quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.
Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:
^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
DNA Tribes
two different maps,
The First Human Diaspora: Basal Eurasians and the Horn of Africa Background: Out of Africa Migrations and Early Population Structure DNA Tribes® Digest March 1, 2014
.
,
Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe DNA Tribes® Digest April 2, 2014
^^ notice a month later the location of "Basal Eurasian" is not fixed on the map, no circles and question marks added in two locations, one in NA the other in Arabia
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
RIP Lucas Martin. Never tried to play confused about the African DNA in Natufians, farmers and New Kingdom Egyptian royalty.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
We gonna stop calling this component "Natufian" now that these remains are way older than Natufian?
Pay attention to the ME/NA time depth on the paternal side with these guys being M78 and Natuf being Z830.....
From henceforth the “Torforalt component” is found in the Middle East
Don’t quote me if you don’t have anything to add or say. My thoughts are not your thoughts.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: RIP Lucas Martin. Never tried to play confused about the African DNA in Natufians, farmers and New Kingdom Egyptian royalty.
what about this map?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?
Also, one map gives a take on the origin of various components, and one map shows distribution. If you mean to say that Martin backtracked, you will have to post more than two maps. Contrasting two maps doesn't say anything.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.
But people on both forums keep quoting this: "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.
My God. I thought there was something wrong with me. Krause claims that the Natufians have no African DNA onsesentence before saying that Natufians and Iberomaurasians may have a common ancestor in North Africa, like WTF. The English language cannot take that kind of strain!
Oldest DNA from Africa offers clues to mysterious ancient culture
By Ann GibbonsMar. 15, 2018 , 2:00 PM
" "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says"
yet according to the primary research article below the E-M78 and E-M123 occur most frequently in North and East Africa populations __________________________________________
^^^ if you look at the whole article it doesn't say ""The Natufians lack DNA from Africa,"
You could say though "The Natufians lack DNA from North Africa," or perhaps "The Natufians lack DNA from Sub Saharan Africa,"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.
Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:
^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real... Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?
How can you ask me that ? The term "Basal Eurasian" appears in two separate locations on that map and in addition has a question mark. This implies that a month later DNA tribes is not certain if Basal Eurasian is North African or Arabian
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.
Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:
^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real...
you have a link, click it
Trends in Genetics, Yang MA and Fu Qiaomei: "Insights into Modern Human Prehistory Using Ancient Genomes"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elite Diasporan Sometimes these software-heavy papers are like movies filled to the brim with special effects bells and whistles, that are still garbage.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?
How can you ask me that ? The term "Basal Eurasian" appears in two separate locations on that map and in addition has a question mark. This implies that a month later DNA tribes is not certain if Basal Eurasian is North African or Arabian
See the 2nd paragraph I added to my last post
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elite Diasporan Sometimes these software-heavy papers are like movies filled to the brim with special effects bells and whistles, that are still garbage.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?
How can you ask me that ? The term "Basal Eurasian" appears in two separate locations on that map and in addition has a question mark. This implies that a month later DNA tribes is not certain if Basal Eurasian is North African or Arabian
See the 2nd paragraph I added to my last post
Dna Tribes has made a few vague remarks on Natufians, never an article primarily about them
But more pertinent is my last remark on this Krause article. In his primary research article he didn't say "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa" Ann Gibbons said he said that
The Krause primary research article says
quote: Consistently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleolithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantines (“Levant_N”) (16).
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop
this is what we should go by
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African. It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?
Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is African and not in Sahara.
By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending what's under discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.
Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:
^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real...
? It's from the same paper you sent me, the one with the bloated estimates for Basal Eurasian in Natufians?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African. It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?
Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is African and not in Sahara.
By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending what's under discussion.
Shriners estimates will never be cosigned. The only thread the Non-African Natufian coalition can stand on is the formal stats from Lazaridis. Only aDNA can undo the mental block that study placed on people.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
An interesting feature of the Near Eastern gene pools is the genetic legacy of the so called ‘Basal 437 Eurasians’, a hypothetical population that is basal to both Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers 438 and East Eurasians (16, 73). This Basal Eurasian gene pool is also assumed to have no 439 Neanderthal ancestry; i.e. it is an early branch of non-Africans that split off from the rest prior to 440 the admixture with Neanderthals. If such characteristics are assumed, their contribution to Near 441 Eastern, and accordingly to early Neolithic European, farmers can provide an explanation for 442 interesting observations. These include the apparent closer relationship of East Eurasians to Ice 443 Age Europeans than to Neolithic European farmers, and consequently a lower amount of 444 Neanderthal ancestry in present-day West Eurasians (as a result of expansions of early farmers 445 into Europe) than East Eurasians (65, 79). So far, the early Holocene populations from the Near 446 East are known to have the highest proportion of Basal Eurasian ancestry, up to around 50%; e.g. 447 the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG, (15) and Iran (HotuIIIb, (16)), (pre- 448 )/early Neolithic Levant (Natufian, Levant_N) and early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, (16)). Expansion 449 of these derived Basal Eurasian populations, and subsequent admixture with local populations, is 450 considered to have substantially decreased the Neanderthal ancestry proportion in Near Eastern 451 populations that changed from foraging to early food production (16). It is unknown where and 452 when Basal Eurasians emerged and how the Holocene Near Easterners obtained this ancestry in 453 large quantity. North Africa is a strong candidate for the place having kept Basal Eurasians 454 because it is well connected to Eurasia. From this point of view, the Upper Paleolithic individuals 455 from Taforalt are likely candidates as being direct descendants of, or closely derived from, the 456 Basal Eurasian population. 457
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop
In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six 831 (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African 832 populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that 833 Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to 834 belong to E1b1b1b (16).
Interestingly, basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at 690 Muierii cave in Romania (22, 23). We are therefore interested to know how the mtDNA genomes 691 in our 15,000 cal. yBP North African individuals relate phylogenetically to the U6 and M mtDNA 692 sequences found in Ice Age Europeans (22, 23, 27) and present-day humans (7).
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African. It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?
Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is African and not in Sahara.
By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending what's under discussion.
Shriners estimates will never be cosigned. ... Lazaridis. Only aDNA can undo the mental block that study placed on people.
Never be co-signed by who? And why (scientifically)?
Lazaridis knows about the Shriner (here). Shriner needs grantsmanship and team leader skills for to get enough money and researchers to gravitate.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African. It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?
Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is African and not in Sahara.
By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending what's under discussion.
Shriners estimates will never be cosigned. ... Lazaridis. Only aDNA can undo the mental block that study placed on people.
Never be co-signed by who? And why (scientifically)?
Lazaridis knows about the Shriner (here 21 Feb entry ). He hasn't commented on it yet. Shriner needs grantsmanship and team leader skills for to get enough money and researchers to gravitate.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Never be co-signed by who? And why (scientifically)?
Lazaridis knows about the Shriner (here). Shriner needs grantsmanship and team leader skills for to get enough money and researchers to gravitate.
The leading contributors to paleogenomics . Like Krause & Mathiason. Lazaridis seems like the guy in the classroom who believes he has the answer but doesn't want to raise his hand out of fear of getting embarrassed or something.
TBH it's all fine though... Natufians are getting less important to me by the minute as we get more aDNA. Taforalt surprisingly looks to be extremely important for the scenario I wish to investigate. Natufians were merely a placeholder for the time being.
Hopefully I get some time nextweekend to mess around with these genomes and actually commit to some reading.
@Tyrannhotep check the guanche thread.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The Iberomaurusian arose independently in North Africa with no presently known cultural antecedents. Its epicenter may have been in Algeria, from where it spread westwards into Morocco and east into Libya and Cyrenaica. The earliest dates for Tamar Hat and slightly 40 younger ages from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt and Kehf el Hammar (36), and much younger dates from Libya and Cyrenaica are consistent with this scenario. They imply a cultural break around 25,000 cal. yBP.
It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt. First, present-day North Africans do not have as high sub-Saharan African ancestry as the Taforalt individuals (Fig. 2B+S12). This may be attributed to more recent events, such as the 598 historical Arab expansion. Also, the periodic expansion of the Saharan desert played a major role in limiting gene flow between North and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time. For example, a previous study of ancient Egyptian genomes shows that the genetic affinity with the Near East was even stronger in the first millennium BCE in Egypt (5). Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North 604 Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Will be posting the image later. But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned!
UPDATE: Pay close attention to the tiny bits of dark red ancestry shared by the Natufian and other Near Eastern aDNA. Even some of the WHG have a tiny bit of it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That would make sense. I knew there has to be a connection between West Africans and WHG. It may be that red component. Unsupervised Cluster Charts may show it but Euro Researchers avoid showing those graphs.
red=ghost population = Iwo Eleru---Skoglund?
" But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned"
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [...] Iwo Eleru types and west African Archaics come into play, but it's not because Taforalt HAS that archaic Admixture.. the F4 stats (and f3) in the study disproved that.
[...]
The red component is just the HADZA effect, let it be.
Can't be sure about a K color's first appearance 'pop'. Understandably, Loosdrecht reserved K's 3-8.
Zoomed to 1200% there's a blood orange sliver that's not Hadza brown.
Hadza brown is in two WHG and all other ancient bars. It's also in all modern East Africans except Click speakers and Rainforest peoples. Only Amazigh North Africans show it.
There's an orange widest in Mota that E Afrs share with Natufian, Taforalt, and many N Afrs,
Then there's this iota blood orange (red) appearing in (?) • Saharawi • Taforalt • Amazigh • Algerian • Mzabi • Tunisian • Egyptian • Levant Neolithic • Bedouin B • Algerian • Mota • Dinka • Luxmanda
posted
Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?
Can't say for sure but if you're talking about Loosdrecht Fig. 2 and Taforalt remember Momma U6 migrated from East Europe to North Africa 10k before the LGM started. M1 is not as old and its parent may technically be a true back migration from the Arabian tectonic plate.
This redux of Fig. 2 offers a different perspective.
One thing I really miss about Old School phys anth is the representative pictures but the world's too interconnected for that now.
Notice Shaigi and Amazigh in Fig. 2b. Damn nigh identical. Google up some images of Shagai and 'Berbers'. Nearly identical?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?
quote:An alternative model is that populations with microlithic bladelet technologies followed a land route and spread westwards from the Near East to the Maghreb before 15,000 yBP. This would assume that the Iberomaurusian is related to the Natufian and earlier Epipaleolithic technologies of the Near East. However, the oldest Iberomaurusian microlithic bladelet technologies are mostly earlier than the equivalents in the intervening geographic areas of Egypt and Libya. Nevertheless it is possible to accommodate an intrusion of populations from the east that admixed with local populations and replaced MSA technologies with ones dominated by microlithic bladelets.
quote: This model would suggest that the Iberomaurusian emerged from the MSA or ‘transitional technocomplexes’ in Africa. At Taforalt, the layers underlying the Iberomaurusian are rich in adzes and adze flakes and a simple flake technology (10) that overlie typically MSA layers. The dating of the adze layers is still preliminary but suggests an age range of ~26,000 and 24,000 cal.
So is this saying that the "Near Eastern" ancestry came from North Africans and not the other way around?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, somewhat, however "Natufians lack SSA DNA," so it's hard to officially convey that direction of geneflow with the body of evidence gathered thus far.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?
As was posted earlier, these Taforalt still had ancestral alleles with regard to skin and hair pigmentation (although they might have had straighter hair than SSA). So even if these individuals had any back-migrant ancestry, they still wouldn't have been as light-skinned modern as "Arab/Berber" North Africans. The back-migration(s) leading to that depigmentation would have come later.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But would it make sense then if Natufians were a subset of Taforalt diversity?
This where the discrepancy comes in, if you've been following.
I can only speak for myself.
What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.
Lemme know if you understand.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But would it make sense then if Natufians were a subset of Taforalt diversity?
This where the discrepancy comes in, if you've been following.
I can only speak for myself.
What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.
Lemme know if you understand.
.
. LAZARIDIS
quote:
No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis
-- Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers"
KRAUSE
quote:
In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six 831 (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African 832 populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that 833 Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to 834 belong to E1b1b1b (16). 835
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
KRAUSE
quote:
It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt.
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
.
.
How are they getting Taforalt 36.5% SSA out of E1b1b ? I'm not saying it's wrong I just want to know how they get there as regard to the haplogroups?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
screw me... How much times do I have to bump the same comment
"I feel like I have to get too creative to explain the discrepancy in SSA relatedness for E1b1b if I were to Attribute Taforalts contemporary NON-NATUFIAN ancestry to M78.Now if East Africans were originally much more "Near eastern" autosomally from the get-go... theoretically a sample like Afa28 might not be less SSA in comparison to Taforalt but less Natufian-like?..."
EDIT: Links fixedPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Where are you guys getting your genetic history?
Autosomes are always going to tie to residence.
That's why uniparentals are for deep ancestry.
There's a relationship but Taforalt didn't seed Natufians.
No way getting around U6 migrated from Asia before multifurcation in the Maghreb and movement to the east of Africa and back again to the Maghreb.
Considering M1's late coalescence compared to other M subclades, it too is likely to come to the continent from outside unless some L3M sat in E Afr upon thousands of years before coalescing whereas in S Asia L3M had many first step clades way way earlier than M1.
Distribution and frequency of Maghreb specific U6 and n&e Afr M1 hardly makes for their pops making a founder migration in the Levant.
Compare the E. Levant E is mostly 123. Maghreb E is superyoung 81. It may track language dispersal of Tamazight to the Maghreb with a returning U6 subclade, an interesting parallel to Shaigi and Amazigh genomes at K=10 in Fig. 2.
Natufians are E-M123 upstreamers. These males didn't migrate from the Maghreb. Natufians derive from SE Med and NE Afr antecedents.
Mushabeans weren't Maghrebi. They were Nile Valley. They were the Natufians' African parentage.
The 36% African in Natufian is based on the genome not uniparentals alone. The proposers advise its probably indigenous northern African from a population that roots indigenous W Afrs and indigenous Lakes Africans well before the Neolithic.
Maurusian industry started ~20k in the Pleistocene. Natufian culture is Holocene from ~12k. Aterian peoples bled into Maurusian but they were long finished and done before Mushabea or Kebbaran.
Uniparentals and archaeology are against a Natufian <- Maurusian <- Source scenario. Nor do uniparentals and archaeology support a Maurusian <- Source -> Natufian scenario.
What confirms either of those two proposals, please?
Who can run a simple TreeMix on the concerned?
Loosbrecht is clear: ... the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the ancestral population of later Natufians who do not harbor sub-Saharan ancestry.
Natufians do have an Omo like component at 6%. Omo river is south of the Sahara but Eurovision often sees Ethiopia and the non-Kenyan Horn as other than sub-Sahara (Kenya's desert be damned).
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This where the discrepancy comes in, if you've been following.
I can only speak for myself.
What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.
Lemme know if you understand.
In my opinion this is a very good and simple way to put it.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Maurusian industry started ~20k in the Pleistocene. Natufian culture is Holocene from ~12k. Aterian peoples bled into Maurusian but they were long finished and done before Mushabea or Kebbaran.
Uniparentals and archaeology are against a Natufian <- Maurusian <- Source scenario. Nor do uniparentals and archaeology support a Maurusian <- Source -> Natufian scenario.
What confirms either of those two proposals, please?
The better question is what makes you so sure M78 in the Taforalt is representative of continuity in NW Africa. The previous discussion (pages 1 and 2) was basically about the likelyhood that elevated frequencies of these somewhat recent 18kya haplogroups concentrated in the Taf samples are indicative of newcomers. Evidently at the very least M35 diversity in the east suggests it's origin there for what it's worth. Aterian introgression doesn't speak much for the Taf->Nat connection in my eyes, infact they can easily explain the MSA to LSA continuity in the Maghreb as well as the SSA correspondence (particularly the persistent west African signals.) Out of these samples the oldest of the bunch is on ~15,000 years old iirc.
It's hard to visualize using the aDNA samples we have available but autosomally the best way to describe what I believe is happening autosomally is that Natufians and the Natufian portion of Taforalt are as analogous to Cushites and the Toubou. Two populations with different history but "look the same" structurally due to the combination of under-representation in the sampleset and similarity between respective ancestral populations.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What else can we use than what's available?
Rereading page 2 I don't find anything discomfirming the two above observations now reposted and expanded.
***
Uniparentals and archaeology are against a Natufian ← Maurusian ← Source scenario. [Some source generated Maurusians who in turn begat Natufians while the LGM was going on.]
Nor do uniparentals and archaeology support a Maurusian ← Source → Natufian scenario. [Common source for Maurusian (began18k) peoples and for Natufian (began 14k) peoples]
***
What confirms either of those two proposals, since it's agreed neither archaeology nor uniparentals support either one, please?
If addressed previously in this thread please bump.
MSA N Afr people disappeared when Aterian cultural industry ended? I don't think so. Review Ish's heaps upon heaps of MSA Africa references.
Aterian peoples are the only hope of a common source for Maurusians and Mushabeans (the Africans that went into the Levant, met the Kebberans, who then mingled engendering the Natufians, a morphological heterogeneous looking people changing over time as the African elements are absorbed into the local gen pop).
I don't claim to be a master/professional in any multidisciplinary related field. I did study Africana at university, but I've been into it physical & cultural anthropology archaeology classics etc since elementary school. I picked up on population genetics after joining ES in 2004.
Summarizing Briggs (1958:8-19) back in 2006 I asked how different late Pleistocene to early Holocene N Afrs were from Natufians. Then as now I pointed to E-M78 for Maurusian males, U6a'b'c for Maurusian females. Didn't know much M1 until a few months later.
What I do know, without speculating, is the Continental antecedents of Natufians were Mushabean not Maurusians.
quote:Aterian peoples are the only hope of a common source for Maurusians and Mushabeans (the Africans that went into the Levant, met the Kebberans, who then mingled engendering the Natufians, a morphological heterogeneous looking people changing over time as the African elements are absorbed into the local gen pop).
Wasn't the Taforalt the culture who spontaneously showed similarity to Natufians? Aren't the Mechtoids, Taf, Afa drawn closer to Jebel Sahaba and in turn Mushabeans? Why are Aterians the only hope? Don't the maurasians represent dispersal from the east Mediterranean absorbing local Maghrebi(incl. Aterian) populations and cultures? If the last statement is indeed true then surely you can see how a [Common source for Maurusian (began18k) peoples and for Natufian (began 14k) peoples] scenario might work, even if the common source wasn't exactly common but very similar.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No reason to back up. At this point I advise reading anthropologists and archaeologists to learn about cultural industries instead of relying on geneticists summaries for what is outside their field.
Afterwards you can meld from each discipline into your pop gens wisdom, knowing first hand the other fields findings.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No reason to back up. At this point I advise reading anthropologists and archaeologists to learn about cultural industries instead of relying on geneticists summaries for what is outside their field.
Afterwards you can meld from each discipline into your pop gens wisdom, knowing first hand the other fields findings.
I'm not an Archeologist... (yet at least). But I coulda sworn Mushibian culture was most similar to Ibermaurasian culture, as well as Nile-Valley. And I have yet to read any of this from a genetics study yet either for that matter.
But I could be wrong and Aterians are most similar to Mushibians but I'd hope if you had proof of that you'd let me know before more time is wasted.
...lemme find some receipts though in the mean time. lol.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations Marieke van de Loosdrecht1, Abdeljalil Bouzouggar2,3,*,†, Louise Humphrey4, Cosimo Posth1, Nick Barton5, Ayinuer Aximu-Petri3, Birgit Nickel3, Sarah Nagel3, El Hassan Talbi6, Mohammed Abdeljalil El Hajraoui2, Saaïd Amzazi7, Jean-Jacques Hublin3, Svante Pääbo3, Stephan Schiffels1, Matthias Meyer3, Wolfgang Haak1,†, Choongwon Jeong1,*,†, Johannes Krause1,*,† 2018
^^ the first article to find North African Y DNA in " Iberomaurusians"
and they simultaneously have cold adapted limb proportions
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Really we're all speculating, even the pros.
I have two twelve year old posts tieing real Old Skool arch to 2006 uniparental info.
Sorely in need of 2018 precision. Would like me to update it? The original does give the gist but it's β level no V lab nrY mutations or any advances since 2006
EDIT: while el M was composing
# Halfan was contemporaneous to, some say influenced, Maurusian. Helwan was thought to have some Natufian output.
Lot of steps to get back to Aterians in Egypt's Western Desert. When the industry was outmoded did its former practicers die out? Did they adapt their fishing to Khormusan fishing?
M78 men pulled maybe their first sex biased gene flow against the previous Maghreb males U6 ex-mates? Notice the U6 east to west then U6a west to east then U6a1 east to west moves. Maybe U6a1 bought I mean brought the 78s with them 20k when they left NE Afr and went back to NW Afr where U6b'c sisters welcomed them home with that fresh meat.
EDIT 2 the Ol Skule Cambridge ; Ish, can you update? Some dates are a little off nowadays.
gonna dash another timeline here, more Pleistocene
posted
EDITS: Yeah, what's the point of discussing on ES if we're to discard or disregard classic info. please bump And it's the Halfan ~17,000 from the nile valley... Which might be a decent lead.
Here's some Receipts for the Newcomers ..Such as myself to an extent. Starting with Uniparental(nrY) information.
quote:" Haplogroup E-M78 the other defining haplogroup in the PCA, has an African origin in northeastern African, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (Cruciani et al., 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations it has exceptionally high frequency in few populations like those coming from western Sudan and particularly Darfur area and the Beja. The analysis of M78 subclades among Sudanese suggests that two subclades, E-V12 and E-V22, which are very common in northern African (Cruciani et al., 2007), might have been brought to Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000- 8,000 years ago. Sudden climate change might have forced several Neolithic cultures/people to shift northwards to the Mediterranean and southwards to the Sahel and Nile Valley.
-H. Yousef 2009 thesis
quote:Haplogroup E-M78 was observed over a wide area, including eastern (21.5%) and northern (18.5%) Africa, the Near East (5.8%), and Europe (7.2%), where it represents by far the most common E3b subhaplogroup. The high frequency of this clade (table 1) and its high microsatellite diversity suggest that it originated in eastern Africa, 23.2 ky ago (95% CI 21.1–25.4 ky).
[...]
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster d was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78d chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity ( ky) for the separation of 14.7 +/-2.7. eastern Africans from the other populations.
-cruciani 04
We had evidence of M78's origin and dispersal times for a minute now. It is suggested to have migrated to BOTH the Near East and to North Africa at about 14.7 kya... Since we've mentioned Natufian culture and Mushabians, we can analyze some relevant dates in the Levant and North Africa.
quote: 10.1007/BF01117080
Ofer Bar-Yosef and Anna Belfer-Cohen '89
Mushabian Culture seems to have spread to the Levant roughly around M78 proposed dispersal to that area. The OP's data Adjusted the Date for M78's origin to be a closer 18kya. The sequenced Taf samples are almost fixed for M78 with the eldest sample approaching 15K years old. Evidently this can be seen as proof that M78's dispersal to the west was some what recent between 18K and 15k years ago. But you're probably wondering? Why the Natufians aren't M78 proper? Only 2 of the 6 samples are seemingly not M78, the others sit upstream, but it isn't clear if they're actually basal, due to the fact that Natufians aDNA are not that of the best coverage. Also M78 is right there in the PPNB.
So like Tukuler pointed out, we have the geometric Kebarans in the levant and elsewhere OOA and we have the Mushabians who presumably migrated north from the Nile Valley. Bar-Yosef again...
quote:"The Mushabians moved into Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping techniques. Worth noting is the microburin technique, which was designed to obtain oblique snaps on bladelets, and microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points. These types are commonly found in the Iberomaurusian and at sites in the Nile Valley earlier than in the Levant (Phillips 1975; Phillips and Mintz 1977; Bar-Yosef 1980; Close 1978). The almost 60 Mushabian sites of both the early and later phases which have been studied reflect highly mobile small groups, which exploited the desertic region around the Mediterranean vegetational belt (Bar-Yosef 1981; Goring-Morris 1985).
[...]
The time range of the Mushabian, based on stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates, correlates with that of the Geometric Kebaran (14,000 12,800 B.P.; see Fig. 2) and suggests the coexistence of two entities. The Mushabian lithic industry is different from that of the Geometric Kebaran. Moreover, there is a close affinity between the Mushabian technotypological attributes and those of the Iberomaurusian and related industries in North Africa (e.g., Tixier, 1963; Camps, 1978), the Nile Valley (Phillips, 1973), and Nubia (Close, 1977)."
So the overlap in these lithic industries seem to be in correspondence to the dispersal of M35 possibly M78 from East Africa. I'll even go as far to say that this overlap is to the exclusion of Aterian and MSA cultures of the maghreb.
...more receipts coming
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tukuler You can probably see where this is going... but before I go on and potentially waste my time... Do you know of any evidence of Microburin techniques being used by the Maurasians before 18kya??
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tukuler You can probably see where this is going...
but before I go on and potentially waste my time...
Do you know of any evidence of Microburin techniques being used by the Maurasians before 18kya??
No, I'm terrible at second guessing.
I don't think it's a waste of time to clean slate investigate. But a preconception can filter findings.
I'm at a loss. This is the first I've heard of potential pre-18k Maurusians.
Feel free to use iberomaurusian if you wanna. I should always tack that term because surfers won't be keying in my Afrovisioned term.
Appreciate the more up to date material you posted. I used that old Cruciani. Funny thing is I bitched his cluster concept. Boy was I L'ed about that!
In rethinking my 2006 presentation in considering HGs existing in a time frame and relative regional proximity, I'm currently seeking published E-M78 coalescence and expansion dates from three sources without overlapping team members to weed out groupthink or a clique effect.
I'm not much in a search and uncover scientific data mood today. So take your time I'm in no rush (like when that Trans-Sahara report came out and totally enthralled me with its E-M2 and I hurredly posted scrambled stuff and typos in my enthusiasm and excitement).
posted
let me guess...jungle fever(love for white women) 20,000years ago? Although all carried ancestral alleles for pigmentation. Ie all black people.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [q]
What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.
Lemme know if you understand. [/Q]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No ElMaestro! All were African Great Lakes migrants! Black men weren't chasing after white women 20,000 years ago. SMH
And that goes for mtDNA U6 also.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic