posted
I've heard discussion of the Natufians float about here and it's always been hard for me to understand what's being said. What do they have to do with Egypt and what suggests they're Africans?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are asking the wrong question. Natufian being “African” vs Natufian having partial African ancestry are two different things.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Natufians originated from the Sudanese regions of the Hapi River Valley
quote: “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1,....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307
and
quote:“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.
and
quote: "Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.] "
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
and
quote: "In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations."-- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")
Ricaut 2008 does an excellent job at summarizing both anthropological and genetic evidence to further this long proven narrative.
Here is linguistic evidence in support of this duel migration from the Hapi River Valley into the Near East and further into parts of Eurasia and Europe.
quote: "The Ancient Kemetic Language
The Ancient Kemetic language has always been considered to be a branch of the African-Asiatic family of languages called Afro-Asiatic which spans Africa and Western Asia.
Without going too deeply into the classification of the Afro-Asiatic language, according to Greenberg, the individual branches of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages include the following:
(1) Semitic, the largest branch of the Afro-Asiatic language which is spoken since ancient times in most of Western Asia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Africa.
The Semitic language has its origins in Africa.
(2) Berber, a group of related languages currently spoken by approximately five million speakers in Northern Africa from the Atlantic coast to the oasis of Siwa in Kemet and from the Mediterranean Sea to Mali and Niger.
(3) Cushitic, a family of languages spoken by approximately fifteen million people in Eastern Africa from the Kemetic border in North East Sudan to Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya and Northern Tanzania.
Martin Bernal in his book, Black Athena, sees the spread of the Afro-Asiatic language as the expansion of a culture which was long established in the East African Rift Valley at the end of the last ice age in the 10th and 9th millennia B.C.E. During the last ice ages water was locked up in the polar icecaps and rainfall was considerably less than it is today. The Sahara and Arabian Deserts were even larger. During the increase of heat and rainfall in the centuries that followed, much of these regions became savannah, into which neighbouring peoples flocked.
The most successful of these were speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language from the African rift valley. Going through the savannah, the Chadic speakers reached Lake Chad while the Berbers, the Maghreb and the Proto-Kemite arrived in Upper Kemet. However Martin Bernal did not consider speakers of Proto-Bantu in his analysis. It is the author’s contention, from the linguistic contents, that speakers of Proto-Bantu played an active part at the time of the expansion of Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Rift Valley of East Africa.These Proto-Bantu speakers going through the savannah formed part of the migration to Kemet. The Bantu languages together with other indigenous languages fused together and became embedded to form the Proto-Kemetic language. It is for this reason that the Ancient Kemetic language contains a substantial amount of Proto-Bantu or Bantu roots.
However Guthrie speculated that before the Proto-Bantu expansion from Zaire, there had been several pre-Bantu stages, at which time the Bantu ancestors lived far to the north around Lake Chad. One group from this area made its way to Zaire and became the Proto-Bantu.The Proto-Bantu speakers and Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived along side each other. They traded together, shared and exchanged common vocabularies of words"
The Niger-Congo speakers are the only people on Earth with the "true Negroid" cranial morphology referenced by both Ricaut and Brace, and are the only population on Earth that could have also spread those sickle cell haplotypes (since our people's bloodline are the only way to pass it to offsprings).
It's really not a mystery...Niger-Congo speakers once dominated Northeast Africa and including that African-Asian corridor where the Natufians resided....
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay then. Can someone explain as simply as possible how that is so, please?
As akachi put it, superficially some of them "Look like" Sub Saharan Africans. This only goes so far as there are African "looking" populations all across the globe.
From a Y-DNA perspective, they have Very Strong signatures from Africa. Most in the form of E-Z830~ (The precursor to E-M123) but even one PPNB individual could be positive for E2, which puts a bit of E~ diversity in the region. Their Maternal diversity is totally lacking in Mtdna L, not what I would expect of recent SSA Migrants.
Autosomally they carry a component that straddles both sides of the Red Sea and seems to peak in more inbred groups of the middle East like Arabs, Especially Saudis. Nearly All East African Eurasian classified ancestry is absorbed in this box. Someone could argue this component is "African" but they will be arguing that Saudis, Yemeni Jews and various populations in the Middle East are 50-80 "African" as well. There are some making this argument, Its silly, I dont exactly buy it.(Unless one is using the larger argument that ALL Western Eurasian autosomal components are "African"......using the technicality of TMCRA's and divergence dates....then your are probably right. a la xyyman)
Then there is the argument that the "Natufian" component, or the wide spread autosomal component of the Middle East that becomes nearly fixed in Saudis is partly African. This I do argue and is what to expect when ancient DNA From Africa Keep Showing what this Ancient DNA from North Africa shows.(That all Middle East Populations carry an component fixed in Ancient North Africans.) This is also what we would expect given the lack of Sub Saharan specific autosomal Ancestry in the Mid East yet the presence of Parental African signatures. Of course in the instance of IAM it is only half the Age of Natufian so Natufian cannot be partly of IAM ancestry......literally. We need older African DNA, something more contemporaneous with Natufian to confirm the affinity...but I think it will stay the same or just become MORE convoluted as we introduce African substructure.
This is what is going on in a nutshell.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
As for "Arabs" you also have to understand that all Arabs are not represented by the ruling elites of Arabia. There are PLENTY of black indigenous Arabians in Arabia....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
As for "Arabs" you also have to understand that all Arabs are not represented by the ruling elites of Arabia. There are PLENTY of black indigenous Arabians in Arabia....
This is kinda bullshit though. You really need to stop playing games. Some of those "black indigenous Arabians" are of direct RECENT Sub Saharan and Sudanese extraction. So they are not "indigenous" at all. We have seen the studies that say so. EVEN THEY SAY SO!
What we HAVEN'T SEEN are RECENT studies of Dark skinned contemporary Southern Arabians that Look Like this (Large Image)
These modern studies of the middle East have not sampled the autosomal results along with Skin color genetics to give the readers and idea of the phenotype of which population is being sampled....you can only guess at it. We are in 2017...you really need to quite with those games man.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
I know how you feel. The term "sub-Saharan" often does go hand in hand with the fallacy that all the dark-skinned indigenous African people live south of the Sahara, whereas the North is all Arabs or Berbers. On the other hand, I believe that when certain people here use "SSA", they're using it as a convenient and familiar catch-all label for any African ancestry that isn't pre-OOA. And I for one am too damn tired of terminological squabbling to argue with anyone about it. It's not like the underlying relationships are going to change anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
I know how you feel. The term "sub-Saharan" often does go hand in hand with the fallacy that all the dark-skinned indigenous African people live south of the Sahara, whereas the North is all Arabs or Berbers. On the other hand, I believe that when certain people here use "SSA", they're using it as a convenient and familiar catch-all label for any African ancestry that isn't pre-OOA. And I for one am too damn tired of terminological squabbling to argue with anyone about it. It's not like the underlying relationships are going to change anyway.
That's fine, but to be clear it should be obvious that African ancestry going back to OOA was all black to begin with. Calling it SSA leaves open the idea that there was some "other" kind of African around at that time when there wasn't. It also doesn't clarify genetic relationships either, because ultimately it becomes a riddle. If all humans originated in Africa and that happened somewhere below the Sahara then all humans ultimately are genetically derived from SSA Africans technically. Therefore, calling it SSA doesn't clarify anything. And at best it is semantics and irrelevant and at worst it imposes the idea that genes in Africa can be meaningfully split between SSA and OOA at some point in time. This is a contradiction in terms and serves no useful purpose, especially in the racially charged context that is white dominated anthropological discourse. If we could go back in time and put two groups together (assuming some one can find those non SSA OOA genes in the first place) one with "SSA" genes and the other with "proto" OOA genes, they wouldn't look much different. Those black Arabs banging drums aren't Sub Saharan Africans either and there have always been people like that in Arabia and the Levant going all the way back to OOA.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were.
Yeah that sucks that African diversity is lumped together like that in many studies, but the one's that I provided namely Ricaut's and Brace's specify that the "Niger Congo" populations were the "Sub Saharan Africans" of direct interest.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:]As akachi put it, superficially some of them "Look like" Sub Saharan Africans. This only goes so far as there are African "looking" populations all across the globe.
"Superficial"? I have to say no. The fact that Sickle Cell..
in conjunction with a specific craniometric pattern once labeled "true Negroid"
is evidence of only one particular population on this globe.
Both of those lines of evidence is what was used to by Ricaut 2008. Again with regards to the Natufians and there population movement into from the African-Asian corridor into Anatolia and Europe....I mean
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share?
I don't believe that that line of evidence necessary (nor completely accurate) in THIS case to distinguish and identify this particular population. Why? The Sickle Cell haplotype is our own unique genetic marker. No one else this. Therefore when it appears ANYWHERE it is indisputable evidence of our presence.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ I asked a simple question.
That is irrelevant to the conclusion that I deduced based on different sets of evidence, and that includes genetic evidence.
quote:What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share? Easy Question.
Beyoku I did not go route to come to conclusion. I used a completely different genetic basis to establish a relationship between Niger-Congo speakers and the Natufians. My conclusions does NOT rely on Autosomal DNA, it's IRRELEVANT, and need not be brought up.
Explain the problem with that if there is one.
quote:Do Natufian have sickle cell? Why are you bringing up sickle cell.
Well because actual genetic researchers have actually noted that the sickle haplotypes are
A. A marker of Niger-Congo speakers
B. It's remnants throughout the Levant and Europe are the result of the a migration of populations who have anthropological overlapping with Niger-Congo speakers. The movement is associated with the Natufian migration along the same route.
See YOU CAN READ IT HERE BEYOKU. I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE. Someone much more qualified then me and YOU stated exactly what I've stated. What is he missing to make the narrative "official" in YOUR eyes? What criteria did he not follow? He's hardcore "Afrocentrism" there. Saying sickle cell carrying populations identical to Niger-Congo speakers WERE THE NATUFIANS...RIGHT??? HOW DID HE CONCLUDE THAT WITHOUT AUTOSOMAL DNA BEYOKU? THAT WHITE MAN BROKE YOUR DIVINE LAWS OF "INTELLECTUALISM" to spout what is essential "Afrocentrism".
Come on now.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
The term Afroasiatic Urheimat refers to the hypothetical place where Proto-Afroasiatic speakers lived in a single linguistic community, or complex of communities, before this original language dispersed geographically and divided into separate distinct languages.
Some scholars, for example Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench and others, contend that the Afroasiatic Urheimat is to be found in North or North East Africa, probably in the area of Egypt, the Sahara, Horn of Africa or Sudan. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern pre-Proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
Niger-Congo speakers were the primary population of ancient Kemet, parts of Nubia, and parts of Northern-Northwest Africa. The Natufians were also suggested by several researchers to have the SAME Sudanese origin as later pre and early Dynastic Kemite population such as the Tasians and Badarians.
Natufians were apart of the early Pleistocene Nubian population (and Jebel Sahaba is the most likely candidate (for obvious reasons) for the region) - WHO ARE THE ANCESTORS TO ALL NIGER-CONGO SPEAKERS. They simply diverged away from the original population source when they left Africa (along with several other African groups) into neighboring Canaan and points forward.
I believe that the Natufians who were of the Niger-Congo branch did genetically diverge from the source when they migrated away into parts of Eurasia. I believe sickle cell is the genetic proof of these early farming populations in Eurasia having a base with those ancient Nubians- Niger-Congo populations.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers 2016
Iosif Lazaridis et al
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers 2016
Iosif Lazaridis et al
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
^^^ That's the fishy shit with many of these genetic studies that Dr. Winters talks alot about. I say it's fishy for the reason's that I have laid out. All other lines of evidence points to these people being apart of a lineage that came directly from Africa, and particularly of the Niger-Congo family.
Another reason is that we have Niger-Congo speakers who are just as "Negroid" in appearance and culturally/linguistically uniform with the greater family, but have genetic profiles that are over 40% hapologroup J (The Lemba); or over 90% haplogroup R (Cameroonians); Or have a completely different genetic relationship with none Africans (Dogons per Tishkoff 2009).
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
OUR PEOPLE HAVE CIRCUMNAVIGATED THE GLOBE IN ANCIENT TIMES, AND SICKLE CELL IS THE PROOF OF THEIR EXISTENCE IN AN AREA.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So..
Some scholars, for example Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench and others, contend that the Afroasiatic Urheimat is to be found in North or North East Africa, probably in the area of Egypt, the Sahara, Horn of Africa or Sudan. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern pre-Proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
melanesians and Africans carry the same genes. In fact the people of Fiji claim they came from Tanzania.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Without requiring a Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans into South Asia, this scenario explains why (i) most South Asian mtDNA clusters coalesce and show signs of demographic expansions ∼30,000 years ago (Kivisild et al. 1999b), (ii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool is related to (but distinct from) other Eurasian mtDNA pools, (iii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG, and (iv) the archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before ∼30,000 years ago. Hypothesizing a Middle Paleolithic migration to South Asia would create more problems than it would solve: it would, in particular, hardly explain the above crucial points iii and iv.
We conclude that there is currently no convincing genetic evidence that supports the postulated Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans from Africa to the Sahul through South Asia.
Nevertheless Andaman Islanders are off topic and have nothing to do with Natufians
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: melanesians and Africans carry the same genes.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans
This is complete and utter bullshit. These populations of the South Pacific DO NOT CARRY any of those haplogroup E lineages you have listed. How are you just pulling facts out of your ass? Where in Cordaux 2003 does it say they have these lineages? You are counterintelligence to make black scholars look idiotic.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
Its some shit made up by clyde winters. This is the issue.
quote: The authors identified three different mtDNA haplotypes in 11 Andaman islanders, two belonging to haplogroup M2 and one belonging to M4. These haplogroups had previously been reported only in the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 1999b; Bamshad et al. 2001). The Andaman M4 haplotype has been found previously in mainland India (Kivisild et al. 1999b), whereas the two Andaman M2 haplotypes are (so far) unique to the Andamanese. Given that (1) the latter two types occupy a basal position in the M2 network, which has an estimated coalescence time of 63,000±6,000 years (Kivisild et al. 1999b), and (2) they are not found in mainland India, Endicott et al. (2003) conclude they represent an “early” settlement of the Andaman Islands. These two points need discussion.
The "M2" in South East Asia, Oceania, South Pacific etc is NOT a paternal lineage. It is a maternal one. When Clyde says "There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups" It simply means he doesn't know what the Fvck he is talking about. He doesnt know the basics regarding the difference between Maternal and Paternal lineages so he confuses mtdna M1 found in Africa.....and Y-dna M1 which is a SNP diagnostic of YAP. He is confused by Mtdna M2 of Asia and Y-dna M2 of Africa. He is confused by Paternal lineage B2a1a in Africa....and the maternal B2a1a lineages in Asia and America. Dont even get me started on Haplogorup R and its resolution.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
The significance is that its an early Genetic sample from the Near East and is supposed to represent the First Farmers. Furthermore a lot of the autosomal DNA of the Middle East and North Africa (Ancient Egyptians included)....and West Eurasian presumed ancestry in Africa south of the Sahara is absorbed and characterized as this component that is nearly fixed in Natufian:
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
The table comes from a Clyde Winters article. He puts these tables up from his own articles and tries to make you think they are from someone else's articles.
A responsible person when they post a chart they tell you the author and article title the chart comes from. Clyde doesn't
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: He doesnt know the basics regarding the difference between Maternal and Paternal lineages
He does know the difference. It's a scam
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
The significance is that its an early Genetic sample from the Near East and is supposed to represent the First Farmers. Furthermore a lot of the autosomal DNA of the Middle East and North Africa (Ancient Egyptians included)....and West Eurasian presumed ancestry in Africa south of the Sahara is absorbed and characterized as this component that is nearly fixed in Natufian:
Saturday, June 18, 2016 Natufians and Neolithic Levantines lack African admixture? Whilst Neolithic Levantines and Natufians seem to have a good amount of what looks to be Y-DNA E-M35 (specifically 2 E-Z830 samples among the Natufians) and seemingly no Y-DNA J so far- :
-they don't seem to show any affinities for African populations (ones who lack West Eurasian admixture or have negligible amounts of such admixture) on an autosomal level according to this Pre-print:
"However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia)."
This is quite interesting, truth be told. It implies that, despite seeming clearly old, the African admixture in the Levant is perhaps, at least, Post-Neolithic? Some of it (particularly non-East African cluster-related admixture), as I've noted in the past, is definitely owed to the Arab Slave Trade but some of it does also seem rather ancient.
As for PCA (Principal Component Analysis) positions; Natufians in particular look to cluster essentially to the direct east of Anatolian Neolithic and Early European Farmers (and somewhat southwards of some of them) whilst Levantine Neolithic Farmers seem less Basal Eurasian and more northern shifted than their Epipaleolithic predecessors. I'll be more interested in seeing David over at Eurogenes throw these samples into his own Pan-West Eurasia PCA and a global PCA once the genomes are made publicly available when this paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal (a month or less, not sure). The PCAs in these studies can be a bit wonky due to issues like projection-bias.
I'll be interested in seeing if David and other 3rd parties will either confirm or deny that Natufians lack African admixture (whatever Basal Eurasian turns out to be aside).
One somewhat off-topic matter to note is that it seems as though we've more or less discovered a close equivalent to David's "ENF"/Near Eastern cluster from his old Fateful Triangle~K=8 model, a cluster also noted by Lazaridis and company prior to the release of this pre-print.
The Natufians and Neolithic Levantines are essentially dominated by the blue ADMIXTURE cluster that seems to make up most of the ancestry in the Neolithic Anatolians and Early European Farmers. This seems, to me, like we're seeing Southwest Asian/ENF/Near Eastern in the flesh. The way it's differentiated from Neolithic Iranians is intriguing though given that Natufians (Epipaleolithic Levantines) and Neolithic Iranians are comparable in terms of Basal Eurasian ancestry; it must be the non-Basal Eurasian ancestry that's causing the differentiation or there's just really significant genetic drift at play here or both.
In this model above, where Natufians and the Hotu cave Iranian were not included, the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) samples seem to carry notable EHG/ANE-related ancestry as prior analyses like David's K=8 ADMIXTURE run might've implied. Initially, I figured what was differentiating the Neolithic Iranians from Natufians was perhaps ANE-related admixture in the former but that might not really be the case.
As I said in a prior post; things will become more clear when third-parties like David over at Eurogenes get their hands on these genomes once the paper's published at a peer-reviewed journal and also once we have even more ancient genomes someday.
Reference List:
1. The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, Lazaridis et al. 2016
posted
@the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
@Oshun - They are significant to the Ancient Egyptian question when you look at the Brown component present in Ancient Egyptians but peaking in Natufian. Does its origins ultimately lay in the Middle East / Levant or is that genetic component something that is African in origin? Is the component an anomaly and not a genetic reality at all but rather just a statistical reality? Is it the genetic component that absorbed the Paternal African ancestors of these Natufian people or is it Signature of those Africans ancestors as represented in the Natufian Paternal line?
You could generate questions for days.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I cited my sources. there is no need to make up anything.
. .
Anyone that can't handle the truth, that's their problem.
Your SOURCES are not saying what you THINK they say. You dont know what yout are talking about and are confusing MTDNA with Y-DNA.
quote: The authors identified three different mtDNA haplotypes in 11 Andaman islanders, two belonging to haplogroup M2 and one belonging to M4.
*mtDNA haplotypes* The M2 is not Y-DNA....its MTDNA. You Fvcked up......just own it, its not the firs time you have made these types of mistakes....your work is riddled with it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Lazaridis, contradicted Lazaridis in his own preprint. Natufians have a distinct genetic history masked by the contemporary genetic landscape. There is no Natufian component, similarly to Cushitic, kalash, Mozabite/chenini and Fulani STRUCTURE components. Those are statistical signatures like Beyoku stated. There are definately ways to expose Natufian African ancestry, fregel 2017 already began doing so. As well as schuneman in the study you posted.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Lazaridis, contradicted Lazaridis in his own preprint. Natufians have a distinct genetic history masked by the contemporary genetic landscape. There is no Natufian component, similarly to Cushitic, kalash, Mozabite/chenini and Fulani STRUCTURE components. Those are statistical signatures like Beyoku stated. There are definately ways to expose Natufian African ancestry, fregel 2017 already began doing so. As well as schuneman in the study you posted.
Lzardidis article says explicity >
quote:
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
Nature. 2016 Aug 25; 536(7617): 419–424. doi: 10.1038/nature19310 PMCID: PMC5003663 NIHMSID: NIHMS804247 Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis,1,2,† Dani Nadel,3 Gary Rollefson,4 Deborah C. Merrett,5 Nadin Rohland,1 Swapan Mallick,1,2,6 Daniel Fernandes,7,8 Mario Novak,7,9 Beatriz Gamarra,7 Kendra Sirak,7,10 Sarah Connell,7 Kristin Stewardson,1,6 Eadaoin Harney,1,6,11 Qiaomei Fu,1,12,13 Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes,14 Eppie R. Jones,15 Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg,16 György Lengyel,17 Fanny Bocquentin,18 Boris Gasparian,19 Janet M. Monge,20 Michael Gregg,20 Vered Eshed,21 Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi,21 Christopher Meiklejohn,22 Fokke Gerritsen,23 Luminita Bejenaru,24 Matthias Blüher,25 Archie Campbell,26 Gianpiero Cavalleri,27 David Comas,28 Philippe Froguel,29,30 Edmund Gilbert,27 Shona M. Kerr,26 Peter Kovacs,31 Johannes Krause,32 Darren McGettigan,33 Michael Merrigan,34 D. Andrew Merriwether,35 Seamus O'Reilly,34 Martin B. Richards,36 Ornella Semino,37 Michel Shamoon-Pour,35 Gheorghe Stefanescu,38 Michael Stumvoll,25 Anke Tönjes,25 Antonio Torroni,37 James F. Wilson,39,40 Loic Yengo,29 Nelli A. Hovhannisyan,41 Nick Patterson,2 Ron Pinhasi,7,*† and David Reich1,2,6,*†
^^^ Look at all the prominent names here
David Comas Antonio Torroni David Reich Ornella Semino
The article says "genome-wide analysis" "Natufians" is mentioned in the article 20 times. Comparatively in "Ancient Mummy Genomes, Schuenemann" it is not mentioned in the text except in the ADMIXTURE chart
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
well shit, Good, the whole thread is basically summerized in a single shot. A Comprehensive look at what we are dealing with here...
quote: BOLD -Lazaridis Else - Me
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa.
-Basal Eurasian, might be African
Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25,
-See Akachi and Beyoku's Posts above...
a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia
African Uniparentals yadda yadda
**However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians
The thorn... See below
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.)
Well we have some ancient North Africans whose genetic correspondance opens up room for speculation now don't we.... IAM are almost half the age of Natufians yet the latter can be modeled as partially the the former... See posts on fregel 2017 Above
** Now going back to the note about Africans sharing no more alleles.. etc. An interesting thing to note is that the African ancestry in Natufians won't be similar to the Modern African populations without indirect recombination. Going back >15kya We have no clue what the African autosomal genetic landscape might've looked like, but in the f4 tests used to come to the conclusion that modern Africans don't share more alleles with Natufians than other Eurasians, look at the Yoruban scores. Basically YRI are share more alleles with Non WHG(modeled) Eurasians, despite the fact that the population that contributed to Natufian Ancestry were very different from modern NC speakers Autosomaly.
And I've also Ran This Some time ago so yeah, that's that.... EHG in this case is an umbrella term for Eurasian Hunter gatherers... not Eastern HG...
So to neatly wrap this thread up in a nice bow, we can loosely interpret that Natufian culture spawned from a convergence of African AfroAsiatic protocultures and a distinct group of Western Eurasian Huntergathers... The former likely related to predynastic egyptians. In light of the Ancient North African genomes, it makes no sense to deny African Admixture of some sort.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nature article's seems to have had a lot of talk about the Natufians. Some people are saying that the Natufians were at least partially African Sudanese.
quote:
"Natufians
I0861: E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
I1072: E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1685: CT
I1690: CT
South-Central Sudanese:
E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups."
--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
The Natufian tool industry originated from the Central Sudan. Not my words.
"microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan."
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
"the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent."
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
Building on and refining stone tool typologies from North Africa,21,22 the foundation for EP research in the Levant was provided by O. Bar-Yosef 23 in his seminal work identifying and defining EP cultures of the southern Levant based on these tools and other site features.
...
Early models of culture change associated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levantine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately preceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.
...
Figure 2 presents globally and locally recognized climatic events from 23,000 to 11,500 cal BP and the approximate dates for major EP phases.
...
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks provided compelling evidence that the origin of modern human behavior was not an Upper Palaeolithic revolution, as it has often been interpreted, but that the components of modern human behavior developed over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory within Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’ to refer to the development of human control over the reproduction and evolution of plants and animals,111 which arguably was the single most significant social, cultural, and biological transition since the origin of our species
— LA Maher Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant
"However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" p. 9.
--Lazaridis et al.,
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016
But wouldn't Lazsridis' suggestion that Levantine early farmers spread of this ancestry TO East Africa mean it they're suggesting it's not African?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
3.Natufians and the later near eastern farmers were only PARTLY African, less than 21%.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic