posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Perhaps if people would stop feeding the troll, he would starve and disappear. That's went back to actually discussing the topic of this thread since the troll is too dumb to realize he was debunked ages ago with sources that he keeps asking for!

---

Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I might ask somebody a question 3 times in a thread
but if I get still no answer I'll quit.
When a question is asked 10, 20 times etc in the same thread it becomes trolling harassment
It should be obvious they don't want to answer the question.
This is regardless of if the question is even valid or not

---

Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them.

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian.

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian.

---

As Brandon pointed out, the problem is that Natufians are themselves a mixture of ANA, Basal Eurasian, not to mention some Anatolian admixture.

quote:

---

As Tukuler once explained:

Natufians are known to be crossbred. If the royal blue Anatoli element reps
Natufian 'Eurasian' parentage then surely the brown reps African heritage.

All the peoples below have only two or three major components.

Natufian: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
Levant N: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
AbusirEg: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue + Caucasus Sky Blue

Beduin B: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Teimani: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Saudi: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue

Beta Israel: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel
Somali: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel



Bronze Age Levant has less than 50% Erythrea and interjects the Maghreb geography
coming next. Other than that it'd be with the Levantine-Abusir brown/royal/sky set.

Though placed here for their majority brown, Beduin B, Yemenite Jew, and Saudi
would otherwise fit in the upcoming Mashreq brown/sky/ set.

---

Compare with Loosdrecht et al. 2018



According to Loosdrecht even the Anatolians were admixed including Hadza ancestry.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2


We show that this haplogroup [J1-M267] evolved 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. *The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia.* Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.

The imbecile hides behind his straw doll of Kura-Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C. — c. 2,000 B.C.)

Kura-Araxes


Yet he ignores the Halafian Culture (c. 6500 B.C. – c. 5500 B.C.), the Samarra Culture (c. 5500 B.C. - c. 4800 B.C.), and the Hassuna Culture (c. 5750 B.C. – c. 5350 B.C.)



All in the homeland of Abraham-- Ur (not to be confused with Sumerian Ur in southern Mesopotamia)



These were the Bronze Age cultures during the time of Abraham.



^ Note that the Eblaite Empire was comprised of Semitic speakers with the Eblaites themselves being East-Semitic speakers like the Akkadians. The Hebrews are West Semitic speakers.

---

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them. [/qb]

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian. [/QB]

---

Figure 2.
An admixture graph model of Paleolithic West Eurasians.

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry
Iosif Lazaridis, 2018

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full

_______________________________________


^ The term ANA means "Ancient North Asian"

The above chart is the only science article where you'll "Ancestral North African"
The term is not used in the article other than on this chart and not as "ANA" either

He does use these other abbreviated terms>>

Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE)

European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (ESHG)

‘Ancient North Eurasians’ (ANE)

Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG)

_________________________________________

My thread on this term:

Topic: "ANA" means Ancient Northeast Asian not "Ancestral North African "

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=8;t=010935;replyto=000000

________________________


What is ancestral North Africa?

__________________

Discovery of oldest Homo sapiens in Morocco rewrites human history
How long has our species been around? New fossils from Morocco push the evidence back by about 100,000 years.

The bones, about 300,000 years old, were unearthed thousands of miles from the previous record-holder, found in fossil-rich eastern Africa. The new discovery reveals people from an early stage of our species' evolution, with a mix of modern and more primitive traits.


Previously, the oldest known fossils clearly from Homo sapiens were from Ethiopia, at about 195,000 years old.

____________________________


Aterian

The Aterian is a Middle Stone Age (or Middle Palaeolithic) stone tool industry centered in North Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt, but also possibly found in Oman and the Thar Desert.[2][3] The earliest Aterian dates to c. 150,000 years ago, at the site of Ifri n'Ammar in Morocco.[4] However, most of the early dates cluster around the beginning of the Last Interglacial, around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, when the environment of North Africa began to ameliorate.[5] The Aterian disappeared around 20,000 years ago.

________________________

The Iberomaurusian is a backed bladelet lithic industry found near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. It is also known from a single major site in Libya, the Haua Fteah, where the industry is locally known as the Eastern Oranian.[note 1] The Iberomaurusian seems to have appeared around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), somewhere between c. 25,000 and 23,000 cal BP. It would have lasted until the early Holocene c. 11,000 cal BP.

Marieke Van de Loosdrecht et al. (2018) did a full genome-wide analysis including Y-DNA from seven ancient individuals from the Taforalt site. The fossils were directly dated to between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present. All males at Taforalt belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78).

23 individuals from the original 2005 Taforalt sample were determined in Kefi's 2016 article to be of the maternal genetic lineage U6 and of Eurasian haplogroups H, U, R0 and at the Algerian Afalou site maternal groups were JT, J, T, H, R0a1 and U.

_________________________________________


Since they have not recovered the DNA of those much older fossils in Morocco and Aterians I would not use the term "Ancestral North African"
even though Lazaridis has that on the above chart

I think it's less vague to talk about
Iberomaurusian (Iberomaurusian)
This is implication of the above chart
You see the downstream of "Ancestral North African" are the Iberomaurusians at Taforalt Moerocco and (Afalou in Algeria)
and Taforalt was E1b1b1a1 (M-78) and Eurasian ancestry on the female side

It's not clear if Taforalt/Afalou paternal genetic ancestry goes all the way back to Aterians and these very old Moroccan skulls and it's unknown what the maternal ancestry of those older "Ancestral" people was
So "Ancestral North African" is unknown at this time

He also has "Basal Eurasian" in the chart mixed in
real populations with remains and "Basal Eurasian"
is hypothetical

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This was clarified in the 2018 Loosdrecht study.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The nomenclature "Ancestral North African" was spotted by the QPgraph of Lazaridis, it isn't used in text. Loosdrecht never investigated a possibility of local ancestry but the results of lazaridis have been replicated. See Ghost North African in this study.

Also from this point on it is generally accepted though seldomly reported that those North African samples are a product of a mixture of local North African ancestry and an unknown west Eurasian source.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The nomenclature "Ancestral North African" was spotted by the QPgraph of Lazaridis, it isn't used in text. Loosdrecht never investigated a possibility of local ancestry but the results of lazaridis have been replicated. See Ghost North African in this study.

Also from this point on it is generally accepted though seldomly reported that those North African samples are a product of a mixture of local North African ancestry and an unknown west Eurasian source.

---

The West-Eurasian source is Dzudzuana related and has been cited now by both Lazaridis 2018 and Fregel 2021.

---

quote:

---

“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna → Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N → PPNB → Natufian → Taforalt

https://i.postimg.cc/CLKnRCbm/lazaridis2018.png

---

code:

---

test       S1          S2                chisq        p-value      S1        -S2-
Taforalt   Mbuti       TUR_Pnarba_EpiP   2.764        0.736264     0.508     0.492 
Taforalt   Mbuti       Natufian          1.194        0.945463     0.314     0.686 

---

quote:

---

AllAfrican: Mbuti, South_Africa_HG20, Mota21, Yoruba3, Ust_Ishim, Tianyuan, Onge, Han, Papuan, Kostenki14, GoyetQ116-1, Sunghir3, Vestonice16, MA1, AG3, Villabruna, Dzudzuana, Taforalt, Natufian
The Early Neolithic samples from Morocco could be modeled as a simple clade with Taforalt (p=0.06). All the ones that could be modelled as mixtures of Villabruna/Dzudzuana+Basal Eurasian in the previous analysis using the All set could also be modeled using the AllAfrican set (Table S3.5).

Taforalt could not be modeled as any 2-way mixture. The best model involving Natufians and an African population (Yoruba) could still be strongly rejected (p=2.7e-13). Taforalt could also not be modeled as a 3-way mixture. However, Natufians could be convincingly modeled as a 2-way mixture of ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Taforalt (p=0.405) with small standard errors of 1.9%. Thus the affinity between Natufians and Taforalt described in ref.15 may have come about by admixture from a North African/Taforalt-related population into Natufians, rather than by admixture in the opposite direction.

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
The Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the early structuring of modern humans in the wake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite its poor climatic conditions for the recovery of ancient human DNA evidence, the availability of both genomic data from
neighbouring ancient specimens and informative statistical tools allow modelling the ancestry of
local modern populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in
291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus. Eastern Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for a possible bias due to a recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, eastern Arabians were also the ones with highest similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were, so far, the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans who diverged from the common European-Eastern Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, prior to the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results appear to indicate that the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf was the possible home of basal Eurasians, a scenario to be further investigated by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/gbe/evab194/6364187

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
A basal Eurasian paper, which describes Basal Eurasian as non-African while acknowledging that it is likely African:

"The basal Eurasians and the Neanderthal admixed group were genetically close, so they most likely descended from the same African migrant group that
had split somewhere earlier. The split might have occurred in southwestern Asia after the OOA
migration (through either the northern or the southern route; (Lahr and Foley 1994), or,
alternatively, in Africa. In the latter scenario, the subset that gave rise to the basal Eurasian branch probably followed the southern route taking refugium in the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian
Gulf, while the direct ancestors of Europeans and Asians followed the northern route, mixed with
Neanderthals, and hence moved forward, further splitting towards Europe and Asia. Current
evidence does not allow us to disentangle between the two scenarios, which highlights the urgency
of finding and analysing ancient human specimens in eastern AP/Zagros region"

---

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
@ Elmaestro

Which aDNA sample right now would you say represents the purest or most basal West Eurasian? As in, a sample that postdates the West/East Eurasian split, but lacks post-OOA African (including BE) admixture altogether?

I feel that, if someone claimed that ancient Egyptians or some other ancient North African population had mostly West Eurasian ancestry like a large chunk of the anthro fandom does, they would have to show that most of their ancestry could be traced to a source similar to the most basal West Eurasians instead of something like BE. Likening those ancient North Africans to samples we know have a lot of BE and ANA wouldn't be enough for such people.

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This begs the question where the dividing line between African and non-African is. There are many who are starting to acknowledge Basal Eurasian as African and definitely Ancestral North African. So 'Main Eurasian' then would somehow be 'truly' Eurasian.

What complicates things further the are waves of African admixture from not only Basal Eurasian but Ancestral North African and even Hadza if the Loosdrecht finding is accurate.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Neanderthal admixture seems to be the best indicator of Eurasian ancestry, given that we haven’t found Neanderthal remains anywhere in Africa yet. Even then, there’s the question of how much time elapsed between the departure of mtDNA M and N from Africa on the one hand and Neanderthal introgression on the other.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The only question is where did such Neanderthal ancestry come from? Was it inherited from Natufian forebears OR dis it come across the Straits of Gibraltar?

According to Loosdrecht, Taforalt is awfully close to modern Yemenis.



And Natufians in general are close to Yemeni Mahra.



Yet Mahra also have high amounts of Neanderthal ancestry.

---

Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

PCA's are not useful as a tool to investigate hidden ancestry. And as a result, G25 is not that good of a tool to an even greater extent because the coordinates are based on the PCs created. Moreover proximity in PC 1, 2 and 3 can't speak to ancestry as multiple dimensions are calculated by default. Things like heterogeneity can have a huge impact on how populations cluster on a PCA.

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Cool. Is anyone else having issues accessing this website?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
it is annoying that I have to keep logging back in to make my posts or log out and log in to edit my posts.

---

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

PCA's are not useful as a tool to investigate hidden ancestry. And as a result, G25 is not that good of a tool to an even greater extent because the coordinates are based on the PCs created. Moreover proximity in PC 1, 2 and 3 can't speak to ancestry as multiple dimensions are calculated by default. Things like heterogeneity can have a huge impact on how populations cluster on a PCA.

---

I totally agree, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. PCAs have some usefulness despite the flaws you pointed out.

Note for example how PCAs correlate with nonmetric data such as the odontic data from Irish et al. (2020).


(larger size)

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I've pointed it out before, but I notice a lot of anthrobros will use PCA positions to make inferences about an ancient population's phenotype, even though phenotypic traits like skin color account for only a small part of the autosome. Antalas for instance would argue that certain ancient North Africans would have had to look like himself because that's where their autosomes plotted on a PCA chart. Mind you, I don't doubt that there were some lighter-skinned people in the Maghreb as far back as the late Neolithic, but would I be correct in saying PCA position by itself doesn't say much about a population's phenotype?

---

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged |