...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Someone explain in as simple a way as possible why Natufians are African

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Someone explain in as simple a way as possible why Natufians are African
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 1643 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you are asking the wrong question. Natufian being “African” vs Natufian having partial African ancestry are two different things.
Posts: 2103 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay then. Can someone explain as simply as possible how that is so, please?
Posts: 1643 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tyrannohotep
Member
Member # 3735

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tyrannohotep     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Oshun

See if you understand these blog posts Swenet made a couple of years back:

Let's face it: "Basal Eurasian" is heavily intertwined with African ancestry; might as well stop the collective denial

Why Basal Eurasian is Still African as of Lazaridis et al 2016

Posts: 4304 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 2103 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0IWX5ZlgKE&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWTiDWrA51Y

Posts: 7217 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0IWX5ZlgKE&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWTiDWrA51Y

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)

Or Look Like this.

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: 2103 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tyrannohotep
Member
Member # 3735

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tyrannohotep     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4304 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
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: 7217 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share?
Posts: 2103 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I asked a simple question.
What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share? Easy Question.

Do Natufian have sickle cell? Why are you bringing up sickle cell.

Posts: 2103 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
Posts: 1643 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 32334 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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: 323 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

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.




Posts: 32334 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3