Khan theorizes.. Sumerians where half natufian/half Zagros mountains...
Origin of Afroasiatic lies with in E lineages J1 J2 appear in the Levant during bronze age and adopt afroasiatic languages
Basal Eurasian may be North African in origin
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The best candidate for basal eurasian is indeed north african : ANA/aterians
it will either be ANA or a mixed group having substantial amount of ANA ancestry :
quote:Aterian populations may have spread before 100 Ka to the Levant, where they intermingled with anatomically (but not behaviorally) modern humans who were following the Nile Corridor north at around the same time. This scenario would account for the odd combination of morphologies found at Levantine sites such as Qafzeh and Skhul, and also for the contemporaneous occurrence of typical Homo sapiens individuals at the former"
Encyclopedia of global archeology, 2020, Fossil records of early modern humans, pp. 4348
quote:If the makers of Aterian and Taramsa lithic complexes were the protagonists of the first episode (Garcea 2010), after 50 ka BP, Homo sapiens from the African Mediterranean coasts have definitely replaced Neanderthals in the Levant."
Encyclopedia of global archeology, 2020,North and Saharan Africa: geography and chronology, pp. 7957
quote:"The makers of these assemblages can therefore be seen as (1) a group of Homo sapiens predating and/or contemporary to the out-of-Africa exodus of the species, and (2) geographically one of the (if not the) closest from the main gate to Eurasia at the northeastern corner of the African continent. Although Moroccan specimens have been discovered far away from this area, they may provide us with one of the best proxies of the African groups that expanded into Eurasia."
Khan theorizes.. Sumerians where half natufian/half Zagros mountains...
Origin of Afroasiatic lies with in E lineages J1 J2 appear in the Levant during bronze age and adopt afroasiatic languages
Basal Eurasian may be North African in origin
Now the question is....what does ANY OF THIS INFORMATION tell us about what the ancient Natufians or Sumerians looked like?
Brother Garfield is SLOW in learning this information, and we (people who have been watching them for the better part of the last decade) saw where just a few years ago him and Polight were still using the decades long outdated E3b and E3a to describe Africans. So what I'm saying is they (espcially him) are not qualified to really give any valuable information from their data interpretation.
With Garfield also being an immigrant, they tend to think that white ice is colder. What I mean by that is that since whites like put high emphasis on genetics, immigrants like Garfield are eager to prove that they are "smart like wytes" by regurgitating their talking points (again TRYING to sound smart) WITHOUT having the intelligence enough to know that their research require HEAVY scrutiny as XYman routinely put on blast.
So hoisting up Garfield as some intellect in this field is nothing more than GOOFY.
Khan theorizes.. Sumerians where half natufian/half Zagros mountains...
Origin of Afroasiatic lies with in E lineages J1 J2 appear in the Levant during bronze age and adopt afroasiatic languages
Basal Eurasian may be North African in origin
Now the question is....what does ANY OF THIS INFORMATION tell us about what the ancient Natufians or Sumerians looked like?
Brother Garfield is SLOW in learning this information, and we (people who have been watching them for the better part of the last decade) saw where just a few years ago him and Polight were still using the decades long outdated E3b and E3a to describe Africans. So what I'm saying is they (espcially him) are not qualified to really give any valuable information from their data interpretation.
With Garfield also being an immigrant, they tend to think that white ice is colder. What I mean by that is that since whites like put high emphasis on genetics, immigrants like Garfield are eager to prove that they are "smart like wytes" by regurgitating their talking points (again TRYING to sound smart) WITHOUT having the intelligence enough to know that their research require HEAVY scrutiny as XYman routinely put on blast.
So hoisting up Garfield as some intellect in this field is nothing more than GOOFY.
Let me say this... in my humble opinion Garfield is an agent/plant/cointelpro
Everything I highlighted was from Khan.. now I disagree with Khan on his Egyptian summation simply because he does not understand history and has admitted that...
Yes for Garfiled Yte Ice is Colder... I think it is going to take him some to absorb this info because he has a preconclusion he is going to have to turn his boat around..
Now that we know Talforat/Natufian where admixed Africans.. The base Sumerian culture would have African influences which make sense when we see the relations between Sumerian and Niger Congo and Afrasian ...
It is ALL making sense... and is just confirming old info
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs at 60-70% And who are these modern Arabs? Because northern Arabic type people absorbed mainly Turks and folks from the south absorbed African and some South Asian types depending on region.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
Now that we know Talforat/Natufian where admixed Africans.. The base Sumerian culture would have African influences which make sense when we see the relations between Sumerian and Niger Congo and Afrasian ...
Talforat/Natufians are around 15,000 years old
Sumer is c. 4500 – c. 1900 BC
Sumerian language, language isolate and may be the oldest written language in existence. First attested about 3100 BCE in southern Mesopotamia, it flourished during the 3rd millennium BCE. About 2000 BCE, Sumerian was replaced as a spoken language by Semitic Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) but continued in written usage almost to the end of the life of the Akkadian language, around the beginning of the Christian era. Sumerian never extended much beyond its original boundaries in southern Mesopotamia
mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization Henryk W. Witas
Abstract Ancient DNA methodology was applied to analyse sequences extracted from freshly unearthed remains (teeth) of 4 individuals deeply deposited in slightly alkaline soil of the Tell Ashara (ancient Terqa) and Tell Masaikh (ancient Kar-Assurnasirpal) Syrian archaeological sites, both in the middle Euphrates valley. Dated to the period between 2.5 Kyrs BC and 0.5 Kyrs AD the studied individuals carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Paleolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, they are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan. We anticipate that the analysed remains from Mesopotamia belonged to people with genetic affinity to the Indian subcontinent since the distribution of identified ancient haplotypes indicates solid link with populations from the region of South Asia-Tibet (Trans-Himalaya). They may have been descendants of migrants from much earlier times, spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa or just merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region. None of the successfully identified nuclear alleles turned out to be ΔF508 CFTR, LCT-13910T or Δ32 CCR5.
it is commonly accepted that the founders of Sumerian civilization came from the outside of the region, their exact origin is, however, still a matter of debate. It is suggested that migrants of Iranian, Indian [32], [33] or even Tibetan affinity [34] founded the Sumerian civilization, which suggestion can be supported by comparing the Tibeto-Burman and Sumerian languages [35]. The migrants could have entered Mesopotamia earlier than 45 centuries ago, during the lifetime of the oldest studied individual, as the Tibetan Plateau was peopled more than 20 Kyrs ago [21], [36]. However, one also should consider the possibility that studied individuals belonged to the groups of itinerant merchants moving along a trade route passing near or through the region, since a recent comparative study of strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes content in enamel indicates that people from Indus Valley were present in southern Mesopotamia 3 Kyrs BC [37]. We believe that the identification of mtDNA sequences itself should be acknowledged as significant, leaving its detailed interpretation for further research involving a larger number of specimens, representing other Mesopotamian regions and various periods.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
so in your opinion what is their ancestry locale outside of the that 11-27% ?
where is the remaining 73% from?
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs at 60-70% And who are these modern Arabs? Because northern Arabic type people absorbed mainly Turks and folks from the south absorbed African and some South Asian types depending on region.
Saudis and yemenites mostly, SSA admixed yemenites actually form a minority and are easily recognizable
Here average saudis and yemenites have at least 60% of natufian ancestry :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
so in your opinion what is their ancestry locale outside of the that 11-27% ?
where is the remaining 73% from?
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups
E1b1b1b2 E1b1b E1b1
Dzudzuana ancestry but don't forget that taforalt also has dzudzuana ancestry therefore the amount of ANA ancestry is very low in natufians that's why it's totally ridiculous to call them "african" let alone "black africans"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
so in your opinion what is their ancestry locale outside of the that 11-27% ?
where is the remaining 73% from?
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups
E1b1b1b2 E1b1b E1b1
Dzudzuana ancestry but don't forget that taforalt also has dzudzuana ancestry therefore the amount of ANA ancestry is very low in natufians that's why it's totally ridiculous to call them "african" let alone "black africans"
posted
yes because they have iberomaurusian ancestors :
quote:Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers 6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.
Again haplogroups do not necessarily inform us about the autosomal composition of x population.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215? Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
Razib Khan does not know enough African History to speculate on some of the things he speculates on... so he is off the mark..
Khan has also focused TONS of attention on his blog on Levantine/Near Eastern/Jewish genetics
it is what it is...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs at 60-70%
Sumerians had absolutely nothing to do with "niger congo" wtf are you talking about ?
Anyway here a reconstruction of a Sumerian from Tell Fara :
Looks a lot like Tupac's Father
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
You say he is an Agent. I ask you: Is he WRONG?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
You say he is an Agent. I ask you: Is he WRONG?
About what specifically?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
It's clear that Khan has limited knowledge as a genetists of the population history of Africa in general. Which isn't a knock on him, there's not much reason to investigate if there's no real interest to do so. But being as he's not invested in any of these arguments it make his viewpoints interesting. Such as the obvious bidirectional connections between Africans and west Eurasians from the Pleistocene to the terminal Holocene.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Very interesting theories
The best candidate for basal eurasian is indeed north african : ANA/aterians
it will either be ANA or a mixed group having substantial amount of ANA ancestry :
I doubt it for Either ANA or Aterian. The former has too much of a discrepancy with ancient Iranian populations (Not congruent with BE % or inverse Neanderthal ancestry) And the latter is too similar culturally and even morphologically to Neanderthals.
I think it's best to just follow the data and start highlighting Basal Eurasians and stop searching for the Basal Eurasian. There's too much diversity unaccounted for in Pleistocene in and out of Africa to pigeon-hole the reduced amount of Neanderthal ancestry in some groups into being an expansion from a single population.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
You say he is an Agent. I ask you: Is he WRONG?
Years and years ago when I had a facebook account I used to be in a group chat that Amir was part of He used to call black people monkeys...
Amir, does not like FBA/ADOS.. he thinks he is special or something because he is Fula and I think he is of afro/Latino heritage on one side... he pretends to be a faux black american
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
You say he is an Agent. I ask you: Is he WRONG?
Years and years ago when I had a facebook account I used to be in a group chat that Amir was part of He used to call black people monkeys...
Amir, does not like FBA/ADOS.. he thinks he is special or something because he is Fula and I think he is of afro/Latino heritage on one side... he pretends to be a faux black american
Is he WRONG is the question. I dont care who he likes. Is he wrong about anything he said here?
FYI - I dont even like FBA....so there is that.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs at 60-70%
Sumerians had absolutely nothing to do with "niger congo" wtf are you talking about ?
Anyway here a reconstruction of a Sumerian from Tell Fara :
Looks a lot like Tupac's Father
they look nothing alike + tupac's father is mixed no one in sub-saharan africa look like him
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
He asked a bunch of silly questions , many with an unhealthy obsession with West Asians. He should have just interviewed AMIR and saved the insider (non peer review, personal communication) question from Razib.
Does Razib NOT know the difference between E-M2 and E-M215?
His questions are focused and targeted on debunking Black Hebrew Israelites...
Amir Ngozi is also an agent, who tried to ask leading questions to Khan...
You say he is an Agent. I ask you: Is he WRONG?
Years and years ago when I had a facebook account I used to be in a group chat that Amir was part of He used to call black people monkeys...
Amir, does not like FBA/ADOS.. he thinks he is special or something because he is Fula and I think he is of afro/Latino heritage on one side... he pretends to be a faux black american
Is he WRONG is the question. I dont care who he likes. Is he wrong about anything he said here?
FYI - I dont even like FBA....so there is that.
Again... is he wrong about what specifically...
FYI - I bet there is a bunch of FBA's that don't like you either...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I doubt it for Either ANA or Aterian. The former has too much of a discrepancy with ancient Iranian populations (Not congruent with BE % or inverse Neanderthal ancestry) And the latter is too similar culturally and even morphologically to Neanderthals.
I think it's best to just follow the data and start highlighting Basal Eurasians and stop searching for the Basal Eurasian. There's too much diversity unaccounted for in Pleistocene in and out of Africa to pigeon-hole the reduced amount of Neanderthal ancestry in some groups into being an expansion from a single population. [/QB]
That's weird since every data seem to point out in this direction; again here :
quote:The dental remains found in the Moroccan Aterian sites provide us with important information on populations that may have played a significant role in the colonization of Eurasia. Our comparative analysis confirms the essentially modern nature of these humans. Until 50 ka, Europe and Africa represented distinct bio-geographical barriers that were peopled by well-separated entities. In terms of metrical as well as non-metrical traits, the dental morphology
As for neanderthal affinities, If I'm not mistaken these were false assumptions based on a few incomplete remains or else you confuse them with some of the djebel irhoud remains who predate aterians and these djebel irhoud remains were actually associated with mousterian industry while aterian culture is distinct.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I spoke against people who used such kind of argument to imply that all eurasian ancestry in north africa is in fact african as if eurasians couldn't settled in Africa. Also please take the timeframe into account : there is easily 20k-40k years between these first eurasians and for example the first iberomaurusian.
Mutations linked to light skin, caucasoid features, straight hair, etc obviously did not appear in Africa and were brought in the continent by proper eurasians.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I spoke against people who used such kind of argument to imply that all eurasian ancestry in north africa is in fact african as if eurasians couldn't settled in Africa. Also please take the timeframe into account : there is easily 20k-40k years between these first eurasians and for example the first iberomaurusian.
Mutations linked to light skin, caucasoid features, straight hair, etc obviously did not appear in Africa and were brought in the continent by proper eurasians.
Read the research by Tina Lasisi, see the video where she defends her thesis. There is a possibility that Straighter hair is ancestral and curly hair is an adaptation to humid regions. our earliest African ancestors may have had straighter hair before anyone even left the continent. This is similar to light skin genes that exist WAY before OOA.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Read the research by Tina Lasisi, see the video where she defends her thesis. There is a possibility that Straighter hair is ancestral and curly hair is an adaptation to humid regions. our earliest African ancestors may have had straighter hair before anyone even left the continent. This is similar to light skin genes that exist WAY before OOA. [/QB]
That's possible but that doesn't mean these variants for straight hair found in modern west eurasians are African or goes back to these early homo sapiens. These mutations clearly appeared in eurasia then expanded that's why most SSAs lack such trait except west eurasian admixed north-east africans (but even them don't all have it).
As for light skin, I don't see how that would make sense in regards to SSA climates/UV exposure except in some really fringe zones like some mediterranean-like areas in south africa or North africa of course
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I spoke against people who used such kind of argument to imply that all eurasian ancestry in north africa is in fact african as if eurasians couldn't settled in Africa. Also please take the timeframe into account : there is easily 20k-40k years between these first eurasians and for example the first iberomaurusian.
Mutations linked to light skin, caucasoid features, straight hair, etc obviously did not appear in Africa and were brought in the continent by proper eurasians.
posted
@Antalas "So I’m saying North Africans could be within the West Eurasian cluster despite having no proper Eurasian ancestry due to the reasons above, this isn’t mutually exclusive with North Africans having EEF, IBM, Natufian and Iran_N ancestry. "
You responded to this by calling it mental gymnastics even when I explicitly said Eurasians settled in Africa but okay.
I agree that certain lightskin genes such as SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 aren't native to Africa but why can't "caucasoid" features and straight hair be native?
Cranial measurements from KNM‐KX 2 were compared to early Holocene/LSA (~10.0–4.0 ka), Pastoral Neolithic (~3.5–2.0 ka), and modern African groups (Figure 4). The nine cranial measurements included in the comparative sample varied significantly across the population groups (Kruskal‐Wallis: χ2 = 51.96–202.27, df = 7, p < 0.01). Pairwise tests were not used for the cranial metric analyses because the Kisese II sample only consisted of one individual. The Taita, Early Holocene/LSA, Pastoral Neolithic, and KNM‐KX 2 all had a similar ratio of maximum cranial breadth and length compared to the other modern African populations. Dimensions of the nasal aperture for KNM‐KX 2 were smaller than most of the modern African populations but overlapped with Egyptian individuals. Kruskal‐Wallis tests for all cranial measurements across individual sites within the early Holocene/LSA and Pastoral Neolithic samples were not significant.
These are 7ky old Tanzanians showing affinities to Northern Egyptians with regards to nasal aperture, meaning they had a relatively narrow nose, these people predate the Pastoral Neolithic and would have been predominantly SSA.
You have descendants of OOA migrants who were strongly "Caucasoid" in their morphology such as Ksar Akil in Lebanon who’s dated to be around 40,000 years old, there’s no reason why some of these features wouldn't have been present amongst the native North Africans who gave rise to these OOA people. I don't see the OOA migration occurring, and in the space of 15,000 years they turn from a craniofacially SSA people to a strongly Caucasoid one, some of the cranial features that characterise "Caucasoids" should have already been developing in Africa. If the "Eurasian" bottleneck did occur in Africa, then it shouldn't be surprising if it was accompanied by a change in craniofacial form, before they left for Eurasia.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Have you ever read anything about your cushitic ancestors ? These were west eurasians who reached tanzania why do you think some khoisan groups have eurasian ancestry ?
Anyway your rhetoric is like an european saying "I don't see why epicanthic folds wouldn't appear in Europe" ... just stop it be reasonable. What's next ? Taking blond melanesians as proof dark skinned people can have blonde hair ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Have you ever read anything about your cushitic ancestors ? These were west eurasians who reached tanzania why do you think some khoisan groups have eurasian ancestry ?
Anyway your rhetoric is like an european saying "I don't see why epicanthic folds wouldn't appear in Europe" ... just stop it be reasonable. What's next ? Taking blond melanesians as proof dark skinned people can have blonde hair ?
You didn't read the part where I said they predate the Pastoral Neolithic? Khoisans acquired their Eurasian ancestry in the past 2000-3000 years, these remains are 7000 years old, they are hunter gatherers, the so called "Eurasians" you're referring to practised pastoralism.
You haven't addressed the bulk of my post, that genetic processes can drive phenotypic changes, so if the Eurasian bottleneck occurred in Africa, and early OOA migrants show a Caucasoid cranial form, this form should be expected in Africa amongst the Eurasian-like population that begot the OOA movement.
This bottleneck likely accompanied a change in cranial structure which was transplanted into the Levant where they would have undergone further differentiation from their African ancestors and so on…
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: You didn't read the part where I said they predate the Pastoral Neolithic? Khoisans acquired their Eurasian ancestry in the past 2000-3000 years, these remains are 7000 years old, they are hunter gatherers, the so called "Eurasians" you're referring to practised pastoralism.
You haven't addressed the bulk of my post, that genetic processes can drive phenotypic changes, so if the Eurasian bottleneck occurred in Africa, and early OOA migrants show a Caucasoid cranial form, this form should be expected in Africa amongst the Eurasian-like population that begot the OOA movement.
This bottleneck likely accompanied a change in cranial structure which was transplanted into the Levant where they would have undergone further differentiation from their African ancestors and so on… [/QB]
So ? Are you implying that eurasian ancestry only appeared during the neolithic in east africa ? Khoisans acquired their eurasian ancestry through east african pastoralists and such admixture doesn't necessarily imply substantial changes in terms of way of life.
The bulk of your post is very speculative but if it really happened that way then I find it a bit ridiculous to call it "african" since such evolution did not affect most africans. It's a bit like people who absolutely want AE to be labelled as "african civilization" as if it meant something in regards to other africans. Also make up your mind, at one point you guys question the caucasoid traits of natufians, iberomaurusians, Iran_N, etc but see no problem with the claim that basal eurasians were already caucasoids lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's weird since every data seem to point out in this direction; again here :
quote:The dental remains found in the Moroccan Aterian sites provide us with important information on populations that may have played a significant role in the colonization of Eurasia. Our comparative analysis confirms the essentially modern nature of these humans. Until 50 ka, Europe and Africa represented distinct bio-geographical barriers that were peopled by well-separated entities. In terms of metrical as well as non-metrical traits, the dental morphology
As for neanderthal affinities, If I'm not mistaken these were false assumptions based on a few incomplete remains or else you confuse them with some of the djebel irhoud remains who predate aterians and these djebel irhoud remains were actually associated with mousterian industry while aterian culture is distinct.
You're conflating too many conveniences. The Aterian comparison to Neanderthals was questioned under the context of their grouping; Archaic vs AMH. They're grouped with AMH. But the Archaic features were still notable, They share unique traits with populations we know know undeniably have considerable Neanderthal Admixture as per your own source:
quote: Morphologically, this megadontia is expressed in the development of mass-additive traits including extra crests, distal cuspules, Carabelli’s cusp, as well as large, often divided, hypocones on the upper teeth. This helps us to set some of the features observed in Neandertals in perspective, highlighting their primitive nature (see discussion in Bailey et al. 2009). The Aterian morphological pattern is also important to consider when interpreting the dental morphology of the first modern humans in Eurasia. Strikingly, a reminiscent pattern is observed on the Pesßtera cu Oase 1 and 2 specimens, which are the oldest directly dated modern individuals found in Europe to date (Trinkaus et al. 2003; Rougier et al. 2007).
Not only that, you've conflated their pattern of dispersal OOA, when the populations OOA in question could very well be dead-ends. I haven't been updated but I don't see a BE Patern for Aterian culture and dispersal based on previous readings.
Who provides your repo by the way?? Check this study out (at least the discussion), you can see how this plays into certain patterns we see with aDNA and the Bidirectional movements of pleistocene populations.
quote:"The specimens from NK 2, OAS, and HOF provide a glimpse of Late Pleistocene human phenotypic diversity. These penecontemporaneous but geographically disparate individuals derive from a period (MIS 3) that witnessed modern human expansion into Eurasia and back into northern Africa from eastern Africa (Olivieri et al., 2006). Morphometric analyses suggest considerable diversity among these and other Late Pleistocene human crania. NK 2, OAS, and HOF exhibit individual charac- teristics by which they fall beyond the ranges of varia- tion of other Pleistocene samples, and the multivariate analyses reveal that although their neurocrania exhibit an overall modern configuration, the facial dimensions of NK 2 and HOF suggest a more archaic disposition. [...] The results of the bootstrap analyses conducted in this study are compatible with the suggestion from genetic studies that living humans represent only a restricted part of past modern human variation (Underhill et al., 2000; Excoffier, 2002; Marth et al., 2003; Fagundes et al., 2007). Certainly the European and North African Upper Paleolithic samples appear to exhibit greater craniometric variability than recent human samples. Our results appear to accord with the conclusions reached by Manica et al. (2007), von Cramon-Taubadel and Lycett (2008), and Betti et al. (2009) regarding the proportional relationship between recent within-population cranio- metric diversity and geographic distance from eastern Africa"
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Read the research by Tina Lasisi, see the video where she defends her thesis. There is a possibility that Straighter hair is ancestral and curly hair is an adaptation to humid regions. our earliest African ancestors may have had straighter hair before anyone even left the continent. This is similar to light skin genes that exist WAY before OOA.
Without having yet seen or heard Dr. Lasisi's comments on that topic...
I can buy that straighter hair in North Africa might be an indigenous development, but I dunno if I would call it ancestral for Homo sapiens. The African populations that have fluffy, frizzy hair are otherwise pretty genetically disparate, with Khoisan people from southernmost Africa (a region south of the Tropic of Capricorn with a dry Mediterranean climate) having the most tightly coiled hair despite being the earliest-diverging modern human population. Seems more likely to me that frizzy hair was the ancestral state for AMH (if not the genus Homo) and that straighter hair evolved* independently in a number of places (e.g. northern Eurasia, mainland Australia, and maybe North Africa).
That said, yes, humidity versus aridity could be a factor in what hair texture a human population would evolve. Aboriginal people in the arid interior of Australia have straighter or wavier hair than Papuans, Melanesians, or the extinct Tasmanians, for example.
* Or, rather, re-evolved since pre-Homo hominins would presumably have been straight-haired like all the other primates.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Read the research by Tina Lasisi, see the video where she defends her thesis. There is a possibility that Straighter hair is ancestral and curly hair is an adaptation to humid regions. our earliest African ancestors may have had straighter hair before anyone even left the continent. This is similar to light skin genes that exist WAY before OOA.
Without having yet seen or heard Dr. Lasisi's comments on that topic...
I can buy that straighter hair in North Africa might be an indigenous development, but I dunno if I would call it ancestral for Homo sapiens. The African populations that have fluffy, frizzy hair are otherwise pretty genetically disparate, with Khoisan people from southernmost Africa (a region south of the Tropic of Capricorn with a dry Mediterranean climate) having the most tightly coiled hair despite being the earliest-diverging modern human population. Seems more likely to me that frizzy hair was the ancestral state for AMH (if not the genus Homo) and that straighter hair evolved* independently in a number of places (e.g. northern Eurasia, mainland Australia, and maybe North Africa).
That said, yes, humidity versus aridity could be a factor in what hair texture a human population would evolve. Aboriginal people in the arid interior of Australia have straighter or wavier hair than Papuans, Melanesians, or the extinct Tasmanians, for example.
* Or, rather, re-evolved since pre-Homo hominins would presumably have been straight-haired like all the other primates.
If there is a possibility that straight hair evolved independently in North Africa, pair that with the possibility that Homo Sapien is of North African origin. What we are left with is straight haired primates transitioning into Early homo with its earliest representatives inhabiting a non humid area with no need for curly hair.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You're conflating too many conveniences. The Aterian comparison to Neanderthals was questioned under the context of their grouping; Archaic vs AMH. They're grouped with AMH. But the Archaic features were still notable, They share unique traits with populations we know know undeniably have considerable Neanderthal Admixture as per your own source:
I never denied this but they also showed strong similarities with Iberomaurusians :
quote:This adult man (dead at more than 50 years judging by the degree of synostosis of the sutures), is unquestionably a Homo sapiens sapiens and both morphologically and metrically, nothing opposes seeing in this fossil a possible ancestor of the Iberomaurusians, i.e. of the Men of Mechta el-Arbi, from which it differs only by the accentuation of certain characters (transverse dimensions, superciliary arches) and a more archaic, more robust aspect. By its stratigraphic position in the brown-red (Soltanian) layer, the Dar es-Soltane 5 Man is the representative of the human type of the Aterian, in an intermediate position between the Man of Jebel Irhoud which is Mousterian and the Man of Mechta el-Arbi which appears in the Iberomaurusian.
quote:The hypothesis of a sapiens sapiens ancestry, for the Aterian cultured Man of Temara, seems conceivable, in the absence of another argument, since many of his traits bring him closer to "modern Men or those of the Mechta-Afalou type" (Férembach 1976: 180). As for the Man of Dar-Es-Soltane 2, also in an Aterian1 cultural context (layer 7, Debénath 1976: 182, and oral communication of 17-4-2004), it differs from the Mechta-Afalou Men only by "the accentuation of certain morphological details or dimensions" (Férembach 1979: 191)."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Not only that, you've conflated their pattern of dispersal OOA, when the populations OOA in question could very well be dead-ends. I haven't been updated but I don't see a BE Patern for Aterian culture and dispersal based on previous readings.
You could have said this for the earliest OOA movements but dead-ends for such recent dispersal seems unlikely anyway I don't understand why you're so reluctant to this hypothesis while literally all the datas I've read on them point in this direction.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Who provides your repo by the way??
It's from me based on my readings
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: You didn't read the part where I said they predate the Pastoral Neolithic? Khoisans acquired their Eurasian ancestry in the past 2000-3000 years, these remains are 7000 years old, they are hunter gatherers, the so called "Eurasians" you're referring to practised pastoralism.
You haven't addressed the bulk of my post, that genetic processes can drive phenotypic changes, so if the Eurasian bottleneck occurred in Africa, and early OOA migrants show a Caucasoid cranial form, this form should be expected in Africa amongst the Eurasian-like population that begot the OOA movement.
This bottleneck likely accompanied a change in cranial structure which was transplanted into the Levant where they would have undergone further differentiation from their African ancestors and so on…
So ? Are you implying that eurasian ancestry only appeared during the neolithic in east africa ? Khoisans acquired their eurasian ancestry through east african pastoralists and such admixture doesn't necessarily imply substantial changes in terms of way of life.
The bulk of your post is very speculative but if it really happened that way then I find it a bit ridiculous to call it "african" since such evolution did not affect most africans. It's a bit like people who absolutely want AE to be labelled as "african civilization" as if it meant something in regards to other africans. Also make up your mind, at one point you guys question the caucasoid traits of natufians, iberomaurusians, Iran_N, etc but see no problem with the claim that basal eurasians were already caucasoids lol [/QB]
Again, "North Africa" includes the Sahara and is thousands of square miles in area and not just the coasts of the Mediterranean. Black Africans have always been present in North Africa. You keep resting your whole nonsense argument on this idea that all these ancient genes from over 20,000 years ago originated in "Eurasia", including U6 and E1b, when they could easily have originated in Africa but we cannot tell because the ancient DNA is not available. And if some of those lineages DID come from Eurasia, those populations over 20,000 years go did not look like modern Eurasians with light skin. So your nonsense argument that you keep spouting that somehow "Eurasians" with light skin looking like modern Europeans and Levantines entered North Africa over 20,000 years ago is nonsense. And again, the central Sahara was the location of many of the key evolutionary activities in North Africa during the wet phase, from pottery, to wild animal herding and evolution of pastoral and cultural traditions all among black African populations. And we know Berber languages originated among these populations migrating from the East towards the Nile Valley. North Africa is not Eurasian and has never been part of Eurasia and therefore your claim that they were always light skinned is silly nonsense talk.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: natufians were not africans, they simply had some taforalt ancestry (11%-27%)
natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs at 60-70%
Sumerians had absolutely nothing to do with "niger congo" wtf are you talking about ?
Anyway here a reconstruction of a Sumerian from Tell Fara :
Looks a lot like Tupac's Father
Adding Scottie Pippen to this phenotype
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You're conflating too many conveniences. The Aterian comparison to Neanderthals was questioned under the context of their grouping; Archaic vs AMH. They're grouped with AMH. But the Archaic features were still notable, They share unique traits with populations we know know undeniably have considerable Neanderthal Admixture as per your own source:
I never denied this but they also showed strong similarities with Iberomaurusians :
quote:This adult man (dead at more than 50 years judging by the degree of synostosis of the sutures), is unquestionably a Homo sapiens sapiens and both morphologically and metrically, nothing opposes seeing in this fossil a possible ancestor of the Iberomaurusians, i.e. of the Men of Mechta el-Arbi, from which it differs only by the accentuation of certain characters (transverse dimensions, superciliary arches) and a more archaic, more robust aspect. By its stratigraphic position in the brown-red (Soltanian) layer, the Dar es-Soltane 5 Man is the representative of the human type of the Aterian, in an intermediate position between the Man of Jebel Irhoud which is Mousterian and the Man of Mechta el-Arbi which appears in the Iberomaurusian.
quote:The hypothesis of a sapiens sapiens ancestry, for the Aterian cultured Man of Temara, seems conceivable, in the absence of another argument, since many of his traits bring him closer to "modern Men or those of the Mechta-Afalou type" (Férembach 1976: 180). As for the Man of Dar-Es-Soltane 2, also in an Aterian1 cultural context (layer 7, Debénath 1976: 182, and oral communication of 17-4-2004), it differs from the Mechta-Afalou Men only by "the accentuation of certain morphological details or dimensions" (Férembach 1979: 191)."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Not only that, you've conflated their pattern of dispersal OOA, when the populations OOA in question could very well be dead-ends. I haven't been updated but I don't see a BE Patern for Aterian culture and dispersal based on previous readings.
You could have said this for the earliest OOA movements but dead-ends for such recent dispersal seems unlikely anyway I don't understand why you're so reluctant to this hypothesis while literally all the datas I've read on them point in this direction.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Who provides your repo by the way??
It's from me based on my readings
So this is an original theory by you? Not a problem if it is, but I don't know if you're fully aware of the parameters in question.
I'm reluctant to buy your theory because the data actually doesn't point in that direction. At least none that you've posted or I've previously read. Like I said before, you're looking at some conveniences and hypothesizing based on that. The broader picture doesn't align with a Basal Eurasian dispersal. I do agree that Iberomaurasians have Aterian introgression (I've said so many times) but that doesn't make Aterians Basal Eurasian. I personally believe that the disproportionate amount of Neanderthal ancestry in the Taforalt samples (in comparison to their SSA + BE ancestry) is a result of Aterian introgression. I also can buy that the rare A* paternal haplogroup found in Morocco could be linked to the Aterian. But evidence that the Aterian-Mousterian reduced Neanderthal-like variants in CHG, EEF, Dzudzuana, MA1, Satslurblian 29, Hotu IIIb and the like is not there. Most inferred African-related influences on said populations are akin to ancient East Africans and remains on the well researched AMH cline. Common Ancestor ---> East Africa --> BE --> OOA. The research suggests Aterians were either an earlier offshoot or an admixed backmigrated bunch. Common Ancestor ---> Aterian or Common Ancestor --> East Africa --> BE --> OOA + Archaic/Neanderthal --> Aterian
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, "North Africa" includes the Sahara and is thousands of square miles in area and not just the coasts of the Mediterranean.
That's the modern definition of "north africa", historically coastal north africans didn't have much in common with saharan populations let alone sahelians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have always been present in North Africa. You keep resting your whole nonsense argument on this idea that all these ancient genes from over 20,000 years ago originated in "Eurasia", including U6 and E1b, when they could easily have originated in Africa but we cannot tell because the ancient DNA is not available. And if some of those lineages DID come from Eurasia, those populations over 20,000 years go did not look like modern Eurasians with light skin. So your nonsense argument that you keep spouting that somehow "Eurasians" with light skin looking like modern Europeans and Levantines entered North Africa over 20,000 years ago is nonsense. And again, the central Sahara was the location of many of the key evolutionary activities in North Africa during the wet phase, from pottery, to wild animal herding and evolution of pastoral and cultural traditions all among black African populations. And we know Berber languages originated among these populations migrating from the East towards the Nile Valley. North Africa is not Eurasian and has never been part of Eurasia and therefore your claim that they were always light skinned is silly nonsense talk.
The consensus is clear about such ancestry coming from Eurasia but yes I should trust "DougM" and his dubious interpretations. These 20k populations actually looked like modern eurasians based on the anthropological datas whether they were dark skinned or not and no the "central sahara" didn't play any key role in the cultural or genetic field of coastal North Africa. Proto-berber was most likely brought by a PPNC/KEN_N population that came from the delta area (Capsians are good candidates for this).
Now about your "black skin" obsession are you aware that the typical black negroid phenotype wouldn't be adapted to North Africa ? Coastal north africa literally receive the same amount of UV radiation as southern Europe and its climate is mostly mediterranean (let alone in mountainous area). Black skin isn't adapted to desertic places either for the following reasons : black skin reflects less light than lighter shades, absorbs more radiation in general, including infrared. These rays have a warming effect that's why blacks absorb 40 % more calories per hours than do Caucasoids in such places. So a tanned/brown skin is more adapted to such places. What's even more ridiculous in your argument is that coastal north africa at the time of Iberomaurusians especially during wet phases was even more cold and temperate than today and had far mor forests.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: So this is an original theory by you? Not a problem if it is, but I don't know if you're fully aware of the parameters in question.
I admit that's possible, I still have to read more on the middle east.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm reluctant to buy your theory because the data actually doesn't point in that direction. At least none that you've posted or I've previously read. Like I said before, you're looking at some conveniences and hypothesizing based on that The broader picture doesn't align with a Basal Eurasian dispersal. I do agree that Iberomaurasians have Aterian introgression (I've said so many times) but that doesn't make Aterians Basal Eurasian. I personally believe that the disproportionate amount of Neanderthal ancestry in the Taforalt samples (in comparison to their SSA + BE ancestry) is a result of Aterian introgression. I also can buy that the rare A* paternal haplogroup found in Morocco could be linked to the Aterian. But evidence that the Aterian-Mousterian reduced Neanderthal-like variants in CHG, EEF, Dzudzuana, MA1, Satslurblian 29, Hotu IIIb and the like is not there. Most inferred African-related influences on said populations are akin to ancient East Africans and remains on the well researched AMH cline. Common Ancestor ---> East Africa --> BE --> OOA. The research suggests Aterians were either an earlier offshoot or an admixed backmigrated bunch. Common Ancestor ---> Aterian or Common Ancestor --> East Africa --> BE --> OOA + Archaic/Neanderthal --> Aterian [/QB]
Yes I do speculate I admit but I actually also said many times that aterians might not be BE but a sister clade that didn't participate in the OOA and about this neanderthal ancestry, if you talk about what they detected for IAM then I disagree such type of ancestry was clearly brought by eurasian settlers or else modern north africans should have scored even higher level of neanderthal ancestry than europeans and as for this "east african" affinity wasn't it already the case for the "SSA" in IAM ? Also aterians in North-east africa might have been slightly different who knows and do not forget that I also acknowledge the possibility of a mixed population rich in ANA/aterian ancestry.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, "North Africa" includes the Sahara and is thousands of square miles in area and not just the coasts of the Mediterranean.
That's the modern definition of "north africa", historically coastal north africans didn't have much in common with saharan populations let alone sahelians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have always been present in North Africa. You keep resting your whole nonsense argument on this idea that all these ancient genes from over 20,000 years ago originated in "Eurasia", including U6 and E1b, when they could easily have originated in Africa but we cannot tell because the ancient DNA is not available. And if some of those lineages DID come from Eurasia, those populations over 20,000 years go did not look like modern Eurasians with light skin. So your nonsense argument that you keep spouting that somehow "Eurasians" with light skin looking like modern Europeans and Levantines entered North Africa over 20,000 years ago is nonsense. And again, the central Sahara was the location of many of the key evolutionary activities in North Africa during the wet phase, from pottery, to wild animal herding and evolution of pastoral and cultural traditions all among black African populations. And we know Berber languages originated among these populations migrating from the East towards the Nile Valley. North Africa is not Eurasian and has never been part of Eurasia and therefore your claim that they were always light skinned is silly nonsense talk.
The consensus is clear about such ancestry coming from Eurasia but yes I should trust "DougM" and his dubious interpretations. These 20k populations actually looked like modern eurasians based on the anthropological datas whether they were dark skinned or not and no the "central sahara" didn't play any key role in the cultural or genetic field of coastal North Africa. Proto-berber was most likely brought by a PPNC/KEN_N population that came from the delta area (Capsians are good candidates for this).
Now about your "black skin" obsession are you aware that the typical black negroid phenotype wouldn't be adapted to North Africa ? Coastal north africa literally receive the same amount of UV radiation as southern Europe and its climate is mostly mediterranean (let alone in mountainous area). Black skin isn't adapted to desertic places either for the following reasons : black skin reflects less light than lighter shades, absorbs more radiation in general, including infrared. These rays have a warming effect that's why blacks absorb 40 % more calories per hours than do Caucasoids in such places. So a tanned/brown skin is more adapted to such places. What's even more ridiculous in your argument is that coastal north africa at the time of Iberomaurusians especially during wet phases was even more cold and temperate than today and had far mor forests.
Antalas you are spouting gibberish again. I said coastal North Africa isn't all of North Africa and you start spouting pseudoscience about blacks not being able to live in deserts? Like WTF science is that based on? All you do is keep spouting gibberish and claiming someone is trying to distort history but the one making outright distortions here is you. As for the obsession with black skin you are the one who is constantly telling everyone here how black skin somehow didn't exist in "North Africa". And when you get shown to be wrong you simply keep saying it. You have this obsession.
The Rock art of Tassili N'ajer shows that black people were always present in North Africa and that is between Southwestern Libya and Southeastern Algeria. This is also the same region where some of the earliest Tifinagh inscriptions were found.
Bottom line, U6 originated over 30,000 years ago. There were no "white" people then and none of the Eurasians carrying such genes have any close relationships to modern Eurasians. And these people had nothing to do with 'berbers' as Berbers didn't exist at that time. So like I said you keep spouting gibberish.
quote: The analysis of the PM1 mitogenome polymorphisms revealed 15 nucleotide changes with respect to the rCRS28, identifying the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6* (Supplementary Table 1). One of these polymorphisms is a private mutation, T10517A, not previously found in any mitochondrial genome. The U6 haplogroup is the only sub-haplogroup within the U clade currently present in Africa, showing an increasing frequency gradient from Eastern (1.09–1.57% in Egypt) to Western North Africa (8.89% in the Magreb). A similar longitudinal gradient is present in the Southern European populations (from 0.19% in Eastern Mediterranean to 1.12% in South Spain)29,30 (Fig. 2B). The U6 haplotypes found in present-day Europeans have been attributed to African sources, mainly to the historic Moorish expansion, but also to prehistoric influence since Neolithic times29,30. Hence, PM1 is the first basal U6 haplogroup found in Europe that is not connected to recent migration from Africa.
The mitogenome from PM1 offers important information in order to understand human population movements during the Paleolithic Age related to the haplogroup U6. While all the extant U6 haplotypes belong to derived branches, i.e. U6a’b’d (characterized by transition, 16219) or to the less frequent U6c (characterized by a set of eleven mutations, 150, 437, 793, 3688, 4965, 5081, 11013, 13879, 15244, 16169, 16189)30 (Fig. 2A), the haplotype of the PM1 individual belongs to the basal U6 haplogroup from which the rest of haplotypes were derived (Fig. 2A). This scenario confirms that the U6 mitochondrial lineage has a Eurasian origin, supporting the hypothesis of an early back-migration from Eurasia to North Africa in the EUP10,11,30.
Individuals carrying haplogroup U possibly spread westward from Western Asia around 39–52 ky, reaching Europe as signaled by haplogroup U5, and North Africa signaled by haplogroup U6, which likely represents a genetic signal of a EUP return of Homo sapiens from Eurasia to North Africa11,29,30. The time of the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for U6 was estimated to 35.3 (24.6–46.4) ky BP29,30. Thus it has been proposed that the lineage originated somewhere in Western Asia11,29,30. We found a basal U6 in South East Europe, on the current territory of Romania 35 ky BP, suggesting that either the U6 lineage originated in Eastern Europe or the TMRCA of U6 is older than 35 ky. Our estimates of the haplogroup U6 TMRCA that incorporate ancient genomes (including PM1) set the formation of the U6 lineage back to 49.6 ky BP (95% HPD: 42–58 ky) (using a mutation rate of 2.06* 10−8 SD = 1.94 * 10−9) (Fig. 1). Our estimates are almost identical in age to that by reference11 (45.1 ± 6.9 ky). Given the presence of a basal U6 mitogenome in Romania 35 ky BP, the distance between Western Asia and Romania, and the estimated diffusion pace of hunter-gatherer populations30 suggest that the early populations carrying haplogroup U6 most likely started their spread to Eastern Europe before 40 ky BP.
It is unclear whether the haplogroup U6 diversified in Africa or arrived to the continent as an already diversified lineage. However, the detection in South East Europe (Romania) of a basal U6* haplotype presenting only two of the diagnostic mutations (3348 and 16172) of modern-day U6 haplogroups (Fig. 2A and Supplementary Table 3) strongly points to an “on route” differentiation of U undifferentiated lineages to basal U6 lineages before reaching Africa.
Considering the mitogenome of PM1, we suggest that the PM1 lineage could be an offshoot to South-East Europe of the EUP migration that lead U6 from Western Asia to Africa during which it diversified until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages. Although nuclear sequence data are needed to clarify the genetic relationship of PM1 to modern-day and archaic humans, the mitogenome establishes a link between PM1 and the ancestor of the U6 haplogroup in Eurasia.
So the reason why your point is gibberish is that U6 lineages from 30,000 years ago are not proof of "ancient whites/light skin" in North Africa 20,000 years ago. And it also isn't proof that U6 did not originate in North Africa or somewhere else in Africa. There is no 30,000 year old DNA from Africa and if that is true, then what DNA lineages were in Africa before U6? Because we know humans have been in Africa over 200,000 years.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@DougM Obviously anyone would be able to live in North Africa but in the long term their morphology will naturally adapt itself to local environments that's basic knowledge.
And there is no obsession from me; it's you who keep asking about "how did they look" because in the end that's all that matters to you. You don't care about learning their history, culture, specificities no you discuss genetics and anthropology for the sake of knowing if they looked somewhat like you so you can later claim them and feel better about yourself.
Moreover why do you keep lying about me ? Again I never denied the presence of dark skinned populations in the Sahara and no the oldest tifinagh inscriptions were actually found in the moroccan atlas (if I remember correctly Azzib n'Ikkis)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Khan theorizes.. Sumerians where half natufian/half Zagros mountains...
Origin of Afroasiatic lies with in E lineages J1 J2 appear in the Levant during bronze age and adopt afroasiatic languages
Basal Eurasian may be North African in origin
The biggest issue is that as you go back in time there should be more evidence for African ancestry around the mediterranean and in Eurasia, but according to these DNA models there isn't. The whole concept of "Basal Eurasian" is just attempting to hide the elephant in the room which is African DNA deep in prehistory. Like I said when the Lazaridis paper first came out, the only reason Basal Eurasian exists is due to omission of African DNA. African DNA is African DNA. If Eurasian DNA is 60,000 years old in Africa (according to these idiots) then why is there no 40,000 year old African DNA in Eurasia? It makes absolutely no sense and shows hypocrisy in how they model DNA. So in the Early European farmer paper, they explicitly filtered out any and all African DNA. Their philosophy is they needed to do this to model Eurasian/European population movements via DNA, as if Africans weren't involved at all. And as a result, you got this anomaly that came up due to them assuming that all Eurasians had Neanderthal mixture. So the assumption around "Basal Eurasian" is that it reflects African ancestry since it has no Neanderthal ancestry. But it is dumb because it puts the cart before the horse. The first humans in Eurasia were Africans, so of course all human ancestry starts with Africa not Neanderthals. But they are desperate to model Eurasian ancestry as 'minus' African and 'plus' Neanderthal as some separate root of human DNA. These people are pathetic. This and the fact that most ancient DNA is from Europe just makes all their statistics skewed towards Eurasia and away from Africa.
quote: We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000 and 1,400 bc, from Natufian hunter–gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages before their separation from each other.
They tried to clean it up later with the ancient DNA from Dzudzuana but it only muddied it further. It is almost like they don't WANT to find an ancient African DNA ancestor for all modern Eurasians outside of Africa. These are the hoops they are jumping through to avoid finding the African root of Eurasian ancestry tied to OOA.
quote: Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’3, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’6,9 were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded.
We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by 'Ancient North Eurasian' admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant.
Of course the presence of North African admixture into the Natufians shows that modeling the rise of farming in Europe to not having any African DNA as nonsensical. But because they call "North African" DNA Eurasian I guess they assume they can just ignore it......
But this is the key point that Razib Khan addressed right in the beginning of the video starting at 6:30. And all the issues I mentioned stem from that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic