domestication, harvesting wild grains at Wadi Kubbaniya, coralling wild goats in the Sahara, the evidence from Nabta Playa and so forth. And along with that came the early rock art, early pottery and other technologies related to fishing and hunting. To claim that this transition started in North West Africa is false. Period.
quote: Results.
Our results reveal a geographic localization of two different lactase persistence variants in the Sahel: 13910*T west of Lake Chad (Fulani and Tuareg pastoralists) and 13915*G east of there (mostly Arabic-speaking pastoralists). We show that 13910*T has a more diversified haplotype background among the Fulani than among the Tuareg and that the age estimate for expansion of this variant among the Fulani (~8.5 ka) corresponds to introduction of cattle to the area.
Conclusions.
This is the first study showing that the 'Eurasian' lactase persistence allele 13910*T is widespread both in northern Europe and in the Sahel, where it is, however, limited to pastoralists. Since the Fulani haplotype with 13910*T is shared with contemporary Eurasians, its origin could be in a region encompassing the Near East and northeastern Africa in a population ancestral to both Saharan pastoralists and European farmers.
The key is that the rise of pastoralism does not require domestication of cattle. It is more of an evolutionary behavior and the facts are that hunted wild cattle were kept along with other wild beasts by Africans as part of survival strategy long before the rise of farming. But this gets downplayed in the discussion ignoring the fact that the ability to coral and cage wild animals is a key activity during later neolithic farming.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The bottom line point I am making is that the Neolithic transition in Africa took place first in the Sahara and Nile Valley. This is supported clearly by current archeology including earliest evidence towards cattle domestication, harvesting wild grains at Wadi Kubbaniya, coralling wild goats in the Sahara, the evidence from Nabta Playa and so forth. And along with that came the early rock art, early pottery and other technologies related to fishing and hunting. To claim that this transition started in North West Africa is false. Period.
quote: Results.
Our results reveal a geographic localization of two different lactase persistence variants in the Sahel: 13910*T west of Lake Chad (Fulani and Tuareg pastoralists) and 13915*G east of there (mostly Arabic-speaking pastoralists). We show that 13910*T has a more diversified haplotype background among the Fulani than among the Tuareg and that the age estimate for expansion of this variant among the Fulani (~8.5 ka) corresponds to introduction of cattle to the area.
Conclusions.
This is the first study showing that the 'Eurasian' lactase persistence allele 13910*T is widespread both in northern Europe and in the Sahel, where it is, however, limited to pastoralists. Since the Fulani haplotype with 13910*T is shared with contemporary Eurasians, its origin could be in a region encompassing the Near East and northeastern Africa in a population ancestral to both Saharan pastoralists and European farmers.
The key is that the rise of pastoralism does not require domestication of cattle. It is more of an evolutionary behavior and the facts are that hunted wild cattle were kept along with other wild beasts by Africans as part of survival strategy long before the rise of farming. But this gets downplayed in the discussion ignoring the fact that the ability to coral and cage wild animals is a key activity during later neolithic farming.
Where in the paper does it says it started in NW Africa ? Moreover the Sahel isn't a north african region.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Where in the paper does it says it started in NW Africa ? Moreover the Sahel isn't a north african region.
What is the title of the article and where in that article does it discuss evidences from outside Morocco?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Where in the paper does it says it started in NW Africa ? Moreover the Sahel isn't a north african region.
What is the title of the article and where in that article does it discuss evidences from outside Morocco?
Have you at least paid attention to their conclusion ? This is what they say :
quote:Compared to ancient DNA evidence in Europe, our understanding of the genetic composition of prehistoric populations of North Africa is just a crude draft. Our present knowledge is only based on two specific archaeological sites from Morocco that are not representative of the whole North African region. Additional paleogenomics evidence from different archaeological sites from both western and eastern North Africa will be needed to comprehend the nuances of Neolithic transition on this region and the human movements that shaped Berber populations.
So they are well aware it isn't necessarily representative but at least with the little informations we have, we can already have a glimpse of what happened in North-West Africa.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes they looked like this :
You do agree it's a complete imagination by the artist Elisabeth Daynes, do you? Here is more of her work link.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ???
It's in referce to the van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018 paper.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
The paper you cite is very interesting, I wonder how it correlates with these previous findings.
quote: For the most part, it has been the stone artifacts that have been used as the principal criteria for classifying assemblages into one or the other of these sets of terms. But beyond the lithic evidence are the potentially symbolic behaviors in the MSA as suggested by the perforated Nassarius shells, engraved ochre and ostrich eggshells, the unequivocal use of ochre, compound adhesives, bone tools, etc. (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2004, 2009; d’Errico et al., 2005, 2009; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007; Wadley, 2007; Backwell et al., 2008).
The Atero-Mousterian assemblages include some of these features as well, including Nas-sarius shells, such as those found at Oued Djebbana, Ifri n’Ammar, Rhafas, Taforalt, and Contrebandiers Cave (Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico et al., 2009; Nami and Moser, 2010; Dibble et al., 2012). When the characterization of the Atero-Mousterian is broadened beyond the lithic artifacts to include these other traits, and given that the tanged pieces themselves represent a distinct and innovative technological feature, the overall nature of the Atero-Mousterian fits well into the kinds of variability seen in other MSA industries of East and southern Africa.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
(Dibble HL et al., On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, J Hum Evol. 2013 Mar;64(3):194-210. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.10.010. Epub 2013 Feb 9.)
quote:Originally, the Aterian was considered to be the final phase of the local Mousterian/Middle Palaeolithic tradition, and thus mostly younger than 40 ka. Current data support a more asynchronous view. Integrating new dates for the sites of El Harhoura and El Mnasra with those from other sites published recently (Barton et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2010; Schwenninger et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011) suggest an older chronology, with a range of between 112 and 50 ka. Sub-divisions within the Aterian have been also recognized for some time, but based entirely on typology (Ruhlmann, 1945; Antoine, 1950a, b; Balout, 1955; Roche, 1969). Recently, Jacobs et al. (2012) proposed four phases to the MP/Aterian history in the Maghreb:
The traditional interpretation has been that the Aterian represents a local facies of the North African Mousterian, sometimes described as an ‘evolved Mousterian’ (Tixier, 1959; Balout, 1965), or as an ‘Epi- Mousterian’ (Bordes, 1961). From a technological perspective, the characterization of the generalized North African MP/MSA is not simple. Techno-typological definitions of the non-Aterian MP/MSA industries in the Maghreb are unclear: Aumassip (2001) suggests a relative rarity of retouched tools and a relatively high frequency of sidescrapers, while for others abundant and diversified side- scrapers mainly produced on Levallois blanks are what characterize non-Aterian MP/MSA assemblages in the area (Wengler, 2010: 68). However, non-Aterian regional variation in the MSA is high. Aumassip (2004) identifies a number of traditions within a scheme of Mousterian variation very similar to European Mousterian facies e (a) Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, rich in small bifaces and Levallois debitage, frequent in Morocco and the Maghrebian Sahara; (b) Denticulate Mousterian in Egypt and the Maghreb, rich in denticulates and notches; (c) Typical Mousterian across North Africa; (d) Ferrassie-type Mousterian in the Maghreb, rich in scrapers and points and without bifaces; (e) Nubian Mousterian in Egypt and Sudan, characterized by the Levallois production of Nubian points, as well as (f) the Khormusan, a distinct facies of the Sudanese record (Marks, 1968; Goder-Goldeger, 2013). However, Aumassip’s classification of the non-Aterian MP/MSA of North Africa has been criticized on the grounds that it uses a European rather than African framework, and specifically excludes a number of sites from this North African ‘Mousterian’ variation e those described by Clark and others as ‘Middle Stone Age’ in Niger and Mali, and a set of very localized industries, such as those from M’zab and Dede in Algeria. To these, one could add the Pre-Aurignacian of Cyrenaica (McBurney, 1967). This highlights the point made earlier, that to understand the Aterian and its relationship to the MSA requires a broader comparative approach to technology, and that comparative framework must be Africa.
Aterian origins have usually been thought to lie in the Maghreb (Debènath et al., 1986; Pasty, 1997), although this view has been strongly criticized (Kleindienst, 1998: 8). Alternative origins have been suggested in sub-Saharan Africa, pointing to affinities with industries with foliates, such as the Lupemban and Sangoan (Caton- Thompson, 1946; Clark, 1982, 2008; Kleindienst, 1998; Wengler, 2010; Garcea, 2012). Sub-Saharan links are pertinent, since all human fossil remains found in association with the Aterian are those of H. sapiens, thus representing one of the main regional early human populations of Africa prior to the colonization of Eurasia.
We would argue that the Central Sahara occupies a pivotal place in the origins and dispersals of modern humans, and that the MSA of Africa is the context in which we should be developing hypotheses. Following the re-dating of key Maghrebian sites, the recognition of the North African MSA diversity, and of its place within a broader complex of Mode 3 African industries, the Aterian could be considered as one among several MSA traditions that may have existed in North Africa.
Although these need chronological definition, MSA-making hominins could have occupied North Africa and the Sahara during several wet phases, both before and after MIS5, while the expansion of the Aterian during this latter period is consistent with the expansion of modern humans, and MSA sites and traditions, throughout Africa. Furthermore, Aterian and non-Aterian MSA assemblages are temporally interstratified at certain sites as Ifri N’Ammar in Morocco (Mikdad and Eiwanger, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2011) or El Guettar in Tunisia (Aouadi- Abdeljaouad and Belhouchet, 2008, 2012). Such dynamic demographic responses to changes in socio-ecological environments have been mapped in other MSA traditions of Africa, such as the Howieson’s Poort (Jacobs et al., 2008).
(Robert A. Foley er al., The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution)
quote:This is ∼2.1 (95% CI: 1.7–2.9) times longer than the TMRCA of A00 and other extant modern human Y-chromosome lineages. This estimate suggests that the Y-chromosome divergence mirrors the population divergence of Neandertals and modern human ancestors, and it refutes alternative scenarios of a relatively recent or super-archaic origin of Neandertal Y chromosomes.
(Fernando L. et al., The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes - April 2016)
quote:Genotyping of a DNA sample that was submitted to a commercial genetic-testing facility demonstrated that the Y chromosome of this African American individual carried the ancestral state of all known Y chromosome SNPs. To further characterize this lineage, which we dubbed A00 (see Figure S1, available online, for proposed nomenclature), we sequenced multiple regions (totaling ∼240 kb) of the X-degenerate portion of this chromosome, as well as a subset of these regions (∼180 kb) on a chromosome belonging to the previously known basal lineage A1b (which we rename here as A0).
(Michael F. Hammer Fernando L. Mendez et al., An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree)
quote: "old and an African form of Neanderthals"
(New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens)
quote:Recent data on Y chromosomes by Mendez et al 43 found evidence to support a model that placed the Neanderthal lineage as an outgroup to the modern human Y chromosomes, including A00,...
(Rene J. Herrera, Ralph Garcia-Bertrand Out of Africa a Southern route to Arabia (Pg. 117) Ancestral DNA, Human Origins, and Migrations)
quote: Recurrent Mutations
Four mutations were inconsistent with tree ii in Figure 1A. Non-A0 lineages in the 1000 Genomes panel34 share the reference allele at coordinate 2,710,154, and individuals in haplogroups B through T share the reference allele at 23,558,260. The two others were at coordinates 9,386,241 and 15,024,530.
(Fernando L.Mendez, The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes)
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You do agree it's a complete imagination by the artist Elisabeth Daynes, do you?
What would be the point of doing it based on "imagination" ? And if it was imagination why do the daynes studio wrote this :
quote:No use in any context outside of mainstream science without the express permission of Atelier Daynes.
and this is the description they give :
quote:Reconstruction of a Mechta-Afalou head based on fossils found at Afalou in Algeria (1967). These fossils date from 25,000 to 8,000 years ago.
The point is to show how these people looked like not to just invent new faces lol
Moreover the second pic I posted is a reconstruction based on Gerasimov's 1955 book, which provides data with soft tissue estimations, possible nose shapes based on the nose bridge of the skull, plenty of cranial measurements as well their reconstructions with detailed explanation.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote: For the most part, it has been the stone artifacts that have been used as the principal criteria for classifying assemblages into one or the other of these sets of terms. But beyond the lithic evidence are the potentially symbolic behaviors in the MSA as suggested by the perforated Nassarius shells, engraved ochre and ostrich eggshells, the unequivocal use of ochre, compound adhesives, bone tools, etc. (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2004, 2009; d’Errico et al., 2005, 2009; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007; Wadley, 2007; Backwell et al., 2008).
The Atero-Mousterian assemblages include some of these features as well, including Nas-sarius shells, such as those found at Oued Djebbana, Ifri n’Ammar, Rhafas, Taforalt, and Contrebandiers Cave (Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico et al., 2009; Nami and Moser, 2010; Dibble et al., 2012). When the characterization of the Atero-Mousterian is broadened beyond the lithic artifacts to include these other traits, and given that the tanged pieces themselves represent a distinct and innovative technological feature, the overall nature of the Atero-Mousterian fits well into the kinds of variability seen in other MSA industries of East and southern Africa.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
(Dibble HL et al., On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, J Hum Evol. 2013 Mar;64(3):194-210. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.10.010. Epub 2013 Feb 9.)
quote:Originally, the Aterian was considered to be the final phase of the local Mousterian/Middle Palaeolithic tradition, and thus mostly younger than 40 ka. Current data support a more asynchronous view. Integrating new dates for the sites of El Harhoura and El Mnasra with those from other sites published recently (Barton et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2010; Schwenninger et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011) suggest an older chronology, with a range of between 112 and 50 ka. Sub-divisions within the Aterian have been also recognized for some time, but based entirely on typology (Ruhlmann, 1945; Antoine, 1950a, b; Balout, 1955; Roche, 1969). Recently, Jacobs et al. (2012) proposed four phases to the MP/Aterian history in the Maghreb:
The traditional interpretation has been that the Aterian represents a local facies of the North African Mousterian, sometimes described as an ‘evolved Mousterian’ (Tixier, 1959; Balout, 1965), or as an ‘Epi- Mousterian’ (Bordes, 1961). From a technological perspective, the characterization of the generalized North African MP/MSA is not simple. Techno-typological definitions of the non-Aterian MP/MSA industries in the Maghreb are unclear: Aumassip (2001) suggests a relative rarity of retouched tools and a relatively high frequency of sidescrapers, while for others abundant and diversified side- scrapers mainly produced on Levallois blanks are what characterize non-Aterian MP/MSA assemblages in the area (Wengler, 2010: 68). However, non-Aterian regional variation in the MSA is high. Aumassip (2004) identifies a number of traditions within a scheme of Mousterian variation very similar to European Mousterian facies e (a) Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, rich in small bifaces and Levallois debitage, frequent in Morocco and the Maghrebian Sahara; (b) Denticulate Mousterian in Egypt and the Maghreb, rich in denticulates and notches; (c) Typical Mousterian across North Africa; (d) Ferrassie-type Mousterian in the Maghreb, rich in scrapers and points and without bifaces; (e) Nubian Mousterian in Egypt and Sudan, characterized by the Levallois production of Nubian points, as well as (f) the Khormusan, a distinct facies of the Sudanese record (Marks, 1968; Goder-Goldeger, 2013). However, Aumassip’s classification of the non-Aterian MP/MSA of North Africa has been criticized on the grounds that it uses a European rather than African framework, and specifically excludes a number of sites from this North African ‘Mousterian’ variation e those described by Clark and others as ‘Middle Stone Age’ in Niger and Mali, and a set of very localized industries, such as those from M’zab and Dede in Algeria. To these, one could add the Pre-Aurignacian of Cyrenaica (McBurney, 1967). This highlights the point made earlier, that to understand the Aterian and its relationship to the MSA requires a broader comparative approach to technology, and that comparative framework must be Africa.
Aterian origins have usually been thought to lie in the Maghreb (Debènath et al., 1986; Pasty, 1997), although this view has been strongly criticized (Kleindienst, 1998: 8). Alternative origins have been suggested in sub-Saharan Africa, pointing to affinities with industries with foliates, such as the Lupemban and Sangoan (Caton- Thompson, 1946; Clark, 1982, 2008; Kleindienst, 1998; Wengler, 2010; Garcea, 2012). Sub-Saharan links are pertinent, since all human fossil remains found in association with the Aterian are those of H. sapiens, thus representing one of the main regional early human populations of Africa prior to the colonization of Eurasia.
We would argue that the Central Sahara occupies a pivotal place in the origins and dispersals of modern humans, and that the MSA of Africa is the context in which we should be developing hypotheses. Following the re-dating of key Maghrebian sites, the recognition of the North African MSA diversity, and of its place within a broader complex of Mode 3 African industries, the Aterian could be considered as one among several MSA traditions that may have existed in North Africa.
Although these need chronological definition, MSA-making hominins could have occupied North Africa and the Sahara during several wet phases, both before and after MIS5, while the expansion of the Aterian during this latter period is consistent with the expansion of modern humans, and MSA sites and traditions, throughout Africa. Furthermore, Aterian and non-Aterian MSA assemblages are temporally interstratified at certain sites as Ifri N’Ammar in Morocco (Mikdad and Eiwanger, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2011) or El Guettar in Tunisia (Aouadi- Abdeljaouad and Belhouchet, 2008, 2012). Such dynamic demographic responses to changes in socio-ecological environments have been mapped in other MSA traditions of Africa, such as the Howieson’s Poort (Jacobs et al., 2008).
(Robert A. Foley er al., The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution)
quote:This is ∼2.1 (95% CI: 1.7–2.9) times longer than the TMRCA of A00 and other extant modern human Y-chromosome lineages. This estimate suggests that the Y-chromosome divergence mirrors the population divergence of Neandertals and modern human ancestors, and it refutes alternative scenarios of a relatively recent or super-archaic origin of Neandertal Y chromosomes.
(Fernando L. et al., The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes - April 2016)
quote:Genotyping of a DNA sample that was submitted to a commercial genetic-testing facility demonstrated that the Y chromosome of this African American individual carried the ancestral state of all known Y chromosome SNPs. To further characterize this lineage, which we dubbed A00 (see Figure S1, available online, for proposed nomenclature), we sequenced multiple regions (totaling ∼240 kb) of the X-degenerate portion of this chromosome, as well as a subset of these regions (∼180 kb) on a chromosome belonging to the previously known basal lineage A1b (which we rename here as A0).
(Michael F. Hammer Fernando L. Mendez et al., An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree)
quote: "old and an African form of Neanderthals"
(New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens)
quote:Recent data on Y chromosomes by Mendez et al 43 found evidence to support a model that placed the Neanderthal lineage as an outgroup to the modern human Y chromosomes, including A00,...
(Rene J. Herrera, Ralph Garcia-Bertrand Out of Africa a Southern route to Arabia (Pg. 117) Ancestral DNA, Human Origins, and Migrations)
quote: Recurrent Mutations
Four mutations were inconsistent with tree ii in Figure 1A. Non-A0 lineages in the 1000 Genomes panel34 share the reference allele at coordinate 2,710,154, and individuals in haplogroups B through T share the reference allele at 23,558,260. The two others were at coordinates 9,386,241 and 15,024,530.
(Fernando L.Mendez, The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes)
I don't understand why you post all of this ?? Are you aware IAM are not aterians or mousterians ? And jebel irhoud are not neanderthals, they only had neanderthal-like traits but overall they show links to homo sapiens sapiens (which is why it is now considered "proto-homo sapiens") :
quote: For their part, the Mousterians of Jebel Irhoud possess, in addition to Neanderthal characters, others proper to the Iberomaurusians, more particularly to those unearthed at Wadi Halfa (Nubia); they therefore correspond to an evolutionary stage prior to that of the Man of Dar-es-Soltane.
quote:You do agree it's a complete imagination by the artist Elisabeth Daynes, do you?
What would be the point of doing it based on "imagination" ? And if it was imagination why do the daynes studio wrote this :
quote:No use in any context outside of mainstream science without the express permission of Atelier Daynes.
and this is the description they give :
quote:Reconstruction of a Mechta-Afalou head based on fossils found at Afalou in Algeria (1967). These fossils date from 25,000 to 8,000 years ago.
The point is to show how these people looked like not to just invent new faces lol
Moreover the second pic I posted is a reconstruction based on Gerasimov's 1955 book, which provides data with soft tissue estimations, possible nose shapes based on the nose bridge of the skull, plenty of cranial measurements as well their reconstructions with detailed explanation.
You do understand it's becoming comical at this point with the biases that come from that "studio".
I challenge you to show me just 1 modern African reconstruction made by Elisabeth Daynes that doesn't look like "European type".
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The point is to show how these people looked like not to just invent new faces lol
Moreover the second pic I posted is a reconstruction based on Gerasimov's 1955 book, which provides data with soft tissue estimations, possible nose shapes based on the nose bridge of the skull, plenty of cranial measurements as well their reconstructions with detailed explanation.
Ok? This is from a blog by a former poster who was on here years ago:
Mechta and Afalou: Do they and the so-called "Mechtoids" constitute a type with the "Cro-Magnon"?
Remarkable how they came to different conclusion in these publications, isn't it?
quote: Libya and the Maghreb: If the archaeology of the Sahara’s southern margins remains relatively poorly understood, the Maghreb has long been the focus of sustained activity focused on the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (Lubell 2000, 2005). Here and at Haua Fteah in northeastern Libya, the Iberomaurusian industry introduced in Chapter 7 continued to be made into the terminal Pleistocene (McBurney 1967; Close and Wendorf 1990). Several unusual features are of interest, including evidence, rare at this time depth, for sculpture. This takes the form of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic figurines from Afalou, Algeria, baked from locally available clay to temperatures of 500◦–800◦C (Hachi 1996, Hachi et al. 2002). Dating 15–11 kya, they are complemented by an earlier fragmentary figurine from the nearby site of Tamar Hat (Saxon 1976). Distinctive, too, are the many burials known from these later Iberomaurusian contexts, including apparent cemeteries at Afalou (Hachi 1996) and Taforalt, Morocco (almost 200 individuals; Ferembach et al. 1962). Analysis of these remains (see inset) raises issues of territoriality, limited mobility, and group identity that economic data are still too few to explore further.
Knowing that people hunted Barbary sheep and other large mammals and that they collected molluscs, both terrestrial and marine, is very different from being able to develop this checklist of ingredients into a meaningful set of recipes or menus that could illuminate the details of Iberomaurusian subsistence-settlement strategies. WHAT BONES CAN TELL: BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE MAGHREB: The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artifacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998).
Turning to what can be learned about cultural practices and disease, the individuals from Taforalt, the largest sample by far, display little evidence of trauma, though they do suggest a high incidence of infant mortality, with evidence for dental caries, arthritis, and rheumatism among other degenerative conditions. Interestingly, Taforalt also provides one of the oldest known instances of the practice of trepanation, the surgical removal of a portion of the cranium; the patient evidently survived for some time, as there are signs of bone regrowth in the affected area. Another form of body modification was much more widespread and, indeed, a distinctive feature of the Iberomaurusian skeletal sample as a whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000).
(Lawrence Barham, The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology))
quote:Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb
Figure 6. Principal components analysis of craniofacial dimensions among Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
Table 3. Nine human populations sampled for craniometric analysis ranging in age from the Late Pleistocene (ca. 80,000 BP, Aterian) to the mid-Holocene (ca. 4000 BP) and in geographic distribution across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara [18], [19], [26], [27], [54]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002995.t003
(Paul C. Sereno, Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I don't understand why you post all of this ?? Are you aware IAM are not aterians or mousterians ? And jebel irhoud are not neanderthals, they only had neanderthal-like traits but overall they show links to homo sapiens sapiens (which is why it is now considered "proto-homo sapiens") :
The point is that 1) it shows actually industries coming form the Magreb ming into the Levant, 2) showing the correction with the Neanderthal long before any modern species migrated back to introduce introgression into the Africans populations.
It was you who posted the source connecting these remains to the Neanderthal, isn't it? What industry and techology did the bring with them, besides carrying some Neanderthal introgression?
quote:"However, it is also possible that farmers in North Africa migrated to Europe. From the genetic point of view, the idea of this prehistoric North African influx in Iberia is sustained by the presence of old European-specific lineages of North African origin.":
quote: Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka.
[...]
Another issue is related to the archaeological context. Although Acheulean industries appeared in Africa before 1.6 ma, they occurred for the first time in Europe between 600 and 500 ka. The simultaneity between the emergence of bifaces in Europe and the occurrence of similar forms of hominins on both sides of the Mediterranean can be seen as the likely result of an Out-of-Africa event, the Acheulean being imported into Europe by a new species of large-brained hominins. A date for the SH hominins displaying shared derived features with later Neandertals ca. 600 ka would imply that the phenotypic differentiation of the African and Western Eurasian population would immediately follow this migration.
Three evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the Neandertals: (A) depicts an early, (C) depicts a late, and (B) depicts an intermediate divergence time [modified from Rightmire (25)].
Scenarios A and C emphasize the role of these variations in the taxonomic assignment of the available fossil material, but one cannot overlook the similarities between the initial stages of the Western Eurasian clade and its African counterpart (34).
(J. J. Hublin, The origin of Neandertals, PNAS September 22, 2009 106 (38) 16022-16027)
quote: Notably, a recent study found lower proportions of Neanderthal ancestry in ancient genomes from the Middle East (Lazaridis et al. 2016). This study further identified high levels of basal Eurasian ancestry (Lazaridis et al. 2014) in these ancient West Asian genomes, which was negatively correlated with Neanderthal ancestry, suggesting that the hypothetical basal Eurasian lineage carried lower levels of Neanderthal ancestry than other ancestral Eurasian lineages (Lazaridis et al. 2016). The degree of basal Eurasian ancestry could also explain variation in Neanderthal ancestry among present-day West Eurasian genomes. For instance, a high level of basal Eurasian or sub-Saharan African ancestry could underlie the observation that there is a relatively low proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in a present-day Qatari Bedouin population as compared with European and some other Middle Eastern populations (Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016).
[…]
Heterogeneity especially with regards to varying levels of sub-Saharan or basal Eurasian ancestry may explain the elevated variation in allele sharing with Neanderthals among Western Asian genomes. This scenario would be consistent with the results of a previous study that found different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among three Qatari populations (Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016), possibly due to differences in their levels of sub-Saharan and basal Eurasian ancestries (Scott et al. 2016).
[…]
We replicated previous studies (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016) showing that contemporary Western Asian populations have similar or lower levels of Neanderthal introgression than other Eurasian populations. The presence of sub-Saharan African ancestry and possible ancestry from a basal Eurasian lineage with lower (or no) signatures of Neanderthal introgression are the most parsimonious explanations for this observation. We also find considerable variation in the levels of Neanderthal introgression among Western Asian populations (even between one sample-set to another from the Druze population), which we also attribute to variable sub-Saharan African ancestry.
(Recep Ozgur Taskent (2017), Variation and Functional Impact of Neanderthal Ancestry in Western Asia).
quote: These levels of Neanderthal admixture are consistent with an early divergence of Arab ancestors after the out- of-Africa bottleneck but before the major Neanderthal admixture events in Europe and other regions of Eurasia. When compared to worldwide populations sampled in the 1000 Genomes Project, although the indigenous Arabs had a signal of admixture with Europeans, they clustered in a basal, outgroup position to all 1000 Genomes non-Africans when considering pairwise similarity across the entire genome. These results place indigenous Arabs as the most distant relatives of all other contemporary non-Africans and identify these people as direct descendants of the first Eurasian populations established by the out-of-Africa migrations.
[…]
The neighbor-joining analysis re- vealed that 50 of the 56 Q1 (Bedouin), along with three Q2 (Persian-South Asian), one Q3 (African), and two Q0 (Subpopulation Unassigned) Qataris, clustered outside African lineages and were also the most extreme outgroup that are basal to all non-African popula- tions lacking recent African admixture (Fig. 6D).
[...]
Given that the Q1 (Bedouin) have the greatest proportion of Arab genetic ancestry measured in contemporary populations (Hodgson et al. 2014; Shriner et al. 2014) and are among the best genetic representatives of the autochthonous population on the Arabian Peninsula, these two conclusions therefore point to the Bedouins being direct de- scendants of the earliest split after the out-of-Africa migration events that established a basal Eurasian population (Lazaridis et al. 2014).
[…]
The basal position of the Q1 (Bedouin) also has inter- esting implications for theories about the frequency, timing, and path of major migration waves that established populations in Asia and Europe (Shi et al. 2008; Lazaridis et al. 2014; Shriner et al. 2014). A few isolated Asian populations were previously sus- pected to be descendants of a separate out-of-Africa migration wave based on Y Chromosome data (Hammer et al. 1998; Shi et al. 2008). Yet, distinct out-of-Africa migration events or separate migration waves emanating from the Arabian Peninsula into Europe and West Asia would be expected to place Bedouins/ Europeans and Asians on separate branches of a pairwise clustering tree, distinct from our finding that places the Q1 (Bedouin) as di- rect descendants of the earliest lineage that split from the ancient non-African population.
[…]
This is also consistent with the recent discovery of another anatomically modern human who lived 55,000 yr ago just northeast of the Arabian Peninsula that had morphological features similar to European peoples (Hershkovitz et al. 2015), where this individual could have been a descendant of the basal Eurasian population that remained on the peninsula.
(Juan L. Rodriguez-Flores (2016), Indigenous Arabs are descendants of the earliest split from ancient Eurasian populations)
From yo girl Elisabeth Daynes,
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the problem with this paper is it proposes that the Aterian tool industry is the cradle of human stone tool culture in "North Africa" going back 30,000 years ago. And that this culture is supposedly centered in and around Morocco which of course is near to Europe. However, the problem with this is that the Aterian was NOT the epicenter of human stone tool culture in North Africa and never has been.
point here is that they are using morocco because of its proximity to Europe in order to fabricate the idea that stone tool technology evolution in Africa required migration and interaction with Europeans, which is blatantly false. First the problem starts with the Aterian itself:
The technological character of the Aterian has been debated for almost a century, but has until recently eluded definition. The problems defining the industry have related to its research history and the fact that a number of similarities have been observed between the Aterian and other North African stone tool industries of the same date. Levallois reduction is widespread across the whole of North Africa throughout the Middle Stone Age, and scrapers and denticulates are ubiquitous. Bifacial foliates moreover represent a huge taxonomic category and the form and dimension of such foliates associated with tanged tools is extremely varied. There is also a significant variation of tanged tools themselves, with various forms representing both different tool types (e.g., knives, scrapers, points) and the degree tool resharpening.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: hahahah wtf what kind of paranoid post is that ? So now you'll refuse any paper on Morocco because it's close to Europe ? The paper literally said nothing about the origin of aterians nor did they say Iberomaurusians came from Europe.
And Aterian culture wasn't only found in Morocco :
The Aterian has been reported on the northern shores of Lake Chad for up to 25,000 years. It has been recognized south of the Tropic of Cancer (20th parallel), from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, from the Mediterranean to Chad, its industrial structure seems to have always preserved its technological constants and its stalk. https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/2712
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish you are relying on a lot of copy and paste to make an argument
Of course I do, how else is one going to refute some of the claims made in that paper? By using "my opinion"?
Let's apply logic here. If previous papers and studies say something else, what am I supposed to do according to you?
In retrospect it confirms many of the points made by Doug M, and the sources referenced by Doug M.
This paper makes no mention of any industry and or distribution. And that's problematic.
As Doug pointed out, there are inconsistencies in this paper and that happens to be a consistency.
Btw, Supplementary Note 10: f-statistic analyses by Rosa Fregel, Fernando L. Méndez and María C. Ávila-Arcos
Table S10.1 - Results for the f4-statistic test for IAM, comparing Levantine and African populations
quote:Considering the results recently obtained for Taforalt samples43, we tested if IAM has sub- Saharan ancestry using f4-statistic (Figure S10.3). For that, we calculated f4(Chimpanzee, sub-Saharan African population; Natufian, IAM). As reported for Taforalt, West African populations, such as Gambia, Mandenka or Esam, produce positive f4 values and significant Z scores, evidencing sub-Saharan African admixture.
A second point I'd like to make is the following:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: At face value this paper is garbage as it pushes many invalid talking points that don't make any sense. First it uses Morocco as the epicenter of "North Africa" when it is not now and never has been the primary "locus" of North African populations or cultural evolution. There is no discussion of the Nile Valley,
one could argue this is epicenter of all humanity, although it's a guess
_____________________________
As for the term "North Africa" used in anthropology I am against it and what you said here contributes to that The geography of it can be defined in several not agreed upon ways. I agree that the Maghreb should be considered different from the Eastern part which is oriented along a river system, the Nile
When I responded to the above with Jebel Irhoud findings, it was literally flip-flopped into let's not talk about this.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You do understand it's becoming comical at this point with the biases that come from that "studio".
I challenge you to show me just 1 modern African reconstruction made by Elisabeth Daynes that doesn't look like "European type".
The only thing where the studio might be wrong is when it comes to pigmentation that's why Philip Edwin made it darker and that's why his reconstruction looks like the second pic I posted.
She didn't made lots of reconstructions when it comes to Africa except IBM and a few archaic hominids. That's clearly not "imagination" :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Ok? This is from a blog by a former poster who was on here years ago:
Mechta and Afalou: Do they and the so-called "Mechtoids" constitute a type with the "Cro-Magnon"?
Remarkable how they came to different conclusion in these publications, isn't it?
It's seems that you and the author of this blog don't acknowledge the existing diversity among Iberomaurusian remains. Mechta-Afalou was already distinct from other IBM communities :
quote:We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and modern Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
Moreover the "afalou" remains of the Nile Valley shared more negroid affinities than the ones from NW Africa :
quote:Men of the Mechta-Afalou type were not located in the northern region of Africa. Other men of the Mechta-Afalus type, contemporary with the Afalus, were recently discovered in Jebel Sahaba in Lower Nubia (Wendorf, 1968), accompanied by a microlithic-dominated Qadian industry, related to the Iberomaurusian industry of North Africa. The whole of their features offer a certain kinship with the Men of Afalou, but with however important differences and an orientation towards negroid characteristics as well as the absence of any dental avulsion. This discovery rests the still unsolved problem of the origin of the Mechta-Afalou men of North Africa.
As for the other quotes you posted, they confirmed what we already knew about the presence of Iberomaurusians in the Sahara and their interactions with the proto-mediterranean capsians.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The point is that 1) it shows actually industries coming form the Magreb ming into the Levant, 2) showing the correction with the Neanderthal long before any modern species migrated back to introduce introgression into the Africans populations.
It was you who posted the source connecting these remains to the Neanderthal, isn't it? What industry and techology did the bring with them, besides carrying some Neanderthal introgression?
1)I already knew this but I shouldn't remind you that movements went both ways.
2) You implied IAM had no neanderthal admixture and that Jebel irhoud might have been some kind of african neanderthal which is false.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:"However, it is also possible that farmers in North Africa migrated to Europe. From the genetic point of view, the idea of this prehistoric North African influx in Iberia is sustained by the presence of old European-specific lineages of North African origin.":
quote: Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka.
[...]
Another issue is related to the archaeological context. Although Acheulean industries appeared in Africa before 1.6 ma, they occurred for the first time in Europe between 600 and 500 ka. The simultaneity between the emergence of bifaces in Europe and the occurrence of similar forms of hominins on both sides of the Mediterranean can be seen as the likely result of an Out-of-Africa event, the Acheulean being imported into Europe by a new species of large-brained hominins. A date for the SH hominins displaying shared derived features with later Neandertals ca. 600 ka would imply that the phenotypic differentiation of the African and Western Eurasian population would immediately follow this migration.
Three evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the Neandertals: (A) depicts an early, (C) depicts a late, and (B) depicts an intermediate divergence time [modified from Rightmire (25)].
Scenarios A and C emphasize the role of these variations in the taxonomic assignment of the available fossil material, but one cannot overlook the similarities between the initial stages of the Western Eurasian clade and its African counterpart (34).
(J. J. Hublin, The origin of Neandertals, PNAS September 22, 2009 106 (38) 16022-16027)
quote: Notably, a recent study found lower proportions of Neanderthal ancestry in ancient genomes from the Middle East (Lazaridis et al. 2016). This study further identified high levels of basal Eurasian ancestry (Lazaridis et al. 2014) in these ancient West Asian genomes, which was negatively correlated with Neanderthal ancestry, suggesting that the hypothetical basal Eurasian lineage carried lower levels of Neanderthal ancestry than other ancestral Eurasian lineages (Lazaridis et al. 2016). The degree of basal Eurasian ancestry could also explain variation in Neanderthal ancestry among present-day West Eurasian genomes. For instance, a high level of basal Eurasian or sub-Saharan African ancestry could underlie the observation that there is a relatively low proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in a present-day Qatari Bedouin population as compared with European and some other Middle Eastern populations (Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016).
[…]
Heterogeneity especially with regards to varying levels of sub-Saharan or basal Eurasian ancestry may explain the elevated variation in allele sharing with Neanderthals among Western Asian genomes. This scenario would be consistent with the results of a previous study that found different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among three Qatari populations (Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016), possibly due to differences in their levels of sub-Saharan and basal Eurasian ancestries (Scott et al. 2016).
[…]
We replicated previous studies (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Rodriguez-Flores et al. 2016) showing that contemporary Western Asian populations have similar or lower levels of Neanderthal introgression than other Eurasian populations. The presence of sub-Saharan African ancestry and possible ancestry from a basal Eurasian lineage with lower (or no) signatures of Neanderthal introgression are the most parsimonious explanations for this observation. We also find considerable variation in the levels of Neanderthal introgression among Western Asian populations (even between one sample-set to another from the Druze population), which we also attribute to variable sub-Saharan African ancestry.
(Recep Ozgur Taskent (2017), Variation and Functional Impact of Neanderthal Ancestry in Western Asia).
quote: These levels of Neanderthal admixture are consistent with an early divergence of Arab ancestors after the out- of-Africa bottleneck but before the major Neanderthal admixture events in Europe and other regions of Eurasia. When compared to worldwide populations sampled in the 1000 Genomes Project, although the indigenous Arabs had a signal of admixture with Europeans, they clustered in a basal, outgroup position to all 1000 Genomes non-Africans when considering pairwise similarity across the entire genome. These results place indigenous Arabs as the most distant relatives of all other contemporary non-Africans and identify these people as direct descendants of the first Eurasian populations established by the out-of-Africa migrations.
[…]
The neighbor-joining analysis re- vealed that 50 of the 56 Q1 (Bedouin), along with three Q2 (Persian-South Asian), one Q3 (African), and two Q0 (Subpopulation Unassigned) Qataris, clustered outside African lineages and were also the most extreme outgroup that are basal to all non-African popula- tions lacking recent African admixture (Fig. 6D).
[...]
Given that the Q1 (Bedouin) have the greatest proportion of Arab genetic ancestry measured in contemporary populations (Hodgson et al. 2014; Shriner et al. 2014) and are among the best genetic representatives of the autochthonous population on the Arabian Peninsula, these two conclusions therefore point to the Bedouins being direct de- scendants of the earliest split after the out-of-Africa migration events that established a basal Eurasian population (Lazaridis et al. 2014).
[…]
The basal position of the Q1 (Bedouin) also has inter- esting implications for theories about the frequency, timing, and path of major migration waves that established populations in Asia and Europe (Shi et al. 2008; Lazaridis et al. 2014; Shriner et al. 2014). A few isolated Asian populations were previously sus- pected to be descendants of a separate out-of-Africa migration wave based on Y Chromosome data (Hammer et al. 1998; Shi et al. 2008). Yet, distinct out-of-Africa migration events or separate migration waves emanating from the Arabian Peninsula into Europe and West Asia would be expected to place Bedouins/ Europeans and Asians on separate branches of a pairwise clustering tree, distinct from our finding that places the Q1 (Bedouin) as di- rect descendants of the earliest lineage that split from the ancient non-African population.
[…]
This is also consistent with the recent discovery of another anatomically modern human who lived 55,000 yr ago just northeast of the Arabian Peninsula that had morphological features similar to European peoples (Hershkovitz et al. 2015), where this individual could have been a descendant of the basal Eurasian population that remained on the peninsula.
(Juan L. Rodriguez-Flores (2016), Indigenous Arabs are descendants of the earliest split from ancient Eurasian populations)
1) You seem to mix cultures and genetics without taking timeframe into account anyway your first source also shows that a massive influx of iberian settlers settled in Morocco during the late neolithic so again such movements can go both ways there was nothing to prevent europeans or levantines to settle in Africa and vice versa.
2) Your second quote is about "hominins of african origin" "600 ka" so this does not concern modern humans ; it also doesn't prevent north africans from acquiring neanderthal alleles much later in History especially that there is no continuity between these "hominins" and groups like Iberomaurusians or even aterians.
3)Your basal eurasian quotes actually contradict your claim since it would mean that despite this "acheulean" african migration to eurasia, sub-saharan or basal eurasian ancestry actually lowers the level of neanderthal ancestry and do not increase it therefore what does that mean for IAM having neanderthal alleles ?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: From yo girl Elisabeth Daynes,
[/QB]
Actually some neanderthals had light skin, red hair, etc :
quote:a postdoctoral researcher working with Hopi E. Hoekstra in Harvard's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. "The two Neanderthal individuals we studied showed a point mutation not seen in modern humans. When we induced such a mutation in human cells, we found that it impaired MC1R activity, a condition that leads to red hair and pale skin in modern humans ."
You can add a dark skin to that reconstruction, it won't change much.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a long time, the absence of true Upper Paleolithic cultures in the Maghreb and Sahara has been accepted. Neither the Iberomaurusian nor, a fortiori, the Capsian appear to have originated from the Aterian, whose lithic industry is still mainly of the Middle Paleolithic type. As a result, the Iberomaurusian and the Capsian appear to be of allochthonous origin.
This paper makes no mention of any industry and or distribution. And that's problematic.
what ?? they actually keep talking about industries like the iberomaurusian one, capsian, cardium/cardial, bell beaker, etc
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The only thing where the studio might be wrong is when it comes to pigmentation that's why Philip Edwin made it darker and that's why his reconstruction looks like the second pic I posted.
She didn't made lots of reconstructions when it comes to Africa except IBM and a few archaic hominids. That's clearly not "imagination"
Of course she did not. And no, I am not asking about archaic hominids.
What information is there on the hair texture?
Most of her reconstructions are ironic and comical.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's seems that you and the author of this blog don't acknowledge the existing diversity among Iberomaurusian remains. Mechta-Afalou was already distinct from other IBM communities :
The author is known as the poster Supercar. He's no longer on here, from what I understand. And yes, the author does acknowledge the existing diversity among Iberomaurusian remains. Al of this was already discussed on this site, that's why I recall a lot of the older data. In fact he did speak touch on "Collin Groves, whose reactionary approach to bio-anthropology is all too apparent, the following was presented in his paper of “The terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of northern Africa”, 1999."
It so happens to be that the claim made by Collin Groves was refuted by other data. Data you don't acknowledge.
What apparently skipped on you here is the chronology in these studies. You are posting data that has been refuted by later studies. That's comical. The 1999 Collin Groves and Wendorf, 1968 encountered a problem, this problem was solved by later studies. the aforementioned I have posted.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As for the other quotes you posted, they confirmed what we already knew about the presence of Iberomaurusians in the Sahara and their interactions with the proto-mediterranean capsians.
Yes, indeed they confirmed the Iberomaurusians interactions. However, these show streams from Africa into the Levant and Southern Europe. And I am not surprised.
quote:"However, it is also possible that farmers in North Africa migrated to Europe. From the genetic point of view, the idea of this prehistoric North African influx in Iberia is sustained by the presence of old European-specific lineages of North African origin.":
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
(Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al., Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013))
quote:Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this 'real-time' genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
(Brotherton P1, Haak W, Templeton J, Nat Commun. 2013;4:1764. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2656. Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans.)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: 1)I already knew this but I shouldn't remind you that movements went both ways.
2) You implied IAM had no neanderthal admixture and that Jebel irhoud might have been some kind of african neanderthal which is false.
1) You are one of the very few to acknowledge this.
2) I am implying that they may already had it before anyone back migrated. The authors seem to imply that the Neanderthal introgression can determine back migrations into Africa. It's pure speculation. Nor did I claim that Jebel irhoud was a Neanderthal variant. The papers say that Neanderthals were in Africa moved out of Africa and "back migrated to Africa, prior to in the introgression into the homo sapience. But yeah, as you said in your opening statement, it was bidirectional.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: 1) You seem to mix cultures and genetics without taking timeframe into account anyway your first source also shows that a massive influx of iberian settlers settled in Morocco during the late neolithic so again such movements can go both ways there was nothing to prevent europeans or levantines to settle in Africa and vice versa.
quote: "Between 139kya and 125kya the Neanderthals migrated back into africa and spread from Morocco to East Africa"
(Ki-Zerbo, 1981,p.572).
quote:Furthermore, we merged the information for three archaic hominins, two Neanderthals (Prüfer et al 2014) and one Denisovan (Meyer et al 2012) with dat2a using the same approach as described for the ancient humans above. Then the f4-ratio f4(Denisovan,Altai Neanderthal; Juhoansi, X))/f4(Denisovan, Altai Neanderthal; Juhoansi, Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal) was used to explore the Neanderthal contribution to East African populations (Figure 9B). Neanderthal and Eurasian proportions are highly correlated (0.92349), suggesting that the Eurasian back-admixture is the source of all Neanderthal ancestry in North-East Africa (Figure 9C) as shown previously by Haber et al. 2016 (35).
~Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson
2) Your second quote is about "hominins of african origin" "600 ka" so this does not concern modern humans ; it also doesn't prevent north africans from acquiring neanderthal alleles much later in History especially that there is no continuity between these "hominins" and groups like Iberomaurusians or even aterians.
3)Your basal eurasian quotes actually contradict your claim since it would mean that despite this "acheulean" african migration to eurasia, sub-saharan or basal eurasian ancestry actually lowers the level of neanderthal ancestry and do not increase it therefore what does that mean for IAM having neanderthal alleles ?
1) No I am reviewing the history of the many industries prior to what is claimed by the authors. And I touch on many possibilities.
2) It does concern the Neanderthals.
3) The Eurasian basal is hypothesized. And it depends on when this introgression took place.
quote: We investigate its divergence from orthologous chimpanzee and modern human sequences and find strong support for a model that places the Neandertal lineage as an outgroup to modern human Y chromosomes—including A00, the highly divergent basal haplogroup.
We called bases for both the Neandertal and A00 sequences by using SAMtools
(Fernando L.Mendez, The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually some neanderthals had light skin, red hair, etc :
Yes, some did in later times.
Ironically the artist in question has an "agenda" to fulfill. Show me any Neanderthal reconstruction made by Elisabeth Daynes that shows Neanderthal with the darker variants?
"bones of a 43,000-year-old Neanderthal from El Sidrón, Spain, and a 50,000-year-old individual from Monti Lessini, Italy."
quote:For a long time, the absence of true Upper Paleolithic cultures in the Maghreb and Sahara has been accepted. Neither the Iberomaurusian nor, a fortiori, the Capsian appear to have originated from the Aterian, whose lithic industry is still mainly of the Middle Paleolithic type. As a result, the Iberomaurusian and the Capsian appear to be of allochthonous origin.
The point was to understand the dynamic better pertaining these industries and distributions on the African continent to see how these relate to one another, or not
quote: The Aurignacian period (40,000 to 28,000 years ago) is an Upper Paleolithic stone tool tradition, usually considered associated with both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals throughout Europe and parts of Africa. The Aurignacian's big leap forward is the production of blade tools by flaking pieces of stone off a larger piece of stone, thought to be an indication of more refined tool making.
But yeah, I did skip over the Iberomaurusian, Fortiori and Capsian industries.
Thanks for the 1996 paper by G. Camps, (Épipaléolithique », Encyclopédie berbère, 17 | 1996, 2655-2658)
While reading up on some of this I bumped into this here and no, I am not making any suggestions, but it's an interesting observation:
quote: In the 1940s, Leakey replaced the Aurignacian component of the name with Capsian, after he recognised similarities with the Capsian of North Africa (Leakey 1947). The motivation for this change was likely the influence of colleagues from Cambridge and Africa (Cole 1975), who, like Leakey himself, recognised that there were terminological issues arising from the use of European nomenclature and recommended an African name for an African industry (Leakey 1950). Such recommendations would later be ratified by the Burg-Wartenstein protocol on precision and definition in archaeological terminology (Clark et al. 1966).
This paper makes no mention of any industry and or distribution. And that's problematic.
what ?? they actually keep talking about industries like the iberomaurusian one, capsian, cardium/cardial, bell beaker, etc
Yes, I did skip over that. I recall reading it, but due to me multi tasking many things it skipped on me at the time I wrote that. I just was not able to see a direct correlation.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: What information is there on the hair texture?
quote:The TCHH1 gene codes for trichohyalin, a protein active in hair follicle roots. For all Taforalt individuals we find the derived homozygous AA genotype for SNP rs17646946 in this gene, which has been associated with straighter hair in Europeans (allelic effect (ß) = 0.4-0.5, explained variance = 6.11%) (98).
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Most of her reconstructions are ironic and comical.
That's your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The author is known as the poster Supercar. He's no longer on here, from what I understand. And yes, the author does acknowledge the existing diversity among Iberomaurusian remains. Al of this was already discussed on this site, that's why I recall a lot of the older data. In fact he did speak touch on "Collin Groves, whose reactionary approach to bio-anthropology is all too apparent, the following was presented in his paper of “The terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of northern Africa”, 1999."
It so happens to be that the claim made by Collin Groves was refuted by other data. Data you don't acknowledge. What apparently skipped on you here is the chronology in these studies. You are posting data that has been refuted by later studies. That's comical. The 1999 Collin Groves and Wendorf, 1968 encountered a problem, this problem was solved by later studies. the aforementioned I have posted.
Well if you want something that postdate Collin's work no problem :
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Yes, indeed they confirmed the Iberomaurusians interactions. However, these show streams from Africa into the Levant and Southern Europe. And I am not surprised.
quote:"However, it is also possible that farmers in North Africa migrated to Europe. From the genetic point of view, the idea of this prehistoric North African influx in Iberia is sustained by the presence of old European-specific lineages of North African origin.":
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
(Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al., Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013))
quote:Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this 'real-time' genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
(Brotherton P1, Haak W, Templeton J, Nat Commun. 2013;4:1764. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2656. Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans.)
Again you mix up very different populations and Eras without taking the context into account but again these movements were not unidirectional. It's already well known that south europeans and especially Iberians have proper north african ancestry and haplotypes but it's also well known that north africans have neolithic and chalcolithic iberian ancestry. Moreover a good part of their north african ancestry is in fact medieval.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: 2) I am implying that they may already had it before anyone back migrated. The authors seem to imply that the Neanderthal introgression can determine back migrations into Africa. It's pure speculation. Nor did I claim that Jebel irhoud was a Neanderthal variant. The papers say that Neanderthals were in Africa moved out of Africa and "back migrated to Africa, prior to in the introgression into the homo sapience. But yeah, as you said in your opening statement, it was bidirectional.
That's really far-fetched since the scientific consensus is clear about the absence of neanderthal remains in Africa. Jebel irhoud people were not neanderthals :
quote:We identified a mosaic of features including facial, mandibular and dental morphology that aligns the Jebel Irhoud material with early or recent anatomically modern humans and more primitive neurocranial and endocranial morphology. In combination with an age of 315 ± 34 thousand years (as determined by thermoluminescence dating)3, this evidence makes Jebel Irhoud the oldest and richest African Middle Stone Age hominin site that documents early stages of the H. sapiens clade in which key features of modern morphology were established.
Moreover you'll have to prove a genetic continuity between jebel irhoud (315±34 thousand years) and IAM (VIth-Vth millenium BC) and at the same time proving that no eurasian migrations occured during that timeframe...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Furthermore, we merged the information for three archaic hominins, two Neanderthals (Prüfer et al 2014) and one Denisovan (Meyer et al 2012) with dat2a using the same approach as described for the ancient humans above. Then the f4-ratio f4(Denisovan,Altai Neanderthal; Juhoansi, X))/f4(Denisovan, Altai Neanderthal; Juhoansi, Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal) was used to explore the Neanderthal contribution to East African populations (Figure 9B). Neanderthal and Eurasian proportions are highly correlated (0.92349), suggesting that the Eurasian back-admixture is the source of all Neanderthal ancestry in North-East Africa (Figure 9C) as shown previously by Haber et al. 2016 (35).
~Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson
So it confirms that such type of admixture was brought in Africa by eurasian back migrations.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: 1) No I am reviewing the history of the many industries prior to what is claimed by the authors. And I touch on many possibilities.
2) It does concern the Neanderthals.
3) The Eurasian basal is hypothesized. And it depends on when this introgression took place.
1) so it's your personal review and it's "possibilities" not facts
2) It would explain eurasian geneflow into neanderthals not neanderthal ancestry among african populations. It's not only shared alleles but proper neanderthal ancestry :
quote:We applied IBDmix to 2,504 individuals from geographically diverse populations to identify and analyze Neanderthal sequences segregating in modern humans. Strikingly, we find that African individuals carry a stronger signal of Neanderthal ancestry than previously thought. We show that this can be explained by genuine Neanderthal ancestry due to migrations back to Africa, predominately from ancestral Europeans, and gene flow into Neanderthals from an early dispersing group of humans out of Africa.
Chen et al; Identifying and Interpreting Apparent Neanderthal Ancestry in African Individuals (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012)
Moreover it would means you also don't acknowledge all the other evidence of such eurasian introgression especially when it comes to taforalt and IAM...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Yes, some did and some didn't in later times.
Ironically the artist in question has an "agenda" to fulfill. Show me any Neanderthal reconstruction made by Elisabeth Daynes that shows Neanderthal with the darker variants?
"bones of a 43,000-year-old Neanderthal from El Sidrón, Spain, and a 50,000-year-old individual from Monti Lessini, Italy."
Also why do you care so much about the pigmentation of a non homo sapiens specie ? They aren't even related to modern humans lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The TCHH1 gene codes for trichohyalin, a protein active in hair follicle roots. For all Taforalt individuals we find the derived homozygous AA genotype for SNP rs17646946 in this gene, which has been associated with straighter hair in Europeans (allelic effect (ß) = 0.4-0.5, explained variance = 6.11%) (98).
Thanks for this one. Going to look more not these alleles. It's interesting how on average a Magrebian will have afro textured hair, to various degrees.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's your opinion.
More like an observation on her previous work going back years, long before we had these alleles to our disposal.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Well if you want something that postdate Collin's work no problem :
The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data.
As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits.
(T. W. HOLLIDAY, Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Again you mix up very different populations and Eras without taking the context into account but again these movements were not unidirectional. It's already well known that south europeans and especially Iberians have proper north african ancestry and haplotypes but it's also well known that north africans have neolithic and chalcolithic iberian ancestry. Moreover a good part of their north african ancestry is in fact medieval.
I am indeed trying to figuring out more about these migrations and specific populations, but also how these populations stood against on another in the region in cultural practices influences etc. The paper by Brotherton P and Haak W, Templeton spoke of the "Bell Beakers".
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's really far-fetched since the scientific consensus is clear about the absence of neanderthal remains in Africa. Jebel irhoud people were not neanderthals :
A scientific consensus is based on common agreement, true. And no, I did not say Jebel irhoud are were Neanderthals. I ams speaking of the industries. Older industries are associated with Neanderthals on the African continent.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover you'll have to prove a genetic continuity between jebel irhoud (315±34 thousand years) and IAM (VIth-Vth millenium BC) and at the same time proving that no eurasian migrations occured during that timeframe...
Moreover, I never stated anything like this. Jebel irhoud was first mentioned by The Lioness. For whatever reasons, I don't know. After that you posted something about the oldest in North Africa, and based on this I inserted my post on Jebel irhoud.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So it confirms that such type of admixture was brought in Africa by eurasian back migrations.
No, what to confirms is you being very selective in accepting data. Since you skipped over all the other data.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: 1) so it's your personal review and it's "possibilities" not facts
2) It would explain eurasian geneflow into neanderthals not neanderthal ancestry among african populations. It's not only shared alleles but proper neanderthal ancestry :
1) All these papers are based on possibilities and hypothesis and theories. Not facts!
2) It would explained it, if true. The African continent is much larger than Europe and most Africans have not even been tested. In fact that use the same database over and over.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover it would means you also don't acknowledge all the other evidence of such eurasian introgression especially when it comes to taforalt and IAM...
Some of it can be correct and some indeed doesn't have to be. There is a reason why there's constant back and forth going on and refutations.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Also why do you care so much about the pigmentation of a non homo sapiens specie ? They aren't even related to modern humans lol
How is that similar a contemporary SSA? But yeah as you said, they aren't even related to modern humans lol
So to who are modern humans related?
quote: Mendez and colleagues reported the identification of a Y chromosome haplotype (the A00 lineage) that lies at the basal position of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. Incorporating this haplotype, the authors estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree to be 338 000 years ago (95% CI=237 000–581 000). Such an extraordinarily early estimate contradicts all previous estimates in the literature and is over a 100 000 years older than the earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans.
Why I care about it, is for the same reason Eurocentrism has always cared about whitening history. I just happen to be aware of this old anthropology from the 17th, 18th and 19th century.
Doug M is right about a lot in his observation.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic