I've heard discussion of the Natufians float about here and it's always been hard for me to understand what's being said. What do they have to do with Egypt and what suggests they're Africans?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I think you are asking the wrong question. Natufian being “African” vs Natufian having partial African ancestry are two different things.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Okay then. Can someone explain as simply as possible how that is so, please?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
The Natufians originated from the Sudanese regions of the Hapi River Valley
quote: “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1,....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307
and
quote:“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.
and
quote: "Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.] "
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
and
quote: "In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations."-- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")
Ricaut 2008 does an excellent job at summarizing both anthropological and genetic evidence to further this long proven narrative.
Here is linguistic evidence in support of this duel migration from the Hapi River Valley into the Near East and further into parts of Eurasia and Europe.
quote: "The Ancient Kemetic Language
The Ancient Kemetic language has always been considered to be a branch of the African-Asiatic family of languages called Afro-Asiatic which spans Africa and Western Asia.
Without going too deeply into the classification of the Afro-Asiatic language, according to Greenberg, the individual branches of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages include the following:
(1) Semitic, the largest branch of the Afro-Asiatic language which is spoken since ancient times in most of Western Asia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Africa.
The Semitic language has its origins in Africa.
(2) Berber, a group of related languages currently spoken by approximately five million speakers in Northern Africa from the Atlantic coast to the oasis of Siwa in Kemet and from the Mediterranean Sea to Mali and Niger.
(3) Cushitic, a family of languages spoken by approximately fifteen million people in Eastern Africa from the Kemetic border in North East Sudan to Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya and Northern Tanzania.
Martin Bernal in his book, Black Athena, sees the spread of the Afro-Asiatic language as the expansion of a culture which was long established in the East African Rift Valley at the end of the last ice age in the 10th and 9th millennia B.C.E. During the last ice ages water was locked up in the polar icecaps and rainfall was considerably less than it is today. The Sahara and Arabian Deserts were even larger. During the increase of heat and rainfall in the centuries that followed, much of these regions became savannah, into which neighbouring peoples flocked.
The most successful of these were speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language from the African rift valley. Going through the savannah, the Chadic speakers reached Lake Chad while the Berbers, the Maghreb and the Proto-Kemite arrived in Upper Kemet. However Martin Bernal did not consider speakers of Proto-Bantu in his analysis. It is the author’s contention, from the linguistic contents, that speakers of Proto-Bantu played an active part at the time of the expansion of Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Rift Valley of East Africa.These Proto-Bantu speakers going through the savannah formed part of the migration to Kemet. The Bantu languages together with other indigenous languages fused together and became embedded to form the Proto-Kemetic language. It is for this reason that the Ancient Kemetic language contains a substantial amount of Proto-Bantu or Bantu roots.
However Guthrie speculated that before the Proto-Bantu expansion from Zaire, there had been several pre-Bantu stages, at which time the Bantu ancestors lived far to the north around Lake Chad. One group from this area made its way to Zaire and became the Proto-Bantu.The Proto-Bantu speakers and Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived along side each other. They traded together, shared and exchanged common vocabularies of words"
The Niger-Congo speakers are the only people on Earth with the "true Negroid" cranial morphology referenced by both Ricaut and Brace, and are the only population on Earth that could have also spread those sickle cell haplotypes (since our people's bloodline are the only way to pass it to offsprings).
It's really not a mystery...Niger-Congo speakers once dominated Northeast Africa and including that African-Asian corridor where the Natufians resided....
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
@ Oshun
See if you understand these blog posts Swenet made a couple of years back:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Okay then. Can someone explain as simply as possible how that is so, please?
As akachi put it, superficially some of them "Look like" Sub Saharan Africans. This only goes so far as there are African "looking" populations all across the globe.
From a Y-DNA perspective, they have Very Strong signatures from Africa. Most in the form of E-Z830~ (The precursor to E-M123) but even one PPNB individual could be positive for E2, which puts a bit of E~ diversity in the region. Their Maternal diversity is totally lacking in Mtdna L, not what I would expect of recent SSA Migrants.
Autosomally they carry a component that straddles both sides of the Red Sea and seems to peak in more inbred groups of the middle East like Arabs, Especially Saudis. Nearly All East African Eurasian classified ancestry is absorbed in this box. Someone could argue this component is "African" but they will be arguing that Saudis, Yemeni Jews and various populations in the Middle East are 50-80 "African" as well. There are some making this argument, Its silly, I dont exactly buy it.(Unless one is using the larger argument that ALL Western Eurasian autosomal components are "African"......using the technicality of TMCRA's and divergence dates....then your are probably right. a la xyyman)
Then there is the argument that the "Natufian" component, or the wide spread autosomal component of the Middle East that becomes nearly fixed in Saudis is partly African. This I do argue and is what to expect when ancient DNA From Africa Keep Showing what this Ancient DNA from North Africa shows.(That all Middle East Populations carry an component fixed in Ancient North Africans.) This is also what we would expect given the lack of Sub Saharan specific autosomal Ancestry in the Mid East yet the presence of Parental African signatures. Of course in the instance of IAM it is only half the Age of Natufian so Natufian cannot be partly of IAM ancestry......literally. We need older African DNA, something more contemporaneous with Natufian to confirm the affinity...but I think it will stay the same or just become MORE convoluted as we introduce African substructure.
This is what is going on in a nutshell.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
As for "Arabs" you also have to understand that all Arabs are not represented by the ruling elites of Arabia. There are PLENTY of black indigenous Arabians in Arabia....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
As for "Arabs" you also have to understand that all Arabs are not represented by the ruling elites of Arabia. There are PLENTY of black indigenous Arabians in Arabia....
This is kinda bullshit though. You really need to stop playing games. Some of those "black indigenous Arabians" are of direct RECENT Sub Saharan and Sudanese extraction. So they are not "indigenous" at all. We have seen the studies that say so. EVEN THEY SAY SO!
What we HAVEN'T SEEN are RECENT studies of Dark skinned contemporary Southern Arabians that Look Like this (Large Image)
These modern studies of the middle East have not sampled the autosomal results along with Skin color genetics to give the readers and idea of the phenotype of which population is being sampled....you can only guess at it. We are in 2017...you really need to quite with those games man.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
I know how you feel. The term "sub-Saharan" often does go hand in hand with the fallacy that all the dark-skinned indigenous African people live south of the Sahara, whereas the North is all Arabs or Berbers. On the other hand, I believe that when certain people here use "SSA", they're using it as a convenient and familiar catch-all label for any African ancestry that isn't pre-OOA. And I for one am too damn tired of terminological squabbling to argue with anyone about it. It's not like the underlying relationships are going to change anyway.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were. Only confuses the issue even more especially since this term has a lot of baggage associated with it coming from the old Eurocentric racist schools of anthropology.
I know how you feel. The term "sub-Saharan" often does go hand in hand with the fallacy that all the dark-skinned indigenous African people live south of the Sahara, whereas the North is all Arabs or Berbers. On the other hand, I believe that when certain people here use "SSA", they're using it as a convenient and familiar catch-all label for any African ancestry that isn't pre-OOA. And I for one am too damn tired of terminological squabbling to argue with anyone about it. It's not like the underlying relationships are going to change anyway.
That's fine, but to be clear it should be obvious that African ancestry going back to OOA was all black to begin with. Calling it SSA leaves open the idea that there was some "other" kind of African around at that time when there wasn't. It also doesn't clarify genetic relationships either, because ultimately it becomes a riddle. If all humans originated in Africa and that happened somewhere below the Sahara then all humans ultimately are genetically derived from SSA Africans technically. Therefore, calling it SSA doesn't clarify anything. And at best it is semantics and irrelevant and at worst it imposes the idea that genes in Africa can be meaningfully split between SSA and OOA at some point in time. This is a contradiction in terms and serves no useful purpose, especially in the racially charged context that is white dominated anthropological discourse. If we could go back in time and put two groups together (assuming some one can find those non SSA OOA genes in the first place) one with "SSA" genes and the other with "proto" OOA genes, they wouldn't look much different. Those black Arabs banging drums aren't Sub Saharan Africans either and there have always been people like that in Arabia and the Levant going all the way back to OOA.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] The other problem is we still have folks using the term "sub saharan" in discussions of ancient populations in and outside Africa. Namely because African features are not limited to Sub Saharan Africa and never were.
Yeah that sucks that African diversity is lumped together like that in many studies, but the one's that I provided namely Ricaut's and Brace's specify that the "Niger Congo" populations were the "Sub Saharan Africans" of direct interest.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:]As akachi put it, superficially some of them "Look like" Sub Saharan Africans. This only goes so far as there are African "looking" populations all across the globe.
"Superficial"? I have to say no. The fact that Sickle Cell..
in conjunction with a specific craniometric pattern once labeled "true Negroid"
is evidence of only one particular population on this globe.
Both of those lines of evidence is what was used to by Ricaut 2008. Again with regards to the Natufians and there population movement into from the African-Asian corridor into Anatolia and Europe....I mean
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share?
I don't believe that that line of evidence necessary (nor completely accurate) in THIS case to distinguish and identify this particular population. Why? The Sickle Cell haplotype is our own unique genetic marker. No one else this. Therefore when it appears ANYWHERE it is indisputable evidence of our presence.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ I asked a simple question. What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share? Easy Question.
Do Natufian have sickle cell? Why are you bringing up sickle cell.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ I asked a simple question.
That is irrelevant to the conclusion that I deduced based on different sets of evidence, and that includes genetic evidence.
quote:What autosomal dna, Y-DNA and Mtdna do Niger Konrdofanian speakers and Natufian share? Easy Question.
Beyoku I did not go route to come to conclusion. I used a completely different genetic basis to establish a relationship between Niger-Congo speakers and the Natufians. My conclusions does NOT rely on Autosomal DNA, it's IRRELEVANT, and need not be brought up.
Explain the problem with that if there is one.
quote:Do Natufian have sickle cell? Why are you bringing up sickle cell.
Well because actual genetic researchers have actually noted that the sickle haplotypes are
A. A marker of Niger-Congo speakers
B. It's remnants throughout the Levant and Europe are the result of the a migration of populations who have anthropological overlapping with Niger-Congo speakers. The movement is associated with the Natufian migration along the same route.
See YOU CAN READ IT HERE BEYOKU. I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE. Someone much more qualified then me and YOU stated exactly what I've stated. What is he missing to make the narrative "official" in YOUR eyes? What criteria did he not follow? He's hardcore "Afrocentrism" there. Saying sickle cell carrying populations identical to Niger-Congo speakers WERE THE NATUFIANS...RIGHT??? HOW DID HE CONCLUDE THAT WITHOUT AUTOSOMAL DNA BEYOKU? THAT WHITE MAN BROKE YOUR DIVINE LAWS OF "INTELLECTUALISM" to spout what is essential "Afrocentrism".
Come on now.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
The term Afroasiatic Urheimat refers to the hypothetical place where Proto-Afroasiatic speakers lived in a single linguistic community, or complex of communities, before this original language dispersed geographically and divided into separate distinct languages.
Some scholars, for example Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench and others, contend that the Afroasiatic Urheimat is to be found in North or North East Africa, probably in the area of Egypt, the Sahara, Horn of Africa or Sudan. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern pre-Proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Thank you for the discussion. Can anyone answer why the Natufians are of interest to people discussing Egypt?
Niger-Congo speakers were the primary population of ancient Kemet, parts of Nubia, and parts of Northern-Northwest Africa. The Natufians were also suggested by several researchers to have the SAME Sudanese origin as later pre and early Dynastic Kemite population such as the Tasians and Badarians.
Natufians were apart of the early Pleistocene Nubian population (and Jebel Sahaba is the most likely candidate (for obvious reasons) for the region) - WHO ARE THE ANCESTORS TO ALL NIGER-CONGO SPEAKERS. They simply diverged away from the original population source when they left Africa (along with several other African groups) into neighboring Canaan and points forward.
I believe that the Natufians who were of the Niger-Congo branch did genetically diverge from the source when they migrated away into parts of Eurasia. I believe sickle cell is the genetic proof of these early farming populations in Eurasia having a base with those ancient Nubians- Niger-Congo populations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers 2016
Iosif Lazaridis et al
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers 2016
Iosif Lazaridis et al
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
^^^ That's the fishy shit with many of these genetic studies that Dr. Winters talks alot about. I say it's fishy for the reason's that I have laid out. All other lines of evidence points to these people being apart of a lineage that came directly from Africa, and particularly of the Niger-Congo family.
Another reason is that we have Niger-Congo speakers who are just as "Negroid" in appearance and culturally/linguistically uniform with the greater family, but have genetic profiles that are over 40% hapologroup J (The Lemba); or over 90% haplogroup R (Cameroonians); Or have a completely different genetic relationship with none Africans (Dogons per Tishkoff 2009).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
OUR PEOPLE HAVE CIRCUMNAVIGATED THE GLOBE IN ANCIENT TIMES, AND SICKLE CELL IS THE PROOF OF THEIR EXISTENCE IN AN AREA.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
What about the fact that there are people in Oceania and Negritos and elsewhere who resemble Africans (although with some differences) yet genetically they are not similar to Africans?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So..
Some scholars, for example Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench and others, contend that the Afroasiatic Urheimat is to be found in North or North East Africa, probably in the area of Egypt, the Sahara, Horn of Africa or Sudan. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern pre-Proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
melanesians and Africans carry the same genes. In fact the people of Fiji claim they came from Tanzania.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: melanesians and Africans carry the same genes.
bullcrap !
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: melanesians and Africans carry the same genes.
bullcrap !
The truth will set you free.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Without requiring a Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans into South Asia, this scenario explains why (i) most South Asian mtDNA clusters coalesce and show signs of demographic expansions ∼30,000 years ago (Kivisild et al. 1999b), (ii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool is related to (but distinct from) other Eurasian mtDNA pools, (iii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG, and (iv) the archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before ∼30,000 years ago. Hypothesizing a Middle Paleolithic migration to South Asia would create more problems than it would solve: it would, in particular, hardly explain the above crucial points iii and iv.
We conclude that there is currently no convincing genetic evidence that supports the postulated Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans from Africa to the Sahul through South Asia.
Nevertheless Andaman Islanders are off topic and have nothing to do with Natufians
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: melanesians and Africans carry the same genes.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans
This is complete and utter bullshit. These populations of the South Pacific DO NOT CARRY any of those haplogroup E lineages you have listed. How are you just pulling facts out of your ass? Where in Cordaux 2003 does it say they have these lineages? You are counterintelligence to make black scholars look idiotic.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
Its some shit made up by clyde winters. This is the issue.
quote: The authors identified three different mtDNA haplotypes in 11 Andaman islanders, two belonging to haplogroup M2 and one belonging to M4. These haplogroups had previously been reported only in the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 1999b; Bamshad et al. 2001). The Andaman M4 haplotype has been found previously in mainland India (Kivisild et al. 1999b), whereas the two Andaman M2 haplotypes are (so far) unique to the Andamanese. Given that (1) the latter two types occupy a basal position in the M2 network, which has an estimated coalescence time of 63,000±6,000 years (Kivisild et al. 1999b), and (2) they are not found in mainland India, Endicott et al. (2003) conclude they represent an “early” settlement of the Andaman Islands. These two points need discussion.
The "M2" in South East Asia, Oceania, South Pacific etc is NOT a paternal lineage. It is a maternal one. When Clyde says "There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups" It simply means he doesn't know what the Fvck he is talking about. He doesnt know the basics regarding the difference between Maternal and Paternal lineages so he confuses mtdna M1 found in Africa.....and Y-dna M1 which is a SNP diagnostic of YAP. He is confused by Mtdna M2 of Asia and Y-dna M2 of Africa. He is confused by Paternal lineage B2a1a in Africa....and the maternal B2a1a lineages in Asia and America. Dont even get me started on Haplogorup R and its resolution.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
The significance is that its an early Genetic sample from the Near East and is supposed to represent the First Farmers. Furthermore a lot of the autosomal DNA of the Middle East and North Africa (Ancient Egyptians included)....and West Eurasian presumed ancestry in Africa south of the Sahara is absorbed and characterized as this component that is nearly fixed in Natufian:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Unless we're talking about a different Cordaux? What paper does that table come from?
The table comes from a Clyde Winters article. He puts these tables up from his own articles and tries to make you think they are from someone else's articles.
A responsible person when they post a chart they tell you the author and article title the chart comes from. Clyde doesn't
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: He doesnt know the basics regarding the difference between Maternal and Paternal lineages
He does know the difference. It's a scam
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm trying to see if I understand what this has to do with Egypt. So.. Natufians are argued to offer the predynastic northern DNA from the Levant or something? I don't understand. I'm not sure if this image proves anything about Niger Congo speakers. This may suggest a mixed African population?
The significance is that its an early Genetic sample from the Near East and is supposed to represent the First Farmers. Furthermore a lot of the autosomal DNA of the Middle East and North Africa (Ancient Egyptians included)....and West Eurasian presumed ancestry in Africa south of the Sahara is absorbed and characterized as this component that is nearly fixed in Natufian:
Saturday, June 18, 2016 Natufians and Neolithic Levantines lack African admixture? Whilst Neolithic Levantines and Natufians seem to have a good amount of what looks to be Y-DNA E-M35 (specifically 2 E-Z830 samples among the Natufians) and seemingly no Y-DNA J so far- :
-they don't seem to show any affinities for African populations (ones who lack West Eurasian admixture or have negligible amounts of such admixture) on an autosomal level according to this Pre-print:
"However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia)."
This is quite interesting, truth be told. It implies that, despite seeming clearly old, the African admixture in the Levant is perhaps, at least, Post-Neolithic? Some of it (particularly non-East African cluster-related admixture), as I've noted in the past, is definitely owed to the Arab Slave Trade but some of it does also seem rather ancient.
As for PCA (Principal Component Analysis) positions; Natufians in particular look to cluster essentially to the direct east of Anatolian Neolithic and Early European Farmers (and somewhat southwards of some of them) whilst Levantine Neolithic Farmers seem less Basal Eurasian and more northern shifted than their Epipaleolithic predecessors. I'll be more interested in seeing David over at Eurogenes throw these samples into his own Pan-West Eurasia PCA and a global PCA once the genomes are made publicly available when this paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal (a month or less, not sure). The PCAs in these studies can be a bit wonky due to issues like projection-bias.
I'll be interested in seeing if David and other 3rd parties will either confirm or deny that Natufians lack African admixture (whatever Basal Eurasian turns out to be aside).
One somewhat off-topic matter to note is that it seems as though we've more or less discovered a close equivalent to David's "ENF"/Near Eastern cluster from his old Fateful Triangle~K=8 model, a cluster also noted by Lazaridis and company prior to the release of this pre-print.
The Natufians and Neolithic Levantines are essentially dominated by the blue ADMIXTURE cluster that seems to make up most of the ancestry in the Neolithic Anatolians and Early European Farmers. This seems, to me, like we're seeing Southwest Asian/ENF/Near Eastern in the flesh. The way it's differentiated from Neolithic Iranians is intriguing though given that Natufians (Epipaleolithic Levantines) and Neolithic Iranians are comparable in terms of Basal Eurasian ancestry; it must be the non-Basal Eurasian ancestry that's causing the differentiation or there's just really significant genetic drift at play here or both.
In this model above, where Natufians and the Hotu cave Iranian were not included, the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) samples seem to carry notable EHG/ANE-related ancestry as prior analyses like David's K=8 ADMIXTURE run might've implied. Initially, I figured what was differentiating the Neolithic Iranians from Natufians was perhaps ANE-related admixture in the former but that might not really be the case.
As I said in a prior post; things will become more clear when third-parties like David over at Eurogenes get their hands on these genomes once the paper's published at a peer-reviewed journal and also once we have even more ancient genomes someday.
Reference List:
1. The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, Lazaridis et al. 2016
@the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
@Oshun - They are significant to the Ancient Egyptian question when you look at the Brown component present in Ancient Egyptians but peaking in Natufian. Does its origins ultimately lay in the Middle East / Levant or is that genetic component something that is African in origin? Is the component an anomaly and not a genetic reality at all but rather just a statistical reality? Is it the genetic component that absorbed the Paternal African ancestors of these Natufian people or is it Signature of those Africans ancestors as represented in the Natufian Paternal line?
You could generate questions for days.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Good posting as always beyoku. Glad you're still around.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I cited my sources. there is no need to make up anything.
.
.
Anyone that can't handle the truth, that's their problem.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I cited my sources. there is no need to make up anything.
.
.
Anyone that can't handle the truth, that's their problem.
Your SOURCES are not saying what you THINK they say. You dont know what yout are talking about and are confusing MTDNA with Y-DNA.
quote: The authors identified three different mtDNA haplotypes in 11 Andaman islanders, two belonging to haplogroup M2 and one belonging to M4.
*mtDNA haplotypes* The M2 is not Y-DNA....its MTDNA. You Fvcked up......just own it, its not the firs time you have made these types of mistakes....your work is riddled with it.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I cited my sources. there is no need to make up anything.
.
.
Anyone that can't handle the truth, that's their problem.
What study is this from?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I cited my sources. there is no need to make up anything.
.
.
Anyone that can't handle the truth, that's their problem.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Lazaridis, contradicted Lazaridis in his own preprint. Natufians have a distinct genetic history masked by the contemporary genetic landscape. There is no Natufian component, similarly to Cushitic, kalash, Mozabite/chenini and Fulani STRUCTURE components. Those are statistical signatures like Beyoku stated. There are definately ways to expose Natufian African ancestry, fregel 2017 already began doing so. As well as schuneman in the study you posted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @the lioness, - Why are you posting a bunch of dumbshiit and confusing people that came here to ask a simple question? Look the the damnn chart : Natufian are sandwiched in between the Ancient Egyptians sample and Levant Neolithic. You are flapping those gums and didnt even read the chart.
Sorry I missed that. you're right Natufians are there. Does that contradict Lazaridis remarks on the Natufian genome? I'm not sure about that
Lazaridis, contradicted Lazaridis in his own preprint. Natufians have a distinct genetic history masked by the contemporary genetic landscape. There is no Natufian component, similarly to Cushitic, kalash, Mozabite/chenini and Fulani STRUCTURE components. Those are statistical signatures like Beyoku stated. There are definately ways to expose Natufian African ancestry, fregel 2017 already began doing so. As well as schuneman in the study you posted.
Lzardidis article says explicity >
quote:
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
Nature. 2016 Aug 25; 536(7617): 419–424. doi: 10.1038/nature19310 PMCID: PMC5003663 NIHMSID: NIHMS804247 Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis,1,2,† Dani Nadel,3 Gary Rollefson,4 Deborah C. Merrett,5 Nadin Rohland,1 Swapan Mallick,1,2,6 Daniel Fernandes,7,8 Mario Novak,7,9 Beatriz Gamarra,7 Kendra Sirak,7,10 Sarah Connell,7 Kristin Stewardson,1,6 Eadaoin Harney,1,6,11 Qiaomei Fu,1,12,13 Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes,14 Eppie R. Jones,15 Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg,16 György Lengyel,17 Fanny Bocquentin,18 Boris Gasparian,19 Janet M. Monge,20 Michael Gregg,20 Vered Eshed,21 Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi,21 Christopher Meiklejohn,22 Fokke Gerritsen,23 Luminita Bejenaru,24 Matthias Blüher,25 Archie Campbell,26 Gianpiero Cavalleri,27 David Comas,28 Philippe Froguel,29,30 Edmund Gilbert,27 Shona M. Kerr,26 Peter Kovacs,31 Johannes Krause,32 Darren McGettigan,33 Michael Merrigan,34 D. Andrew Merriwether,35 Seamus O'Reilly,34 Martin B. Richards,36 Ornella Semino,37 Michel Shamoon-Pour,35 Gheorghe Stefanescu,38 Michael Stumvoll,25 Anke Tönjes,25 Antonio Torroni,37 James F. Wilson,39,40 Loic Yengo,29 Nelli A. Hovhannisyan,41 Nick Patterson,2 Ron Pinhasi,7,*† and David Reich1,2,6,*†
^^^ Look at all the prominent names here
David Comas Antonio Torroni David Reich Ornella Semino
The article says "genome-wide analysis" "Natufians" is mentioned in the article 20 times. Comparatively in "Ancient Mummy Genomes, Schuenemann" it is not mentioned in the text except in the ADMIXTURE chart
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
nvm
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
well shit, Good, the whole thread is basically summerized in a single shot. A Comprehensive look at what we are dealing with here...
quote: BOLD -Lazaridis Else - Me
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa.
-Basal Eurasian, might be African
Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25,
-See Akachi and Beyoku's Posts above...
a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia
African Uniparentals yadda yadda
**However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians
The thorn... See below
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.)
Well we have some ancient North Africans whose genetic correspondance opens up room for speculation now don't we.... IAM are almost half the age of Natufians yet the latter can be modeled as partially the the former... See posts on fregel 2017 Above
** Now going back to the note about Africans sharing no more alleles.. etc. An interesting thing to note is that the African ancestry in Natufians won't be similar to the Modern African populations without indirect recombination. Going back >15kya We have no clue what the African autosomal genetic landscape might've looked like, but in the f4 tests used to come to the conclusion that modern Africans don't share more alleles with Natufians than other Eurasians, look at the Yoruban scores. Basically YRI are share more alleles with Non WHG(modeled) Eurasians, despite the fact that the population that contributed to Natufian Ancestry were very different from modern NC speakers Autosomaly.
And I've also Ran This Some time ago so yeah, that's that.... EHG in this case is an umbrella term for Eurasian Hunter gatherers... not Eastern HG...
So to neatly wrap this thread up in a nice bow, we can loosely interpret that Natufian culture spawned from a convergence of African AfroAsiatic protocultures and a distinct group of Western Eurasian Huntergathers... The former likely related to predynastic egyptians. In light of the Ancient North African genomes, it makes no sense to deny African Admixture of some sort.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
The nature article's seems to have had a lot of talk about the Natufians. Some people are saying that the Natufians were at least partially African Sudanese.
quote:
"Natufians
I0861: E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
I1072: E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1685: CT
I1690: CT
South-Central Sudanese:
E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups."
--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
The Natufian tool industry originated from the Central Sudan. Not my words.
"microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan."
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
"the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent."
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
Building on and refining stone tool typologies from North Africa,21,22 the foundation for EP research in the Levant was provided by O. Bar-Yosef 23 in his seminal work identifying and defining EP cultures of the southern Levant based on these tools and other site features.
...
Early models of culture change associated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levantine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately preceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.
...
Figure 2 presents globally and locally recognized climatic events from 23,000 to 11,500 cal BP and the approximate dates for major EP phases.
...
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks provided compelling evidence that the origin of modern human behavior was not an Upper Palaeolithic revolution, as it has often been interpreted, but that the components of modern human behavior developed over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory within Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’ to refer to the development of human control over the reproduction and evolution of plants and animals,111 which arguably was the single most significant social, cultural, and biological transition since the origin of our species
— LA Maher Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant
"However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" p. 9.
--Lazaridis et al.,
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016
But wouldn't Lazsridis' suggestion that Levantine early farmers spread of this ancestry TO East Africa mean it they're suggesting it's not African?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
1.you made a 10 millenia skip
2.post drift Recombination is always possible
3.Natufians and the later near eastern farmers were only PARTLY African, less than 21%.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A human face carved on a pebble from the Late Natufian site of Nahal Ein Gev II
There is a paucity of Palaeolithic art in the southern Levant prior to 15 000 years ago. The Natufian culture (15 000–11 500 BP; Grosman 2013) marks a threshold in the magnitude and diversity of artistic manifestations (Bar-Yosef 1997). Nevertheless, depictions of the human form remain rare—only a few representations of the human face have been reported to date. This article presents a 12 000-year-old example unearthed at the Late Natufian site of Nahal Ein Gev II (NEGII), just east of the Sea of Galilee, Israel (Figure 1). The object provides a glimpse into Natufian conventions of human representation, and opens a rare opportunity for deeper understanding of the Natufian symbolic system. There is a paucity of Palaeolithic art in the southern Levant prior to 15 000 years ago. The Natufian culture (15 000–11 500 BP; Grosman 2013) marks a threshold in the magnitude and diversity of artistic manifestations (Bar-Yosef 1997). Nevertheless, depictions of the human form remain rare—only a few representations of the human face have been reported to date. This article presents a 12 000-year-old example unearthed at the Late Natufian site of Nahal Ein Gev II (NEGII), just east of the Sea of Galilee, Israel (Figure 1). The object provides a glimpse into Natufian conventions of human representation, and opens a rare opportunity for deeper understanding of the Natufian symbolic system.
Figure 1. The human face carved on a limestone pebble from Nahal Ein Gev II (Late Natufian) (photograph by Gabi Laron).
Figure 4. Comparison of human faces on pebbles: a) Nahal Ein Gev II; b–c) Eynan (after Perrot 1966); and d) el-Wad (after Garrod & Bates 1937) (not to scale, drawn by Hadas Goldgeier).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe 2017
Rosa Fregel, Fernado L. Mendez, Youssef Bokbot, Dimas Martin-Socas, Maria D. Camalich-Massieu, Maria C. Avila-Arcos, Peter A. Underhill, Beth Shapiro, Genevieve L Wojcik, Morten Rasmussen, Andre E. R. Soares, Joshua Kapp, Alexandra Sockell, Francisco J. Rodriguez-Santos, Abdeslam Mikdad, Jonathan Santana, Aioze Trujillo-Mederos, Carlos D. Bustamante doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/191569
bstract
One of the greatest transitions in the human story was the change from hunter-gatherer to farmer. How farming traditions expanded from their birthplace in the Fertile Crescent has always been a matter of contention. Two models were proposed, one involving the movement of people and the other based on the transmission of ideas. Over the last decade, paleogenomics has been instrumental in settling long-disputed archaeological questions, including those surrounding the Neolithic revolution. Compared to the extensive genetic work done on Europe and the Near East, the Neolithic transition in North Africa, including the Maghreb, remains largely uncharacterized. Archaeological evidence suggests this process may have happened through an in situ development from Epipaleolithic communities, or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. In fact, Neolithic pottery in North Africa strongly resembles that of European cultures like Cardial and Andalusian Early Neolithic, the southern-most early farmer culture from Iberia. Here, we present the first analysis of individuals' genome sequences from early and late Neolithic sites in Morocco, as well as Andalusian Early Neolithic individuals. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are distinct from any other reported ancient individuals and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, indicating long-term genetic continuity in the region. Among ancient populations, early Neolithic Moroccans share affinities with Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (~9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (~6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (~3,000 BCE) Moroccan remains, in comparison, share an Iberian component of a prominent European-wide demic expansion, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the Andalusian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ~5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb. Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 1.you made a 10 millenia skip
2.post drift Recombination is always possible
3.Natufians and the later near eastern farmers were only PARTLY African, less than 21%.
I did? I'm just sort of quoting this from comments on the nature article. But I see. Natufians weren't that genetically "African" to begin with.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe 2017
Rosa Fregel, Fernado L. Mendez, Youssef Bokbot, Dimas Martin-Socas, Maria D. Camalich-Massieu, Maria C. Avila-Arcos, Peter A. Underhill, Beth Shapiro, Genevieve L Wojcik, Morten Rasmussen, Andre E. R. Soares, Joshua Kapp, Alexandra Sockell, Francisco J. Rodriguez-Santos, Abdeslam Mikdad, Jonathan Santana, Aioze Trujillo-Mederos, Carlos D. Bustamante doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/191569
bstract
One of the greatest transitions in the human story was the change from hunter-gatherer to farmer. How farming traditions expanded from their birthplace in the Fertile Crescent has always been a matter of contention. Two models were proposed, one involving the movement of people and the other based on the transmission of ideas. Over the last decade, paleogenomics has been instrumental in settling long-disputed archaeological questions, including those surrounding the Neolithic revolution. Compared to the extensive genetic work done on Europe and the Near East, the Neolithic transition in North Africa, including the Maghreb, remains largely uncharacterized. Archaeological evidence suggests this process may have happened through an in situ development from Epipaleolithic communities, or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. In fact, Neolithic pottery in North Africa strongly resembles that of European cultures like Cardial and Andalusian Early Neolithic, the southern-most early farmer culture from Iberia. Here, we present the first analysis of individuals' genome sequences from early and late Neolithic sites in Morocco, as well as Andalusian Early Neolithic individuals. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are distinct from any other reported ancient individuals and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, indicating long-term genetic continuity in the region. Among ancient populations, early Neolithic Moroccans share affinities with Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (~9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (~6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (~3,000 BCE) Moroccan remains, in comparison, share an Iberian component of a prominent European-wide demic expansion, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the Andalusian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ~5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb.
The idea of an Iberian intrusion is unfounded because the cultures associated with the Iberian neolithic have their earliest origination in Africa. Moreover as noted by Doug, the earliest dated center for cattle domestication in the world was at Nabta. Africans from Nabta spread the agro-pastoral tradition into the Levant and later Yamna and across Europe.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The significance is that its an early Genetic sample from the Near East and is supposed to represent the First Farmers. Furthermore a lot of the autosomal DNA of the Middle East and North Africa (Ancient Egyptians included)....and West Eurasian presumed ancestry in Africa south of the Sahara is absorbed and characterized as this component that is nearly fixed in Natufian:
What should also be kept in mind is that these autosomal alleles could just as likely be African in origin and not necessarily Eurasian. And that African origin is not the same as modern day Sub-Saharan!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: African origin is not the same as modern day Sub-Saharan! [/QB]
why?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Because "Sub-Sahara" is just one region or section of Africa while North Africa is another but both are equally African. Obviously there are spatial differences between populations. For example it has been shown both through cranial morphology as well as genetics that Southeast Asians also differ from northeast Asians, this does not mean that one population is less "Asian" than another. Then there is also the temperal difference between populations. Studies show that a major population in one area today may be genetically different from an earlier population who lived in the same area or region. In this case we are talking about prehistoric Egypt and the Levant right next door. Even if we are to assume that these particular Fayum Mummies analyzed represent indigenous Egyptians considering they date from the late New Kingdom to the early Roman Period, only the obtuse would assume they share a similar autosomal profile with say modern day Bantus!
How many people are aware that modern eastern Siberians have autosomal profiles different from say typical East Asians let alone those from Southeast Asia? I plan on making a thread about that.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: well shit, Good, the whole thread is basically summerized in a single shot. A Comprehensive look at what we are dealing with here...
quote: BOLD -Lazaridis Else - Me
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa.
-Basal Eurasian, might be African
Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25,
-See Akachi and Beyoku's Posts above...
a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia
African Uniparentals yadda yadda
**However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians
The thorn... See below
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.)
Well we have some ancient North Africans whose genetic correspondance opens up room for speculation now don't we.... IAM are almost half the age of Natufians yet the latter can be modeled as partially the the former... See posts on fregel 2017 Above
** Now going back to the note about Africans sharing no more alleles.. etc. An interesting thing to note is that the African ancestry in Natufians won't be similar to the Modern African populations without indirect recombination. Going back >15kya We have no clue what the African autosomal genetic landscape might've looked like, but in the f4 tests used to come to the conclusion that modern Africans don't share more alleles with Natufians than other Eurasians, look at the Yoruban scores. Basically YRI are share more alleles with Non WHG(modeled) Eurasians, despite the fact that the population that contributed to Natufian Ancestry were very different from modern NC speakers Autosomaly.
And I've also Ran This Some time ago so yeah, that's that.... EHG in this case is an umbrella term for Eurasian Hunter gatherers... not Eastern HG...
So to neatly wrap this thread up in a nice bow, we can loosely interpret that Natufian culture spawned from a convergence of African AfroAsiatic protocultures and a distinct group of Western Eurasian Huntergathers... The former likely related to predynastic egyptians. In light of the Ancient North African genomes, it makes no sense to deny African Admixture of some sort.
Don't know HOW I missed this post.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
Ancient Natufians were 50% BASAL EURASIAN and 50% WEST ASIAN with NO Sub-Saharan affinities:
quote: 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(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%).[19]
quote: E-Z830 (E1b1b1b2)[edit] A recently confirmed sub-clade of E-Z827, Z830, includes the confirmed sub-clades of E-M123, E-M293, and E-V42, and is a sibling clade to E-L19. Currently, the E-M35 phylogeny project recognizes four distinct clusters of Z830* carriers, two of which are exclusively Jewish in origin. The remaining two are significantly smaller, and include scattered individuals in Germany, Spain, Latin America, Egypt, and Ethiopia.[34][35][36][37]
quote:E-P2, also known as E1b1, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. This paternal clade had an ancient presence in the Middle East, and is now primarily distributed in Africa, with lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe.
quote:The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently
[…]
The expansion, carrying the diversified E-P2 mutation, may be responsible for the migration of male populations to different parts of the continent and henceforth the rise and spread of the bearers of the macrohaplogroup.
[…]
This scenario is more substantiated by the refining of the E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
[…]
Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56, 57, 58, 59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.
quote:Sub-Saharan African Y chromosome diversity is represented by five main haplogroups (hgs): A, B, E, J, and R (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2002; Tishkoff et al. 2007). Hgs J and R are geographically restricted to eastern and central Africa, respectively, whereas hg E shows a wider continental distribution (see also Berniell-Lee et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2010).
--Chiara Batini
Signatures of the Preagricultural Peopling Processes in Sub-Saharan Africa as Revealed by the Phylogeography of Early Y Chromosome Lineages
quote: An independent high resolution MSY phylogeny has been recently obtained from 2,870 Y-SNPs discovered (or re- discovered) in the course of a large whole-genome re-sequencing study, but the observed variable sites all belong to the recent ‘‘out of Africa’’ CT clade [15]. Recently, in a re-sequencing study of the Y chromosome, the root of the tree moved to a new position and several changes at the basal nodes of the phylogeny were introduced [16]
[..]
Phylogenetic Mapping
Most of the mutations here analyzed belong to the African portion of the MSY phylogeny, which is comprised of haplogroups A1b, A1a, A2, A3 and B [16]. Through phylogenetic mapping it was possible to identify 15 new African haplogroups and to resolve one basal trifurcation (Figure 1). A new deep branch within the ‘‘out of Africa’’ haplogroup C was also identified (Figure S1).
Haplogroup A1b. The P114 mutation, which defines hap- logroup A1b according to Karafet et al. [14], had been detected in central-western Africa at very low frequencies (in total, three chromosomes from Cameroon) [16,19].
[...]
‘‘Out of Africa’’ haplogroups. All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14]. In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome. Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1). Six haplogroup C chromosomes (samples 34–39 in Table S1) were analyzed for the eleven haplogroup C- specific mutations [16] and for SNPs defining branches C1 to C6 in the tree by Karafet et al. [14] (Figure S1). Through this analysis we identified a chromosome from southern Europe as a new deep branch within haplogroup C (C-V20 or C7, Figure S1). Previously, only a few examples of C chromosomes (only defined by the marker RPS4Y711) had been found in southern Europe [32,33]. To improve our knowledge regarding the distribution of haplogroup C in Europe, we surveyed 1965 European subjects for the mutation RPS4Y711 and identified one additional haplogroup C chromosome from southern Europe, which has also been classified as C7 (data not shown). Further studies are needed to establish whether C7 chromosomes are the relics of an ancient European gene pool or the signal of a recent geographical spread from Asia. Two mutations, V248 and V87, which had never been previously described, were found to be specific to haplogroups C2 and C3, respectively (Figure S1). Three of the seven R-specific mutations (V45, V69 and V88) were previously mapped within haplogroup R [34], whereas the remaining four mutations have been here positioned at the root of haplogroups F (V186 and V205), K (V104) and P (V231) (Figure S1) through the analysis of 12 haplogroup F samples (samples 40–51, in Table S1).
[...]
Supporting Information
Figure S1 Structure of the macro-haplogroup CT. For details on mutations see legend to Figure 1. Dashed lines indicate putative branchings (no positive control available). The position of V248 (haplogroup C2) and V87 (haplogroup C3) compared to mutations that define internal branches was not determined. Note that mutations V45, V69 and V88 have been previously mapped (Cruciani et al. 2010; Eur J Hum Genet 18:800–807). (TIF)
--Fulvio Cruciani et al.
Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
quote:does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13
[...]
deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
The first branching in the MSY tree has been reported to be the one that separates the African-specific clade A (called clade I in 10) from clade BT (clade II-X in 10), whereas the second branching determines the subdivision of BT in clades B, mostly African, and CT, which comprises the majority of African and all non-African chromosomes.13,14 This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribu- tion of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15,16
[...]
To test the robustness of the backbone and the root of current Y chromosome phylogeny, we searched for SNPs that might be informative in this respect. To this aim, a resequencing analysis of a 205.9 kb MSY portion (183.5 kb in the X-degenerate and 22.4 kb in the X-transposed region) was performed for each of seven chromosomes that are representative of clade A (four chromosomes belonging to haplogroups A1a, A1b, A2, and A3), clade B, and clade CT (two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R) (Table S1 available online).
The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
--Fulvio Cruciani
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Good luck with that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: Ancient Natufians were 50% BASAL EURASIAN and 50% WEST ASIAN with NO Sub-Saharan affinities:
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
quote:And long before “Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa”.