quote:

---

Abstract
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.

---

quote:

---

Fig. 3. The geographic distribution of the genetic affinity of Taforalt with worldwide populations. (A) Mean
shared genetic drift with Taforalt measured by outgroup-f3 statistics in the form f3(Taforalt, X; Mbuti). Warm
colors are for populations genetically close to Taforalt. Large diamonds and squares represent the ten highest
and lowest f3 values, respectively. Early Holocene Levantine groups, Natufian and Levant_N, show the highest
affinity with Taforalt. The statistics and their associated SEs for the top 30 signals are presented in fig. S14. (B)
Extra genetic affinity with Taforalt in comparison to Natufian measured by f4 statistics in the form
f4(Chimpanzee, X; Natufian, Taforalt). Large diamonds and squares represent the ten most positive and
negative f4 values, respectively. Sub-Saharan Africans show high positive values, with West African Yoruba and
Mende being the top, supporting the presence of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt. In contrast, all
Eurasian populations are genetically closer to Natufians than to Taforalt. The statistics and their associated SEs
for the top 30 signals are presented in fig. S16.

---

they Drifted at levels comparable to Eurasians but posses some heavy SSA traits when their Natufian/Near east Ancestry is accounted for.

~~~~~~~
They also Cluster closest to the Afar in the global PCA


Initially I was surprised they aren't Higher off on PC2 though but seeing how F3 placing them in the realm of post OOA type homogenization, them falling on the cline makes sense. I'm intrigued that they seem to lack European - Near East Affinity. SSA and Iberomaurasians seem to lack segmentation suggested by Eurocentrics.

quote:

---

Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern
in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of
our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed,
suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results
when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and
Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear
LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8
for the significance of exponential decay).

---

Bruhhhhh.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
<claps hands gleefully like a five year old>

i may owe someone my firstborn for this

i haven't even *started* the damn Southeast Asian papers yet! i still to finish with A-M13 and do E-M2 on the damn Green Sahara paper! bloody hell

ok got that out of my system. ahem. all professional here.

direct dates of 15 100-13 900 years old. shortly after the Late Glacial Aridity Maximum, some improvement in conditions but still a couple thousand years before the Green Sahara.

plots next to Afar (i.e. more Eurasian end of Horners) on PCA.

modelled as ~37% SSA. kinda West African but closer to East and South African than a straight West African-Natufian-like mix would be. so another ghost population or three there.

mitochondrial DNA: 7 U6a, 1 M1b. big time continuity with Moroccan Early Neolithic here.

Y DNA: at E-M35, at least 4/5 E-M78. more evidence for North African origin of E-M35.

ancestral at the usual SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 pigmentation SNPs.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Can anyone sum this up in plain English for those of us who are newer/slower? Which color/symbol is Afar?
 

---

Posted by Apedemak Prime (Member # 22522) on :
 
capra, is this continuity with the IAM population of the other Moroccan study?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
This has been like the busiest time for me and all these studies are dropping I can't even process this shit right.

@Oshun... Basically a can of worms just got opened. Think of the timeline in North Africa from 15kyo to the holocene and etc. IDK how close you've been following theories that questioned the continuity of west Afrcican genetics, ie they were less differentiated from East Africans ~8kya or so. But we might be seeing that structurally, for the first time in A.DNA.

Also think about the Natufian thread you opened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apedemak Prime:
capra, is this continuity with the IAM population of the other Moroccan study?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Uniparental-wise Yes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Great paper. It shows ancient North Africans had affinity with traditional SSA ancestry, but I don't understand this absence of traditional SSA L mtdna.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
~placeholder~

It seems as if the Taforalt are best modeled as Natufian + Mende + Hadza ??
Admixture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

It seems as if the Taforalt are best modeled as Natufian + Mende + Hadza ??

---

That's them damn statistics 4 ya
Gotta have 2 more statisticians' interpretations.
But u cn access the tools 2 crunch the data.


OT BTW trust Kefi @ yr own risk.
TAF 8 once L or M or N is now ...
Won't take credit 4 it herself
She got a outside agent to determine Hg assignments.

---

quote:

---

It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in
Taforalt. First, present-day North Africans do not have as high sub-Saharan African ancestry as
the Taforalt individuals (Fig. 2B+S12). This may be attributed to more recent events, such as the
historical Arab expansion. Also, the periodic expansion of the Saharan desert played a major role
in limiting gene flow between North and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time. For example, a
previous study of ancient Egyptian genomes shows that the genetic affinity with the Near East
was even stronger in the first millennium BCE in Egypt (5). Importantly, our Taforalt individuals
predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate
that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North
Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).

---

What implications does this have for North African Ancestry? To me the loose model for SSA surrogates hints at undifferentiation relaying ancient African genetic continuity. Meaning its probably too old to have literal implications on Niger Congo - Saharan African Substructure. However, on the other hand Taforalt can highlight any "ghost" population contribution to Africans, which'll ultimately drag populations apart.

~~~~

On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Tanzanian Luxmunda fool.
60% Sardinian with mtDNA L. Don't understand what is going on?


There is no such thing a "Eurasian" DNA

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Great paper. It shows ancient North Africans had affinity with traditional SSA ancestry, but I don't understand this absence of traditional SSA L mtdna.

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Taforalt archaeological context? Multidisciplinary?

I did post some Briggs on NW Afr phys anthro. Him
and Coon are outdated but the latter catalogued
damn near every osteo find in North Africa!
I lost so much material. Even the backups' backups.


Years ago I concluded here that any so-called SSA
genetics in Taforalt or other Maurusians got there
before the LGAM set. But now I have to check these
candidates' HGs TMRCAs to see what's even possible.

What exactly is west eurasia in your Neanderthal
comment? Europe or so-called Mid-East? We know now
U6 was in Eastern Europe before Northwest Africa.
However I still blast Maca-Meier(sp) for declaring
U6 caucasian without a skull. Certainly that was
political.

But you know I'm rambling. I will shut up until
I read these reports you posted. I thought it
rude not to reply, even if malinformed, since
your placeholder directly addressed me.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
yes. You owe me your first born... and more. to the fools who are question lack of mtDNA L. I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

There are no "Eurasian" ancestry. Never was. And Swenet would you stop your double talk.

The Levant and Arabia was an extension of Africa. They are not claiming MODERN Levantiant they comapre ancient Levant ie Africanized Bediouns!!!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
-----------------
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/stone-age-moroccan-genomes-reveal-sub-saharan-african-near-eastern-ancestry#.WqvGimrwa70

Quote:
“NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – New genome sequence data from North African individuals living up to 15,000 years ago suggests that Stone Age Moroccans carried ancestry from both sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East.
"Our analysis shows that North Africa and the Near East, even at this early time, were part of ONE region without much of a genetic barrier," co-senior author Choongwon Jeong, a researcher in the Department of Archaeogenetics at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, said in a statement. As they reported online today in Science, Jeong and colleagues from…”

----------------------

About 6 years ago I posted something like this. The Levant is an extension of Africa. That is why modern Levant do NOT cluster with the Neolithic Levant or Natufians. Henn and DNATribes and XYYMAN knew this. Pay me a dollar $ 10?


I hate to say it Coon but was right(somewhat) to some extent and so too was Sergi. Europeans are a subset of Africans.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
My-man they mention Mende and Yoruba and stated that it is an uncharactized lineage related to these two populations. Meaning?! Skoglund! Mende and YRI are a mixture of an older African lineage, older than Khoi-San, and Neolithics. Coon? Europeans are a mixture of Paleolithic Europeans and African Neolithics. There never was any back-migration. NEVER!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180315141221.htm

Scientists discover genomic ancestry of Stone Age North Africans from Morocco
Ancient nuclear DNA from 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, the oldest ever recovered from Africa, shows dual genetic ancestry to ancient Near Eastern and to sub-Saharan African populations
Date:
March 15, 2018
Source:
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Summary:
An international team of researchers have sequenced DNA from individuals from Morocco dating to approximately 15,000 years ago. This is the oldest nuclear DNA from Africa ever successfully analyzed. The study shows that the individuals, dating to the Late Stone Age, had a genetic heritage that was in part similar to ancient Levantine Natufians and an **uncharacterized** sub-Saharan African lineage to which modern West Africans are genetically closest.


QUOTE:
“Sub-Saharan heritage from a previously unknown ancient population
Though the scientists found clear markers linking the heritage in question to sub-Saharan Africa, no previously identified population has the precise combination of genetic markers that the Taforalt individuals had. While some aspects match modern Hadza hunter-gatherers from East Africa and others match modern West Africans, **neither** of these groups has the same combination of characteristics as the Taforalt individuals. Consequently, the researchers cannot be sure exactly where this heritage comes from. One possibility is that this heritage may come from a population that no longer exists. However, this question would need further investigation.”
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable MUST BE THE TRUTH!!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Quote:
“We analyzed the genetic affinities of the Taforalt individuals by performing principal component analysis (PCA) and model-based clustering of worldwide data (Fig. 2). When pro-jected onto the top PCs of African and West Eurasian popu-lations, the Taforalt individuals form a distinct cluster in an intermediate position between present-day North Africans (e.g., Amazighes (Berbers), Mozabite and Saharawi) and East Africans (e.g., Afar, Oromo and Somali) (Fig. 2A). Consist-ently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleo-lithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantines (“Le-vant_N”) (16). Unsupervised genetic clustering also suggests a connection of Taforalt to the Near East. The three major components that comprise the Taforalt genomes are maxim-ized in early Holocene Levantines, East African hunter-gath-erer Hadza from north-central Tanzania, and West Africans (K = 10; Fig. 2B). In contrast, present-day North Africans have smaller sub-Saharan African components with minimal Hadza-related contribution (Fig. 2B).”
Xyyman comment: So the Great Lakes people from Tanzania were the precursor to BOTH Levantine Neolithics and North African Neolithics(leading to modern European Neloithics). Turks came in(1200AD) and diluted the North Africa population.


I am surpised Haak and Paabo penned their name to this Eurocentric cluster. Can of worms indeed.....The end?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Holy Shyte! I can ride out into the sunset now. I knew someone will break rank but I never thought my nemesis(s)the same Paabo and Reich will do it What a stunner! Europeans have finally come clean. I never thought I would see this day. “ I did not write this..honest”. lol! Finally vindicated. Now what about R1b-M269, the last piece of the puzzle?

-------
Quote:
“We find that Yoruba/Mende and Natufians are symmetrically re-lated to two deeply divergent outgroups, a 2000 yBP ancient South African (“aSouthAfrica”) and Mbuti Pygmy, respec-tively (|Z| ≤ 1.564 SE; table S11). Since f4 statistics are linear under admixture, we expect Taforalt not to be any closer to these outgroups than Yoruba or Natufians if the two-way ad-mixture model is correct. However, we find instead that Taforalt is **significantly** closer to both outgroups (“aSouthAf-rica” and “Mbuti”) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (Z ≥ 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affin-ity with South, East and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21).

ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by aSouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to aSouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the re-cently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt indi-viduals belong to the U6a (n = 6) and M1b (n = 1) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autochthonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb. We analyzed the seven ancient Taforalt in combination with four Upper Paleolithic European mtDNA genomes (22, 23) and present-day individ-uals belonging to U6 and M1 (7) in BEAST v1.8.1 (24). Using a human mtDNA mutation rate inferred from tip calibration of ancient mtDNA genomes (23), we obtained divergence es-timates for U6 at 37,000 yBP (40,000-34,000 yBP for 95% highest posterior density, HPD) and M1 at 24,000 yBP (95% HPD, 29,000-20,000 yBP) (table S15). Our estimates are con-siderably younger than those of a study using present-day data only (45,000 ± 7000 yBP for U6 and 37,000 ± 7000 yBP for M1) (7), though similar to those of (25). Moreover, we ob-serve an asynchronous increase in the effective population size for U6 and M1 (fig. S24). This suggests that the demo-graphic histories of these North and East African haplog-roups do not coincide and might have been influenced by multiple expansions in the Late Pleistocene (25). Notably, the diversification of haplogroup U6a and M1 found for Taforalt is dated to ~24,000 yBP (fig. S23), which is close in time to

the earliest known appearance of the Iberomaurusian in Northwest Africa (25,845-25,270 cal. yBP at Tamar Hat (26)).
The relationships of the Iberomaurusian culture with the preceding MSA, including the local backed bladelet technol-ogies in Northeast Africa, and the Epigravettian in southern Europe have been questioned (13). The genetic profile of Taforalt suggests*** substantial*** Natufian-related and sub-Sa-haran African-related ancestries (63.5% and 36.5%, respec-tively), but not additional ancestry from Epigravettian or other Upper Paleolithic European populations. Therefore, we provide genomic evidence for a Late Pleistocene connection between North Africa and the Near East, predating the Neo-lithic transition by at least four millennia, while **rejecting** a potential Epigravettian gene flow from southern Europe into northern Africa within the resolution of our data. Archaeo-genetic studies on additional Iberomaurusian sites will be critical to evaluate the representativeness of Taforalt for the Iberomaurusian gene pool. We speculate that the Natufian-related **ancestral** population may have been widespread across North Africa and the Near East, associated with micro-lithic backed bladelet technologies that started to spread out in this area by at least 25,000 yBP ((10) and references therein). However, given the absence of ancient genome data from a similar time frame for this broader area, the epicenter of expansion, if there was any, for this ancestral population remains unknown.
Although the oldest Iberomaurusian microlithic bladelet technologies are found earlier in the Maghreb than their equivalents in northeastern Africa (Cyrenaica) and the earli-est Natufian in the Levant, the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the ancestral population of later Natufians who do not harbor sub-Saharan ancestry. An epicenter in the Maghreb is plausi-ble only if the sub-Saharan African admixture into Taforalt either post-dated the expansion into the Levant or was a lo-cally confined phenomenon. Alternatively, placing the epi-center in Cyrenaica or the Levant requires an ADDITIONAL explanation for the observed archaeological chronology”
Xyyman comment: WOWWWW! Europeans calling other Europeans liars. Paabo and Reich eating crow. I never thought I would see the day
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


There are no "Eurasian" ancestry. Never was.

---

that's an irrational statement, virtually a religious belief

A vast portion of the human population have been outside Africa 50,000 minimum years some maye over 100,000 ya
New mutations can occur forming new haplogroups well within that 50,000 years

Do you say stuff like that for shock value?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
From what I see, this paper is much in line with the paper by Frigi et al. "Ancient local evolution of African mtDNA haplogroups in Tunisian Berber populations." Basically they picked up where they left.


Rym Kefi et al. paper:"On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations"

Journal
Mitochondrial DNA Part A
DNA Mapping, Sequencing, and Analysis
Volume 29, 2018 - Issue 1
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^^Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?


--

Quote:
“Two derived allele variants in the SLC24A5 gene associated with predicting light-skin color in individuals with European and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) ancestry are rs1426654 (derived state A, ancestral state G (94)) and rs16891982 (derived state G, ancestral state C (95)). Individuals with a homozygous derived state for both these SNPs have been found in early Neolithic populations (Anatolia, Europe) (16)). Our results show that these derived alleles are absent in the Taforalt individuals analyzed; all of them have a homozygous ancestral genotype for both SNPs. The derived mutation for rs12913832 in the OCA2 gene is associated with blue eye color. A homozygous derived allele state at this position is the dominant determinant of light eye color in present-day Europeans and occurs at 100% frequency in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (96, 97). Individuals with the ancestral allele A (homozygous or heterozygous) for this SNP show brown eye color 80% of the time (97). For all the Taforalt individuals we find a homozygous ancestral genotype GG, predictive of brown eye color. In addition, all individuals show the ancestral GG genotype for SNP rs12896399 located in the SLC24A4 gene, providing further support for dark eye pigmentation (93). The TCHH1 gene codes for trichohyalin, a protein active in hair follicle roots. For all Taforalt individuals we find the derived homozygous AA genotype for SNP rs17646946 in this gene, which has been associated with straighter hair in Europeans (allelic effect (β) = 0.4-0.5, explained variance = 6.11%) (98).
Xyyman comment: Wow! Black skin, black hair, black eyes but straighter hair . Ish-Gebor posted that pictures of Taforalt. Europeans do not have ownership of straight hair. I said before straight hair may be ancestral to kinky hair. It may be a new phenomenon. But black skin made us humans. Even the Paleolithic Europeans were black. So we are back to Dravidian type peoples?




 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Great paper. It shows ancient North Africans had affinity with traditional SSA ancestry, but I don't understand this absence of traditional SSA L mtdna.

---

quote:

---

"Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra- Saharan Africa

---

quote:

---

we suggest that there may have been a relationship, albeit a complex one, between climatic events and cave activity on the part of Iberomaurusian populations.

---

—A. Bouzouggar et al.

Reevaluating the Age of the Iberomaurusian in Morocco
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who don’t get the visuals. All humanity was black skinned from Africa to Northern Europe during the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. North Africans and Europeans ….and the Levant were black. And shockingly the Neolithics originating close to Tanzania brought the mutation for light skin beginning mid-Neolithic into North Africa, Southern Europe, Arabia, Pakistan and North Europe. We still need to resolve the East Asians.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
Will be posting the image later. But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned!

UPDATE:

Pay close attention to the tiny bits of dark red ancestry shared by the Natufian and other Near Eastern aDNA. Even some of the WHG have a tiny bit of it.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?

[…]

---

quote:

---

Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations

---

—A. Balzeau and J. Badawi-Fayad

http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/1173
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
That would make sense. I knew there has to be a connection between West Africans and WHG. It may be that red component. Unsupervised Cluster Charts may show it but Euro Researchers avoid showing those graphs.


red=ghost population = Iwo Eleru---Skoglund?


" But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned"
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who don’t get the visuals. All humanity was black skinned from Africa to Northern Europe during the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. North Africans and Europeans ….and the Levant were black. And shockingly the Neolithics originating close to Tanzania brought the mutation for light skin beginning mid-Neolithic into North Africa, Southern Europe, Arabia, Pakistan and North Europe. We still need to resolve the East Asians.



 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
North Africans traveling North - Doron Behar

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11668
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Xyyman ..whats up with all this mindless conflation. For everything you get right you have some thing else all the way fugked up. Yes Iwo Eleru types and west African Archaics come into play, but it's not because Taforalt HAS that archaic Admixture.. the F4 stats (and f3) in the study disproved that.

As a matter of fact.. that secondary article is all the way gone. Don't bother reporting on secondaries when the actual study is public. That's just asking for confusion. The Dinka for example is the best proxy for SSA Ancestry in Taforalt. Now if that's true and Taforalt is spitting out W.African signals what does that mean for modern population who would probably have Archaic W.African Ancestry?

The red component is just the HADZA effect, let it be.

protip: Focus on our theory questioning continuity in west Africa... I don't know how anything else you put forward gets corroborated here.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I needed to look up “conflation”. Lol! Anyways.

Don’t want to give me my props? Never mind I am getting it elsewhere.

There has to be an ancient connection between WHG and archaic West Africa(we are not talking modern Bantu/West Africans). I have speculated this is Iwo Eleru. The Shriner paper you posted on Sickle Cell shows a clear connection along the Western Seaboard of Africa to Europe.


This Iwo Eleru although archaic African(preNeolithic) originated somewhere in Africa. I am speculating they are Hadza/Sandewe. But definitely not Khoi-San. More recent papers are saying although Sandwe/Hadza are click speakers they are not as closely related to Khoi-San as we think.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?

[…]

---

quote:

---

Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations

---

—A. Balzeau and J. Badawi-Fayad

http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/1173

---

quote:

---

https://indo-european.eu/2018/03/pleistocene-north-african-genomes-link-near-eastern-and-sub-saharan-african-human-populations/


Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations" Science (March 15, 2018).


We analyzed the genetic affinities of the Taforalt individ-uals by performing principal component analysis (PCA) and model-based clustering of worldwide data (Fig. 2). When pro-jected onto the top PCs of African and West Eurasian popu-lations, the Taforalt individuals form a distinct cluster in an intermediate position between present-day North Africans (e.g., Amazighes (Berbers), Mozabite and Saharawi) and East Africans (e.g., Afar, Oromo and Somali) (Fig. 2A). Consist-ently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleolithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantines (“Levant_N”) (16). Unsupervised genetic clustering also suggests a connection of Taforalt to the Near East. The three major components that comprise the Taforalt genomes are maximized in early Holocene Levantines, East African hunter-gatherer Hadza from north-central Tanzania, and West Africans (K = 10; Fig. 2B). In contrast, present-day North Africans have smaller sub-Saharan African components with minimal Hadza-related contribution (Fig. 2B).
Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool.
Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt indi-viduals belong to the U6a (n = 6) and M1b (n = 1) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autochthonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb.
(…) the diversification of haplogroup U6a and M1 found for Taforalt is dated to ~24,000 yBP (fig. S23), which is close in time to the earliest known appearance of the Iberomaurusian in Northwest Africa (25,845-25,270 cal. yBP at Tamar Hat (26)).


--Marieke van de Loosdrecht, et al.,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
That there is no contact before ca. 12000 BC through the Strait of Gibraltar

---

Maybe, maybe not. The E-M78 indicates these males' ancestors came from the east. These samples do not represent the aboriginal Iberomaurusian population. Not fully, anyway. These new eastern arrivals could have lowered or obscured traces of European ancestry in the preexisting population they mixed with.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


HOW CAN THEY TELL THE FOSSILS BELONG TO HOMO SAPIENS?
The skulls of modern humans are characterised by features that distinguish us from our ancestors, including a small and slender face, and globular braincase.
The fossils from Jebel Irhoud displayed a modern-looking face and teeth, but a slightly larger braincase.
The researchers used computer scans and statistical analysis based on hundreds of 3D measurement to show that the facial shape of the fossils was almost indistinguishable from that of modern humans living today.
Comparison of the skulls of a Jebel Irhoud human (left) and a modern human (right) +15
Comparison of the skulls of a Jebel Irhoud human (left) and a modern human (right)
And the fossils only differ from modern skulls in the shape of the braincase.
Dr Philipp Gunz, who also worked on the study, said: 'The inner shape of the braincase reflects the shape of the brain.
'Our findings suggest that modern human facial morphology was established early on in the history of our species, and that brain shape, and possibly brain function, evolved within the Homo sapiens lineage.'


The fossils that rewrite human history: 300,000-year-old bones found in Morocco reveal Homo Sapiens evolved across Africa 100,000 years EARLIER than thought
Remains of at least five ind iv idu als were discovered in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco
Previously, the oldest Homo sapiens fossils dated to 195,000 years ago
Scanning reveals that the bones have similar structures to modern humans
Stone tools were also found at the site which the researchers believe are linked to the emergence of Homo sapiens
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The Circle is complete. The presence of M1, U6 and etc., within Iberomaurusian genome makes it clear these haplogroups are not the result of a back migration. as I have said before Middle Eastern aDNA is African DNA.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Circle is complete. The presence of M1, U6 and etc., within Iberomaurusian genome makes it clear these haplogroups are not the result of a back migration. as I have said before Middle Eastern aDNA is African DNA.

---

you say the same thing about any haplogroup
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Or it just means back migrant DNA was in northern Africa tens of thousands of years before the the spread of Islam, Hyksos, and other more recent events.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ LOL @ the Lioness squirming.

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised by these findings. In fact it explains the position of the Hassi el Abiod crania as intermediate between the Marusian and modern SSA.


 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Holy Shyte! I can ride out into the sunset now. I knew someone will break rank but I never thought my nemesis(s)the same Paabo and Reich will do it What a stunner! Europeans have finally come clean. I never thought I would see this day. “ I did not write this..honest”. lol! Finally vindicated. Now what about R1b-M269, the last piece of the puzzle?

-------
Quote:
“We find that Yoruba/Mende and Natufians are symmetrically re-lated to two deeply divergent outgroups, a 2000 yBP ancient South African (“aSouthAfrica”) and Mbuti Pygmy,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Circle is complete. The presence of M1, U6 and etc., within Iberomaurusian genome makes it clear these haplogroups are not the result of a back migration. as I have said before Middle Eastern aDNA is African DNA.

---

Sumerian, Niger-Congo and Mende lol. I was trying to tell them Team Osiris dudes.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Capra
There you go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
That there is no contact before ca. 12000 BC through the Strait of Gibraltar

---

Maybe, maybe not. The E-M78 indicates these males' ancestors came from the east. These samples do not represent the aboriginal Iberomaurusian population. Not fully, anyway. These new eastern arrivals could have lowered or obscured traces of European ancestry in the preexisting population they mixed with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I was just thinking, if this article doesn't mention Pygmies its flawed. My guess is the South Africans are admix-Ngunis. Mbutis and Ngunis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Do you identify these eastern arrivals with Afalou #28?? Do you think this explains the Afar connection? Also what of Hassi el Abiod??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What type of affinity do you expect from Iberomaurusian aDNA? We will probably need a lot of aDNA from the Maghreb to get a clear picture because the Iberomaurusian is not one phenomenon or population:

quote:

---

Turning to the Iberomaurusian, although the deposits at Taforalt
represent a thick and fairly continuous record of human occupa-
tion, there are in fact subtle variations in the cultural sequence. The
clearest example is the switch from IB1 with marginally backed
(‘Ouchtata’) blades and bladelets to IB2 dominated by microlithic
backed bladelets. The actual transition between the two phases is
marked by a sharp sedimentary contact between Units Y2/Y1.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248413001383

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Can anyone sum this up in plain English for those of us who are newer/slower? Which color/symbol is Afar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
no, the ancient South Africans are like modern Southern African Khoisan speakers such as !Kung, without the more recent admixture (they all have at least a little of East African ancestry). Nguni have a minority of ancestry from them but are very different overall.

Clyde and xyyman are floating far from the shores of reality in a sea of their own bullshit. none of this remotely supports their idiocy. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.

---

Ironically, I remember the time that people on ES were citing the "tropical" limb proportions of AE remains as evidence that they would have arrived in Egypt from regions to the south rather than being indigenous to the eastern Sahara. This would have been between 2009 and 2011, well before the DNA Tribes reports came out.

Presumably, AE coming from the tropical south isn't a conclusion we accept any more. But if they were indeed native to the eastern Sahara like you've been maintaining, I wouldn't say the Sahara is the best place for cold adaptation.

EDIT: Of course, during the terminal Pleistocene, the Northwest African climate would have been even cooler than it is today. The northern Sahara would have been temperate rather than subtropical for example:



Compare with today:


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^The LSA in North Africa (one of the sources of 'North African ancestry') is relatively young, ~30kya at most. Before that they could have lived in the Sahel or further south in Sub-Saharan Africa. The MSA in the Maghreb is much older, and so the populations there had more time to adapt to cold climate. This (i.e. more MSA ancestry) could explain why Afalou 28 is more cold adapted than E-M35 carriers. But this is just a generalization on my part. E-M35 populations undoubtedly also would have had MSA ancestry. Plus, some MSA populations in North Africa might not have been (as) cold adapted. So-called 'cultural buffering' is another factor that helps determine bodyplan (not just climate).

And thanks for the maps.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I feel like I have to get too creative to explain the discrepancy in SSA relatedness for E1b1b if I were to Attribute Taforalts contemporary Non-Natufian ancestry to M78. Now if East Africans were originally much more "Near eastern" autosomally from the get-go... theoretically a sample like Afa28 might not be less SSA in comparison to Taforalt but less Natufian-like?

I'm looking at the Mt Haplotyple predictions of Afalou and thinking what if these supposedly more Negroid types (including Jebel Sahaba) actually turn out to be less or maybe even just as SSA than Taforalt. ..seemingly the ancestors of some Nilo-Saharan and Omotic(presumably) populations are simply a bottleneck Sans recombination away from being precursory to what we believe is Near eastern.

...Just a Thought.

Edit: I'm also saying their has to be some UP European, or even WHG correspondence with Natufians (and in turn Ibermaurasians based on Taforalts results) just off the strength of detectable patterns when referring to the Natufian genome. It's probably the missing step, the reason why East Africans or Africans with *recent Eurasian ancestry have inflated "Natufian" Signatures.


@Fourty2Tribes
You Have Ust_Ishim on one end and you have Mota on the other... deductive reasoning - the populations are listed in order from most Neanderthal to least. And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations

Marieke van de Loosdrecht1, Abdeljalil Bouzouggar2,3,*,†, Louise Humphrey4, Cosimo Posth1, Nick Barton

quote:

---

Abstract
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.

---

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/03/14/science.aar8380


A lot of African Papers dropped in the last few days ...Idk whats going on.
blessing of the Black panther??

---

quote:

---

The importance of North Africa in the emergence of modern Homo sapiens has been traditionally neglected. However, recent archaeological and paleontological evidence increasingly points to this area as a potential source of out-of-Africa migrations [10],[11]. Recent dating of the characteristic North African lithic industry, called Aterian, has provided much older dates than previously assumed, now ranging from 145 Kya to 40 Kya [12],[13]. These Aterian people made personal ornaments with shells, a sign of modern human symbolic behavior [14]. Morphometric analyses of the 80 Kya Dar es-Soltan skull (Morocco) and of Aterian hominin teeth show similarities with early modern humans from Qafzeh and Skhul (Israel) and with the later skull of Pestera cu Oase (Romania) [15],[16].

---

quote:

---

Anatomically modern humans (AMH), defined by a lightly built skeleton, large brain, reduced face, and prominent chin, first appear in the East African fossil record around 200,000 years ago [1, 2]. There is a general consensus that, while dispersing from there, they largely replaced preexisting archaic human forms [3]. Recent DNA studies also suggest that the replacement was not complete, and there was a limited, but nonzero, interbreeding with Neandertals [4], Denisovans [5], and perhaps other African forms still unidentified at the fossil level [6, 7]. As a result, modern populations might differ in the amount of archaic genes incorporated in their gene pool, which are eventually expressed and may result in phenotypic differences affecting, for example, the immune response [8] or lipid catabolism [9].

Although the general picture is getting clearer, many aspects of these processes are still poorly understood, starting from the timing and the modes of AMH dispersal. The main exit from Africa, through the Levant, has been dated around 56,000 years ago [10, 11]. However, morphologic [12, 13], archaeological [14], and genetic [13, 15–20] evidence suggest that part of the AMH population might have dispersed before that date, possibly by a Southern route into southern Asia through the horn of Africa and the Arab Peninsula.

Regardless of whether there was a single major expansion or two, several DNA studies clearly showed that genetic diversity tends to decrease [21, 22] and linkage disequilibrium to increase [23, 24] at increasing distances from Africa. This probably means that, as they came to occupy their current range, AMH went through a series of founder effects [25, 26]. These results offer an excellent set of predictions which we used in the present study to test whether current genomic diversity is better accounted for by processes involving a single major dispersal (hereafter: SD) or multiple major dispersals (hereafter: MD) from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Africa is the birthplace of humans, specifically areas South of the Sahara. Therefore the further you go back in time the more humans get close to SSA. This should be obvious but these headlines about "Sub Saharan" mixture are implying it would be impossible for African DNA to be in Early North Africans is stupid. They are still trying to find a way to separate the history of North Africa from Africa proper...... The title tells it all.

I mean of course there is going to be a genetic relationship between Africans in Africa no matter what part of the continent and Africa and the Near East and Africa and Europe. Humans came from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Africa is the birthplace of humans, specifically areas South of the Sahara. Therefore the further you go back in time the more humans get close to SSA. This should be obvious but these headlines about "Sub Saharan" mixture are implying it would be impossible for African DNA to be in Early North Africans is stupid. They are still trying to find a way to separate the history of North Africa from Africa proper...... The title tells it all.

I mean of course there is going to be a genetic relationship between Africans in Africa no matter what part of the continent and Africa and the Near East and Africa and Europe. Humans came from Africa.

---

You already fucked up. This is why I cringe every time I see you post.
...It's not because I don't like you
...It's not because you're wrong af
...It's not because I even disagree with you

You come with the same political bullshit over and over again, preaching to the choir while simultaneously exposing the fact that you're lost over and over again. But then you act like you have a one up or even an understanding of what you comment on meanwhile you don't. AND it shows BADLY.

At the very fucking least READ the conversation that other posters are having on the previous page!!!
Holy shit.

We already know you are lost, no need to grandstand either ...humble yourself and ask some fucking questions.

The authors suggest a link between Africans and near easterners, a Gradient. There's no evidence of mixture in these samples presented in the study. Your whole point crashed and fucking burned before you even got started. If we were to look at these samples reported by this study in isolation, disregarding everything we know from previous genetic studies and archaeology, these LSA north Africans would be intermediates of SSA and the Near east. NOT a "mixture." What you're attempting to argue is NOT your biggest problem (it isn't even a problem at all).

---

quote:

---

The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Elmaestro

He is the same type who believes when we say East Africans(East African Nilotics for example) are more close to Eurasian than other Africans then that means we are saying East Africans are "mixed."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
now you look fucking stupid.

"The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans."

...Does this read to you as Taforalt are a mixture of Non Africans and SSA?
Please do tell

Yes or no?

No long winded bullshit.... I wanna know if the problem is that you lack reading comprehension skills.

---

quote:

---

We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.

---

quote:

---

a combination of different qualities, things, or emotions in which the component elements are individually distinct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...And he keeps Going!
dude you have no fucking point
...yeild, concede
..you make no sense. read my second comment on the first page... look at the third image and read the quote. just fucking quit dude.

---

quote:

---

Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern
in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of
our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed,
suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results
when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and
Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear
LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8
for the significance of exponential decay).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
THE SUB-SAHARAN *GENETIC COMPONENTS* ARE APPROXIMATED

APPROXIMATED

APPROXIMATED

APPROXIMATED

AS A MIXTURE OF EAST AND WEST AFRICANS.

Yo this is unbeleivable lol. So the problem IS that this guy lacks reading comprehension skills. His poor interpretation of a fucking sentence overrides this quote

quote:

---

Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern
in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of
our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed,
suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results
when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and
Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear
LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8
for the significance of exponential decay).

---

"the word mixture means they're not homogeneous"
...like what the fuck are you talking about?

---

quote:

---

Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.

---

quote:

---

Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern
in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of
our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed,
suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results
when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and
Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear
LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8
for the significance of exponential decay).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Not just because they failed to find a Eurasian admixture event (which is very interesting in that it cautions against baseless backmigration claims), but because it shows that a lot of these papers lack holistic analysis. The branch leading to E-M78 is only 19ky old and this Taforalt sample is 15ky old. So admixture must have happened in that interval of 4000 years (19-15ky). The admixture was probably closer to 15ky than 19ky ago, too. Sometimes all these researchers need is common sense, not high-tech tools and software.

---

an alternative common sense interpretation would be that Swenet is wrong about E-M78.

or if admixture is required, that it occurred between populations which were autosomally fairly similar to begin with. i don't think the LD test would pick that up. so what Elmaestro said, though i'm not sure how powerful these methods are with low coverage ancient genomes and lots of population drift.

PS according to a couple of sources this is pre-E-M78 with about 20% or 25% of M78 equivalent SNPs negative. given the uncertainty in TMRCAs it could have split from the ancestors of modern E-M78 a couple thousand years earlier, or ancestral E-M78 could have been next door. more likely the former.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Elmaestro

If with "SSA-like" you mean recent ancestry from SSA, then I agree. If you mean that E-M78 had no admixture with North African MSA AMH ultimately from and still genetically resembling SSA populations to a degree, then I would disagree. All Palaeolithic North African skeletal remains are mixed to varying degrees with something MSA AMH. This is why there are no crown Eurasian components or skeletal remains in Africa and why the stay-at-home OOA candidates don't look exactly like 'Cro-Magnons' or anything in Eurasia (except Australasians in some cases).
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
an alternative common sense interpretation would be that Swenet is wrong about E-M78.

or if admixture is required, that it occurred between populations which were autosomally fairly similar to begin with. i don't think the LD test would pick that up. so what Elmaestro said, though i'm not sure how powerful these methods are with low coverage ancient genomes and lots of population drift.

PS according to a couple of sources this is pre-E-M78 with about 20% or 25% of M78 equivalent SNPs negative. given the uncertainty in TMRCAs it could have split from the ancestors of modern E-M78 a couple thousand years earlier, or ancestral E-M78 could have been next door. more likely the former. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
wrong about whatever it is that leads you to believe the Taforalt guys should have admixture 15-19 000 years ago due to their having E-M78. i'm not clear why you think that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
sure - though U6 and pre-M1 could go way back - but why does it have to be E-M78 specifically rather than E-M35? the TMRCA of E-M35 according to YFull (not that it's gospel) is about 22-26 000 years. the TMRCAs of M1 and U6a according to this paper are 20-29 000 years. all have the same central estimate. so why not then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations 2018

Marieke van de Loosdrecht1

Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt indi-viduals belong to the U6a (n = 6) and M1b (n = 1) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autochthonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb. We analyzed the seven ancient Taforalt in combination with four Upper Paleolithic European mtDNA genomes (22, 23) and present-day individ-uals belonging to U6 and M1 (7) in BEAST v1.8.1 (24). Using a human mtDNA mutation rate inferred from tip calibration of ancient mtDNA genomes (23), we obtained divergence es-timates for U6 at 37,000 yBP (40,000-34,000 yBP for 95% highest posterior density, HPD) and M1 at 24,000 yBP (95% HPD, 29,000-20,000 yBP) (table S15). Our estimates are con-siderably younger than those of a study using present-day data only (45,000 ± 7000 yBP for U6 and 37,000 ± 7000 yBP for M1) (7), though similar to those of (25). Moreover, we ob-serve an asynchronous increase in the effective population size for U6 and M1 (fig. S24). This suggests that the demo-graphic histories of these North and East African haplog-roups do not coincide and might have been influenced by multiple expansions in the Late Pleistocene (25). Notably, the diversification of haplogroup U6a and M1 found for Taforalt is dated to ~24,000 yBP (fig. S23), which is close in time to

---

.


.

How come Kefi 2016 did not show M1 ?


.

On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations, Rym Kefi et al.
2016


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Taforalt doesn't have to be at the centre of anything, it would just be one descendent population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
them lacking evidence of admixture is evidence against them being due to later admixture. so why is your scenario preferable? (genuine non-rhetorical question.)

---

There are several precedents in the literature of notoriously hybrid populations showing no evidence of admixture events, or showing a distorted picture of admixture events. Besides, I could ask you a similar question . Remember that your interpretation (of the three haplogroups coming together 25ky) is also inconsistent with there being no admixture event. How do you reconcile your position that these hgs came together 25ky ago, and that this result of no admixture is valid? I know you just said that it can be explained if the three streams of ancestry were already similar, but the ancestry components of this population are highly differentiated. For instance, it has to specifically be modelled as Natufian-like and Natufians themselves are also made up of highly distinct ancestry components. So why doesn't your scenario result in a detectable admixture event? It's simply not possible to avoid the conclusion that there were several common sense admixture events, whether you agree with my comments on E-M78 or not.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Elmaestro

I never really got to the point of digging up all the reports talking about Afalou 28, so I don't know how old he is, and I don't have any firm ideas about what his genetic affinities are. His body proportions may be a red herring since he is just one individual (i.e. he may be an outlier in his own population). If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.

In that case I would interpret Afalou 28 as primarily being a mixture of MSA and the earliest LSA populations, and with minimal relationship to the new population represented by E-M78. The latter population would have been more tropically adapted in my view. I can't prove this directly, of course, due to the lack of skeletal remains. But it is strongly implied in the fact that the arrival of new E-M35 carriers during the Natufian (who were obviously related to the E-M78 carriers from Taforalt) also led to more tropical body proportions in the Levant. In fact, the Afalou samples other than #28 are similar in degree of tropical adaptation as Holliday's el Wad Natufians, and both of these samples are roughly as dissimilar to their local predecessors in terms of bodyplan. So it's tempting to say that new arrivals carrying E-M35 caused an increase of tropical body proportions in both regions.

In that case, Afalou 28's mixed pattern of physical relationships (cold adapted, but with cranio-facial features consistent with African ancestry) can interpreted as simply not being affected as much by the the presumably younger European and E-M78 arrivals. Any mixture with northern and eastern populations is more likely to have made Afalou 28 more tropically adapted, because he is seemingly more cold adapted than UP Europeans (ironically) and these E-M35 carriers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Elmaestro

I never really got to the point of digging up all the reports talking about Afalou 28, so I don't know how old he is, and I don't have any firm ideas about what his genetic affinities are. His body proportions may be a red herring since he is just one individual (i.e. he may be an outlier in his own population). If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.

In that case I would interpret Afalou 28 as primarily being a mixture of MSA and the earliest LSA populations, and with minimal relationship to the new population represented by E-M78. The latter population would have been more tropically adapted in my view. I can't prove this directly, of course, due to the lack of skeletal remains. But it is strongly implied in the fact that the arrival of new E-M35 carriers during the Natufian (who were obviously related to the E-M78 carriers from Taforalt) also led to more tropical body proportions in the Levant. In fact, the Afalou samples other than #28 are similar in degree of tropical adaptation as Holliday's el Wad Natufians, and both of these samples are roughly as dissimilar to their local predecessors in terms of bodyplan. So it's tempting to say that new arrivals carrying E-M35 caused an increase of tropical body proportions in both regions.

In that case, Afalou 28's mixed pattern of physical relationships (cold adapted, but with cranio-facial features consistent with African ancestry) can interpreted as simply not being affected as much by the the presumably younger European and E-M78 arrivals. Any mixture with northern and eastern populations is more likely to have made Afalou 28 more tropically adapted, because he is seemingly more cold adapted than UP Europeans (ironically) and these E-M35 carriers.

---

I myself have suspected the possibility of indigenous North Africans evolving cold adaptated traits locally. If such is the case then this definitely would explain the cold adapted features of Natufians and thus further support their African origins.

By the way, are you aware that certain Australian aboriginal groups, specifically Tasmanians, have cold adapted traits as well?

http://bit.ly/2HL1LeX
Edit: Link shortened

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...Still going.

LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.

..Doug just concede.

---

quote:

---

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What you see as a union of the three hgs just reflects reactions to the same climatic events.

---

quote:

---

So why doesn't your scenario result in a detectable admixture event?

---

quote:

---

In this paper we have presented the first high precision record of
AMS dates for the Late Pleistocene Maghreb, providing a frame-
work for understanding the development of the Iberomaurusian,
the oldest backed bladelet LSA technology in northwest Africa. In
examining the dating evidence at Taforalt, several gaps in the
sequence were noted, including one of possibly as little as 1900
calendar years separating the first appearance of the Iber-
omaurusian at 22.0e21.4 ka Cal BP from the underlying non-
Levallois flake technology, tentatively attributed to the MSA. A
further gap in dating (but this time also coinciding with an erosive
unconformity) can be seen between the earliest Iberomaurusian
industry with ‘Ouchtata’ retouched blades (IB1) and one above
containing microlithic backed bladelets (IB2). The duration of this
gap may have been of the order of one to two thousand years and
confirms that fully developed microlithic components had emerged
in the Iberomaurusian by 15.5e15.0 ka Cal BP. A major accumula-
tion of ashy midden deposits can be identified at Taforalt at 15.2e
14.2 ka Cal BP and use of the cave in the Iberomaurusian was shown
to have continued until about 12.6 ka Cal BP (Tables 1 and 2).

---

quote:

---

the more time and drift, the less detectable the admixture signal. i don't know how much time and drift would actually be required, my point is in general this favours older over more recent admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To those who don’t get the visuals. All humanity was black skinned from Africa to Northern Europe during the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. North Africans and Europeans ….and the Levant were black. And shockingly the Neolithics originating close to Tanzania brought the mutation for light skin beginning mid-Neolithic into North Africa, Southern Europe, Arabia, Pakistan and North Europe. We still need to resolve the East Asians.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/0e/cf/060ecfdca8d1cb5de2c05dd427585762.jpg
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/xcheddar_man_for_web-pagespeed-ic-1mwojrtngm-2.jpg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?

[…]

---

quote:

---

Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations

---

—A. Balzeau and J. Badawi-Fayad

http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/1173

---

I get the strong sense that the Taforalt of the type shown in your picture weren't sampled in this paper. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Taforalt individual pictured here has no UP European ancestry. I will confirm later by reading the supplemental materials. For some reason I haven't been able to access the supp data. I will try again later. But, as I said in my first post, the E-M78 is totally unexpected and I think the most recently sequenced Taforalt samples come from the lowest strata with bones in them, unlike the 'regular' Taforalt samples frequently studied and discussed in the literature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.

---

Remember, you don't get Neanderthal DNA from being European you hang on to it by staying away from African diversity. BTW which one is Neanderthal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?

[…]

---

quote:

---

Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations

---

—A. Balzeau and J. Badawi-Fayad

http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/1173

---

I get the strong sense that the Taforalt of the type shown in your picture weren't sampled in this paper. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Taforalt individual pictured here has no UP European ancestry. I will confirm later by reading the supplemental materials. For some reason I haven't been able to access the supp data. I will try again later. But, as I said in my first post, the E-M78 is totally unexpected and I think the most recently sequenced Taforalt samples come from the lowest strata with bones in them, unlike the 'regular' Taforalt samples frequently studied and discussed in the literature.

---

I respond a bit late, due to my busy time schedule.

Anyway, indeed the Taforalt picture is not from the paper. The paper was posted additionally, as a reference source.

---

^ note URL of above

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/North_Africa/Kiffian_4.jpg

^^^ Mike111's "real history" , it also says "Kiffian" in the URL
(not sure why)
( Human remains from the "Kiffian" culture were found in 2000 at a site known as Gobero, located in Niger in the Ténéré Desert)

source:

kefi 2005 slide show:

https://www.slideshare.net/GonaloFigueira3/rym-kefi-1-49069380







Mike has narrowed the proportions of the skull in his revision at right


Another slide from Kefi 2005:



 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.

---

Remember, you don't get Neanderthal DNA from being European you hang on to it by staying away from African diversity. BTW which one is Neanderthal?

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009609;p=1#000000

---

How did I miss that?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.

---

You kind of lost me. They haven't maintained the the same signatures. Doesnt it range from 2-5.5%
OoA isnt and it increases as we go back in time? With African populations the number is 0-0.5% and that number also increases as you go back in time.

Where you would estimate the percentages with F4-statistics? Is there a formula for that? I wan't to see if I can predict it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...Still going.

LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.

..Doug just concede.

---

I understand what your point but what you are saying has nothing to do with what I said.

When I originally said "mixture" I wasn't referring to any specific incidence of mixture as opposed to the "composite" signature overall in Taforalt which contains both Levantine and African DNA. This is the only kind of mixture I am talking about in a general sense. You really had me going there because I know I said it right the first time.

So for clarification,

quote:

---

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans

---

... MIXED WITH Levantine DNA. Somewhere somehow mixture occurred. They would be HOMOGENOUS if they only carried the African DNA and no Levanine or vice versa.

But that wasn't even the core point. It was a general statement about the fact that African DNA should be expected to be found in North Africa as you go back farther in time. That is only obvious.

The question is whether these people actually migrated to the Levant before moving to North Africa or not, which is basically what the paper is implying could have happened. The relationship with Natufians would be a sign of this possibility.

---

Just outa respect I'ma cut to the chase and answer the question that you should have been asked.
The leading postulation on ES as of now is that the most recent mixture represented by the Taforalt is a mixture between Africans ....and Africans. Not Levantines or Eurasians. Taforalt wasn't suggested to be the composite that you suggest due to "mixture". The authors don't necessarily conclude on that. It's the Natufians lacking "SSA" admixture who raise the question of which direction geneflow occurred if it occurred. Do you understand? You are completely off the mark with your talk of mixture. You came in all wrong and you shifted your position a lil bit but you're still wrong. You can still be HOMOGENEOUS and be modeled as two different populations. You can model Yorubans as MButi and Mota. But are yorubans a mixture between Mota and Mbuti... no. are Yorubans relatively homogeneous? yes.

So all in all your core point was unnecessarily introduced, and our interaction was a detraction from much much more interesting conversations from basically every other poster in this thread.

I'm done.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
@Swenet

i did read that paper a long time ago, i have now re-read it. i'm not disputing change in the Iberomaurusian sequence, i'm just not clear why this has to involve substantial admixture of genetically distinct people. who is the source in your view and why do they have to be different from Taforalt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
why does E-M78 have to be a recent arrival from the east? you aren't explaining your starting point here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
the ancestry of the different components is so divergent that the choice of references should not have an overwhelming impact, IIUC. the lack of admixture signal is not rock-solid proof of anything, but it is still evidence.

---

In some ways we're dealing with a unique situation and I don't think this has ever been performed on similar samples before. So I don't think we know what LD decay tests would say under unusual admixture scenarios. Do we have examples of Palaeolithic samples tested in this manner? If that supposed lack of admixture is valid, then the tools used to come to that conclusion should have a good track record.

Somehow I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't recall anyone doing LD decay tests on Palaeolithic samples. Or maybe I'm just out of the loop.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
how can E-M78 be 'inconsistent' with U6 or M1? that's not a thing. of course a precursor of a haplogroup can be present locally and evolve into the haplogroup in question, this necessarily must happen somewhere. there's no reason to think it happened at Taforalt. i don't understand what you are trying to communicate here. obviously some E-M35 guys could hook up with some U6 and M1 girls, their descendants could go to the Maghreb, a series of mutations could accumulate on the Y chromosome of one male lineage leading to M78, etc. there is some reason you think this is unlikely due to *archaeology*, so just tell me what the archaeological story is and stop faffling around vaguely about haplogroups.

genetically distinct as in we would expect them mixing to leave an LD signal. mostly SSA or mostly WE mixing would give large LD blocks with affinity to the references. mixing of populations with similar admixture LD already would not.

i don't recall anyone doing ALDER on ancient DNA either, but there's a first time for everything. there are several decent quality genomes, conditions are good. there is a simple explanation for the lack of a signal - the admixture is old. but then the authors did put this result in the supp info with cautious phrasing, so clearly should not be taken as divine revelation.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I believe the equation they used was, (test,YRI ; Neanderthal,chimp) or an equivalent.
When I say the same archaic signatures I don't mean in terms of percentage. I'm saying there were many Archaic hominids, each with their own unique genetic make-up, what are the odds that certain drifted AMH all retain Altai Neanderthal signals in specific if they had different histories?

---

quote:

---

-Lets dial it back and look at the correlation you suggest for African_diversity/Neanderthal. Europeans for example are technically the least genetically diverse population on the planet, however they also have the least amount of Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestry, second only to continental Africans. How would you go about explaining that pattern?

---

Europeans lack diversity as a population but not as individuals. If you compare them to Asians they are less diverse however if you compare the average European to the average Asian its not a pronounced difference. I would bet that they would typically be more diverse than the average east Asian.

These are the Denisovan and Neanderthal




https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-recorded-amount-of-Neanderthal-DNA-in-a-human

I wish we could test the colorful dots. If they are the least diverse people its a wrap. I assume they are because they are inbreeding in remote places however I have heard arguments to the contrary.

Supposedly Paupans are more diverse than Europeans because they don't kill and replace each other. I think they might be thinking in terms of diversity within one group instead of diversity within all people.

quote:

---

-Lets look at the temporal aspect. Mota has the least Neanderthal Admixture of any ancient specimen, yet he's older than the ancient south Africans and also have less Neanderthal signature that just about all contemporary east Africans, how would you reconcile with that as well? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

“Almost all of us agree there was some back-to-Africa gene flow, and it was a pretty big migration into East Africa,” says Skoglund. “But it did not reach West and Central Africa, at least not in a detectable way.” The error also undermines the paper’s original conclusion that many Africans carry Neanderthal DNA (inherited from Eurasians whose ancestors had interbred with the group).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...Still going.

LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.

..Doug just concede.

---

I understand what your point but what you are saying has nothing to do with what I said.

When I originally said "mixture" I wasn't referring to any specific incidence of mixture as opposed to the "composite" signature overall in Taforalt which contains both Levantine and African DNA. This is the only kind of mixture I am talking about in a general sense. You really had me going there because I know I said it right the first time.

So for clarification,

quote:

---

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans

---

... MIXED WITH Levantine DNA. Somewhere somehow mixture occurred. They would be HOMOGENOUS if they only carried the African DNA and no Levanine or vice versa.

But that wasn't even the core point. It was a general statement about the fact that African DNA should be expected to be found in North Africa as you go back farther in time. That is only obvious.

The question is whether these people actually migrated to the Levant before moving to North Africa or not, which is basically what the paper is implying could have happened. The relationship with Natufians would be a sign of this possibility.

---

Just outa respect I'ma cut to the chase and answer the question that you should have been asked.
The leading postulation on ES as of now is that the most recent mixture represented by the Taforalt is a mixture between Africans ....and Africans. Not Levantines or Eurasians. Taforalt wasn't suggested to be the composite that you suggest due to "mixture". The authors don't necessarily conclude on that. It's the Natufians lacking "SSA" admixture who raise the question of which direction geneflow occurred if it occurred. Do you understand? You are completely off the mark with your talk of mixture. You came in all wrong and you shifted your position a lil bit but you're still wrong. You can still be HOMOGENEOUS and be modeled as two different populations. You can model Yorubans as MButi and Mota. But are yorubans a mixture between Mota and Mbuti... no. are Yorubans relatively homogeneous? yes.

So all in all your core point was unnecessarily introduced, and our interaction was a detraction from much much more interesting conversations from basically every other poster in this thread.

I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Abstract
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
how can E-M78 be 'inconsistent' with U6 or M1? that's not a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
of course a precursor of a haplogroup can be present locally and evolve into the haplogroup in question, this necessarily must happen somewhere. there's no reason to think it happened at Taforalt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
i don't understand what you are trying to communicate here. obviously some E-M35 guys could hook up with some U6 and M1 girls, their descendants could go to the Maghreb, a series of mutations could accumulate on the Y chromosome of one male lineage leading to M78, etc. there is some reason you think this is unlikely due to *archaeology*, so just tell me what the archaeological story is and stop faffling around vaguely about haplogroups.

---

What you're asking me is to connect the dots for you and do your research for you. Some of our disagreements involve basics on how haplogroups evolve and their phylo structure and distribution. These are not things I should have to explain in depth to justify my position on E-M78. If you challenge my position on E-M78, I'm assuming you will know what it means when I say that E-M78 is associated with M1a, not with M1b. You may not agree this was the case in ancient times, but you should at least know what I mean when I say that. If I mention that twice and you don't understand, how is it my job to then give the backstory on E-M78? Same thing with the archaeology. Sources cited. What more do you want from me?



To write a full exposition? So you can sit back and give denials and opinions, while you're trying to reconstruct history from a admixture test that hasn't proven itself? With no corroborating sources or analysis? Don't think so

quote:

---

i don't recall anyone doing ALDER on ancient DNA either, but there's a first time for everything. there are several decent quality genomes, conditions are good. there is a simple explanation for the lack of a signal - the admixture is old. but then the authors did put this result in the supp info with cautious phrasing, so clearly should not be taken as divine revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Bringing this all together as far as these Taforalt genomes, we can safely conclude that the shared history involving E-M35, U6 and M1 is severely constrained by E-M35’s relationship with E-V38 and association with L3 at least since E-P2 (but likely before that).

---

quote:

---

This then leaves an early (or ancestral) form of E-M78 free to arrive in Taforalt later, with the time of its arrival depending on its age.

---

quote:

---

What you're talking about is a mutation, not a haplogroup. A mutation is not a haplogroup and haplogroups don’t evolve on their own. If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg. That simply doesn’t happen. When you test living samples for their hgs, you will just see they have private mutations. They’re not in the process of spontaneously developing their own hgs.

---

quote:

---

What you're asking me is to connect the dots for you and do your research for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
A mutation is not a haplogroup

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I believe I mentioned a few times that the letter assignments more or less are ultimately arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
A mutation is not a haplogroup

---

yes it is

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.

---

yes they do

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.

---

Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.

However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.

Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.

mutation + isolation + drift = new haplogroup

---

Just a question, Should AA's be assigned new haplogroups? They have admixture with different African ethnic groups and eurasians, they have isolation and drift from original popuolations, and a new environment, epigenetics of chattal slavery.. not counting forced changed haplogroups by rape... just curious
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
@Yantunde Lisa

the haplogroup letter names thread would be a better place to ask.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
A mutation is not a haplogroup

---

yes it is

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.

---

yes they do

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.

---

Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.

However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.

Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.

mutation + isolation + drift = new haplogroup

---

 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I run LD decay tests on ancient specimen ... Results can vary based on how the researchers call the variants and preprocessing of said variants. With that being said if a population has received admixture from two sources adequately represented in the dataset you would at the very least get some semblance of a curve ancient or not. Even if the test fails.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
A mutation is not a haplogroup

---

yes it is

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.

---

yes they do

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.

---

Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.

However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.

Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.

mutation + isolation + drift = new haplogroup

---

quote:

---

Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

[…]

This number — the first direct measurement of the human mutation rate — is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons and rare disease screens.


[…]

Extrapolating that result to the whole genome gives a mutation rate of around one in 30 million base pairs.”

---

quote:

---

The word "haplotype" is derived from the word "haploid," which describes cells with only one set of chromosomes, and from the word "genotype," which refers to the genetic makeup of an organism. A haplotype can describe a pair of genes inherited together from one parent on one chromosome, or it can describe all of the genes on a chromosome that were inherited together from a single parent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.

---

You kind of lost me. They haven't maintained the the same signatures. Doesnt it range from 2-5.5%
OoA isnt and it increases as we go back in time? With African populations the number is 0-0.5% and that number also increases as you go back in time.

Where you would estimate the percentages with F4-statistics? Is there a formula for that? I wan't to see if I can predict it.

---

I believe the equation they used was, (test,YRI ; Neanderthal,chimp) or an equivalent.
When I say the same archaic signatures I don't mean in terms of percentage. I'm saying there were many Archaic hominids, each with their own unique genetic make-up, what are the odds that certain drifted AMH all retain Altai Neanderthal signals in specific if they had different histories?

-Lets dial it back and look at the correlation you suggest for African_diversity/Neanderthal. Europeans for example are technically the least genetically diverse population on the planet, however they also have the least amount of Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestry, second only to continental Africans. How would you go about explaining that pattern?

-Lets look at the temporal aspect. Mota has the least Neanderthal Admixture of any ancient specimen, yet he's older than the ancient south Africans and also have less Neanderthal signature that just about all contemporary east Africans, how would you reconcile with that as well?

---

quote:

---

By extrapolation, we infer that the Basal Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasian populations and possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of 0-60%; Fig. 2; Methods). The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans 50,000-60,000 years ago 11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans

---

quote:

---

Ghost populations also lurk in ancient DNA. While analysing high-quality genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan, a team led by Reich and Montgomery Slatkin at the University of California, Berkeley, noticed a peculiar pattern: present-day sub-Saharan Africans are more closely related to Neanderthals than they are to Denisovans 4. But evidence from other ancient genomes suggested that the two archaic groups were equally related to present-day Africans. After weighing the possibilities, the scientists realized that they might have uncovered another ghost population.

[…]

These discoveries are only the beginning. The Akey and Reich teams found that the genomes of east Asians possess, on average, slightly more Neanderthal DNA than do people of European ancestry. Akey sees this as possible evidence that Neanderthals interbred with ancient humans on at least two separate occasions: once with the ancestors of all Eurasians, and later with a population ancestral only to east Asians. And Akey believes that humans are likely to bear genetic scraps from other extinct species, including some that interbred with the ancestors of humans in sub-Saharan Africa.

[…]

---

quote:

---

The interpretation of the Irhoud hominins has long been complicated by persistent uncertainties surrounding their geological age. They were initially considered to be around 40 thousand years (kyr) old and an African form of Neanderthals

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Swenet is right. So do you know how many mutations occur? That is way more than there are supposed Haplo groups. However, fact is that a mutation is an additive to the creation of what eventually becomes a Haplotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
some mutations take hold and potentially turn into haplogroups,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But apparently folks like lioness seem to not know these facts yet insists on arguing on the issue. Why?

---

Beats me. All I know is when I don't know I just stfu and listen/lurk. Of course I get carried away sometimes and speak out of turn, but some people are trying to be in your face with their preconceived opinions to the point where they're basically catfishing on a lot of subjects.

How do you think these results relate to Egyptians of this general time period? If this sample's SSA-like ancestry is primarily specific to the Maghreb, I think postglacial Egyptians will end up looking something like this, but with their own mixture and proportion of SSA-like ancestry. This would include Lower Nile Valley MSA AMH ancestry.



I also expect that some postglacial Egyptians will have Basal Eurasian as the majority of their African ancestry with comparatively minor other contributions (as must have been the case with the Africans who mixed with the recent Natufian and farmer samples) and that some will have SSA-like ancestry that, unlike North African MSA AMH ancestry, came directly from the south (e.g. L2 in PPN).
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".

All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.

Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".

All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.

Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".

All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.

Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.

---

Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.

---

quote:

---

The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.

---

wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.

---

wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
Its actually worse than that. Its plain old stupidity either consciously or unconsciously. That is how we get statements like this:

---

quote:

---

A new analysis of her ancient genome has found that this so-called “Altai” Neandertal inherited DNA from modern humans from Africa, including a gene that may have been involved in speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
But people on both forums keep quoting this:
"The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
But people on both forums keep quoting this:
"The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
yeah, Chad is quoting that in response to people who are *trying to model Natufians with the latest African aDNA*.

the Natufian-SSA f4s didn't have to turn out that way. Natufians could have come up with a nice Mota signal or whatever, they didn't. you act like people are trying to squirm out of Natufian having PN2-linked African ancestry (or vice versa). well no, some people are trying to find it anyway, and some people aren't.

and yes, it's a dumb quote, but reporters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] I feel like I have to get too creative to explain the discrepancy in SSA relatedness for E1b1b if I were to Attribute Taforalts contemporary Non-Natufian ancestry to M78. Now if East Africans were originally much more "Near eastern" autosomally from the get-go... theoretically a sample like Afa28 might not be less SSA in comparison to Taforalt but less Natufian-like?

I'm looking at the Mt Haplotyple predictions of Afalou and thinking what if these supposedly more Negroid types (including Jebel Sahaba) actually turn out to be less or maybe even just as SSA than Taforalt. ..seemingly the ancestors of some Nilo-Saharan and Omotic(presumably) populations are simply a bottleneck Sans recombination away from being precursory to what we believe is Near eastern.

...Just a Thought.

Edit: I'm also saying their has to be some UP European, or even WHG correspondence with Natufians (and in turn Ibermaurasians based on Taforalts results) just off the strength of detectable patterns when referring to the Natufian genome. It's probably the missing step, the reason why East Africans or Africans with *recent Eurasian ancestry have inflated "Natufian" Signatures.

---

For a visual representation... The Sky-Blue component comes to mind... which isn't precisely Berber-North African.

 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
i'm not seeing how moving the Near Eastern into Africa helps any? could you explain a little more clearly what you are envisioning here?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Natufian is half near eastern and half what?
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
in the above ADMIXTURE graph? half Anatolian farmer and half something shared with Sudanese Arabs, Beja, etc, we'll call it Northeast African.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
in the above ADMIXTURE graph? half Anatolian farmer and half something shared with Sudanese Arabs, Beja, etc, we'll call it Northeast African.

---

So what are you talking about..? "Moving the near east" if the Near east (Natufian) were split with a component that peaks in the Hadereb and is found in the Zaghawa. Granted some non-African is absorbed, but the pattern is what's important for what I believe is P-N2-linked Ancestry.

^Also important is the noise level SSA ancestry that you'd typically find in non Africans, mostly Middle-Near Easterns, that is absorbed by it
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 


Strict North African - sub-Saharan dichotomy in
population genetics is on its way out. Why? The
obvious, Sahara is neither their N Afr nor their
SS Afr.

As saying since day one there was an indigenous
N Afr group resembling W C & E Afrs while not
being either of them.

Until data from Wargla, Algerian Haratine and
places like the Chotts and the Tuat are in the
data repositories, African population genetics
will continue uncovering these 'surprising' no
supposedly longer extant as recently as 700 ya
statistical pops.

Possible descent membership of ghost-like pops of black pre-Saharans & Saharans:
• Frontinus' Carthaginian auxiliaries
• Nygbenitae Æthiopians
• Cerne Ethiopians
• Dyris (Atlas Ethiopians)
• Melanogaetuli
• Tarraelian Ethiopians
• Oecalicae
• Nigritae
• Gymnete Pharusii
• Perorsi
• Hesperii
Appianus' Numidica 5
Western Ethiopians


Blacks darker than the Afers
abounded in N Afr south of
the Tunisian/Algerian chotts,
i.e.; 34 degrees north.


Black does not mean negro.
Black does not mean sub-Saharan.


Loosdrecht's comment an unknown Taforalt
signal proxy can be no more basal than
aSouthAfrica, iiutc, (2kya) fits the above
Greco-Latin recorded Saharan N Afrs. Where
ever then look for it than in surviving Oases
and Chotts Saharans their likeliest descendents?
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
if Natufians, Mota, Yoruba, etc got E-PN2 through ancestry related to this component, then they will share drift related to this component that other people don't.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
if Natufians, Mota, Yoruba, etc got E-PN2 through ancestry related to this component, then they will share drift related to this component that other people don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
Its actually worse than that. Its plain old stupidity either consciously or unconsciously. That is how we get statements like this:

quote:

---

The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science.

---

---

Conclusion: access to more technology and advanced tools can make you more stupid.and out of touch with reality.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Figure 68.3 Natufian skulls from Eynan (left) and Hayonim cave (right); frontal view. Large morphological variations between sites exist in this population

---

Source

Large morphological variation (which indicates we're not dealing with a single homogeneous population) and with African phenotypes present means recent admixture, period. If the tools disagree, then the tools have no bearing on reality. Simple as that. As I said on the previous page, no amount of fancy software tools can beat common sense.

Whenever they say Natufians don't have African ancestry, remember that it's always these people who say that:



No understanding of archaeology, bioanthropology or anything. Just a bunch software dabblers online running computer software.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ The problem isn't necessarily the tools themselves so much as the people using them. Sometimes the problem lies in their interpretation of the data, other times in the methodology or the samples used, and still other cases the problem is both. In the right hands, the software can still do wonders. For instance, the ADMIXTURE graph Elmaestro posted above gives the lie to the claim that Natufians didn't have any Northeast African ancestry (as represented by the cyan component shared by them and various Northeast African populations).

@ Elmaestro

Where did you find that graph, BTW?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I agree. I know that the problem often lies with the people using these tools. But sometimes the software tools really do churn out bogus results. I was mainly addressing the fact that relying on software to reconstruct history for you is just dumb. Some people think these software tools are oracles or something. That by running the software, they're tapping into reality. That is what I think should also be addressed. When you read the blogs you see all these claims left and right that have no basis in reality. Only in software and in their abuse of that software. Lol. SMH.

Remember that whole Llorente mess and bloggers claiming massive invasion of Sub-Saharan Africa by Eurasians. All these gullible blog 'experts' jumped on the bandwagon. Which shows that they're not grounded in archaeology or any other discipline other than dabbling with software tools. They will believe all sorts of bogus results coming out of these software tools, even if it completely goes against common sense.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.

---

wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.

---

But people on both forums keep quoting this:
"The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.

---

Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.

Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ancient-eurasian-dna-sequencing-revealing.html

^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
^^ Thats deep
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku

We gonna stop calling this component "Natufian" now that these remains are way older than Natufian?

Pay attention to the ME/NA time depth on the paternal side with these guys being M78 and Natuf being Z830.....

From henceforth the “Torforalt component” is found in the Middle East

---

quote:

---

The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers 2
Iosif Lazaridis1 2016


The samples include Epipaleolithic Natufian hunter-gatherers from Raqefet 125 Cave in the Levant [12,000-9,800 BCE];

A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly 185 lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated 186 from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome 187 analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations
188 carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other 189 ancient males from West Eurasia [Supplementary Information, section 6] 7,8. However, no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians [Extended Data Table 1]. [We could not test for a link to present-day North 193 Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.] The idea of 194 Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also 195 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, 198 section 4]. Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from 199 comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.

The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off prior to the differentiation 155 of all other Eurasian lineages, including both eastern non-African populations like the Han 156 Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the 157 ~45,000 year old Upper Paleolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11. To test for Basal Eurasian 158 ancestry, we computed the statistic f4[Test, Han; Ust’-Ishim, Chimp] [Supplementary
159 Information, section 4], which measures the excess of allele sharing of Ust’-Ishim with a 160 variety of Test populations compared to Han as a baseline. This statistic is significantly 161 negative [Z<-3.7] for all ancient Near Easterners as well as Neolithic and later Europeans, 162 consistent with their having ancestry from a deeply divergent Eurasian lineage that separated 163 from the ancestors of most Eurasians prior to the separation of Han and Ust’-Ishim. We used 164 qpAdm7 to estimate Basal Eurasian ancestry in each Test population. We obtain the highest 165 estimates in the earliest populations from both Iran [66±13% in the likely Mesolithic sample, 166 48±6% in Neolithic samples], and the Levant [44±8% in Epipaleolithic Natufians] [Fig. 2], 167 showing that Basal Eurasian ancestry was widespread across the ancient Near East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.

---

Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.

Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ancient-eurasian-dna-sequencing-revealing.html

^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.

---

DNA Tribes

two different maps,


The First Human Diaspora: Basal Eurasians and the Horn of Africa
Background: Out of Africa Migrations and Early Population Structure
DNA Tribes® Digest March 1, 2014


.


,



Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe DNA Tribes® Digest April 2, 2014


^^ notice a month later the location of "Basal Eurasian" is not fixed on the map, no circles and question marks added in two locations, one in NA the other in Arabia
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
RIP Lucas Martin. Never tried to play confused about the African DNA in Natufians, farmers and New Kingdom Egyptian royalty.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku

We gonna stop calling this component "Natufian" now that these remains are way older than Natufian?

Pay attention to the ME/NA time depth on the paternal side with these guys being M78 and Natuf being Z830.....

From henceforth the “Torforalt component” is found in the Middle East

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
RIP Lucas Martin. Never tried to play confused about the African DNA in Natufians, farmers and New Kingdom Egyptian royalty.

---

what about this map?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?

Also, one map gives a take on the origin of various components, and one map shows distribution. If you mean to say that Martin backtracked, you will have to post more than two maps. Contrasting two maps doesn't say anything.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.

---

wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.

---

But people on both forums keep quoting this:
"The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.

---

My God. I thought there was something wrong with me. Krause claims that the Natufians have no African DNA onsesentence before saying that Natufians and Iberomaurasians may have a common ancestor in North Africa, like WTF. The English language cannot take that kind of strain!

---

^^ It seems to be a misquote or flip flop

source

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/oldest-dna-africa-offers-clues-mysterious-ancient-culture

Oldest DNA from Africa offers clues to mysterious ancient culture

By Ann GibbonsMar. 15, 2018 , 2:00 PM


" "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says"


yet according to the primary research article below
the E-M78 and E-M123 occur most frequently in North and East Africa populations
__________________________________________





^^^ if you look at the whole article it doesn't say ""The Natufians lack DNA from Africa,"

You could say though "The Natufians lack DNA from North Africa,"
or perhaps "The Natufians lack DNA from Sub Saharan Africa,"
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.

---

Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.

Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ancient-eurasian-dna-sequencing-revealing.html

^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.

---

Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real...
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.

---

Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.

Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ancient-eurasian-dna-sequencing-revealing.html

^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.

---

Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?

---

How can you ask me that ? The term "Basal Eurasian" appears in two separate locations on that map and in addition has a question mark.
This implies that a month later DNA tribes is not certain if Basal Eurasian is North African or Arabian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Elite Diasporan
Sometimes these software-heavy papers are like movies filled to the brim with special effects bells and whistles, that are still garbage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What about that map? In figure 1 Martin superimposed Lazaridis et al's tree on a global map, to give his take on where the components originated. Figure 2 shows Martin's own analysis of the sources of Europe's non-local contributions. Where is the inconsistency?

---

How can you ask me that ? The term "Basal Eurasian" appears in two separate locations on that map and in addition has a question mark.
This implies that a month later DNA tribes is not certain if Basal Eurasian is North African or Arabian

---

See the 2nd paragraph I added to my last post

---

quote:

---

Consistently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleolithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantines (“Levant_N”) (16).

- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^

But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.

---

Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.

Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:


https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ancient-eurasian-dna-sequencing-revealing.html

^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.

---

Please tell me this map was made from some Eurocentric blog. It has to be. No way this is real...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional
Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African.
It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?

Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is
African and not in Sahara.

By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in
the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending
what's under discussion.

---

quote:

---

An interesting feature of the Near Eastern gene pools is the genetic legacy of the so called ‘Basal 437 Eurasians’, a hypothetical population that is basal to both Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers 438 and East Eurasians (16, 73). This Basal Eurasian gene pool is also assumed to have no 439 Neanderthal ancestry; i.e. it is an early branch of non-Africans that split off from the rest prior to 440 the admixture with Neanderthals. If such characteristics are assumed, their contribution to Near 441 Eastern, and accordingly to early Neolithic European, farmers can provide an explanation for 442 interesting observations. These include the apparent closer relationship of East Eurasians to Ice 443 Age Europeans than to Neolithic European farmers, and consequently a lower amount of 444 Neanderthal ancestry in present-day West Eurasians (as a result of expansions of early farmers 445 into Europe) than East Eurasians (65, 79). So far, the early Holocene populations from the Near 446 East are known to have the highest proportion of Basal Eurasian ancestry, up to around 50%; e.g. 447 the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG, (15) and Iran (HotuIIIb, (16)), (pre- 448 )/early Neolithic Levant (Natufian, Levant_N) and early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, (16)). Expansion 449 of these derived Basal Eurasian populations, and subsequent admixture with local populations, is 450 considered to have substantially decreased the Neanderthal ancestry proportion in Near Eastern 451 populations that changed from foraging to early food production (16). It is unknown where and 452 when Basal Eurasians emerged and how the Holocene Near Easterners obtained this ancestry in 453 large quantity. North Africa is a strong candidate for the place having kept Basal Eurasians 454 because it is well connected to Eurasia. From this point of view, the Upper Paleolithic individuals 455 from Taforalt are likely candidates as being direct descendants of, or closely derived from, the 456 Basal Eurasian population. 457

- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop

---

quote:

---

In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six 831 (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African 832 populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that 833 Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to 834 belong to E1b1b1b (16).

Interestingly, basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at 690 Muierii cave in Romania (22, 23). We are therefore interested to know how the mtDNA genomes 691 in our 15,000 cal. yBP North African individuals relate phylogenetically to the U6 and M mtDNA 692 sequences found in Ice Age Europeans (22, 23, 27) and present-day humans (7).


- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018
Supplementary Materials

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional
Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African.
It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?

Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is
African and not in Sahara.

By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in
the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending
what's under discussion.

---

Shriners estimates will never be cosigned.
... Lazaridis. Only aDNA can undo the mental block that study placed on people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Though a solo effort Shriner found 7% proportional
Omotic ancestry in Natufians and 21% Northern African.
It's in a preprint so maybe Krause discounts it until reviewed and published?

Even if disqualifying Northern Africans Omo is
African and not in Sahara.

By geography Omo is south of the Sahara. It's in
the Horn which gets played demic Saharan depending
what's under discussion.

---

Shriners estimates will never be cosigned.
... Lazaridis. Only aDNA can undo the mental block that study placed on people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Never be co-signed by who? And why (scientifically)?

Lazaridis knows about the Shriner (here).
Shriner needs grantsmanship and team leader skills
for to get enough money and researchers to gravitate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Taforalt surprisingly looks to be extremely important for the scenario I wish to investigate.

---

quote:

---

The Iberomaurusian arose independently in North Africa with no presently known cultural antecedents. Its epicenter may have been in Algeria, from where it spread westwards into Morocco and east into Libya and Cyrenaica. The earliest dates for Tamar Hat and slightly 40 younger ages from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt and Kehf el Hammar (36), and much younger dates from Libya and Cyrenaica are consistent with this scenario. They imply a cultural break around 25,000 cal. yBP.

It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt. First, present-day North Africans do not have as high sub-Saharan African ancestry as the Taforalt individuals (Fig. 2B+S12). This may be attributed to more recent events, such as the 598 historical Arab expansion. Also, the periodic expansion of the Saharan desert played a major role in limiting gene flow between North and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time. For example, a previous study of ancient Egyptian genomes shows that the genetic affinity with the Near East was even stronger in the first millennium BCE in Egypt (5). Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North 604 Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).


- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018
Supplementary Materials

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Will be posting the image later. But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned!

UPDATE:

Pay close attention to the tiny bits of dark red ancestry shared by the Natufian and other Near Eastern aDNA. Even some of the WHG have a tiny bit of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
That would make sense. I knew there has to be a connection between West Africans and WHG. It may be that red component. Unsupervised Cluster Charts may show it but Euro Researchers avoid showing those graphs.


red=ghost population = Iwo Eleru---Skoglund?


" But I’ve seen the ADMIXTURE graph from this study and it appears there’s a small bit of red “Hadza” ancestry in the ancient (but not modern) Near Eastern samples. Even some of the WHG have it. Stay tuned"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[...]
Iwo Eleru types and west African Archaics come into play, but it's not because Taforalt HAS that archaic Admixture.. the F4 stats (and f3) in the study disproved that.

[...]

The red component is just the HADZA effect, let it be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?

---

Can't say for sure but if you're talking about
Loosdrecht Fig. 2 and Taforalt remember Momma
U6 migrated from East Europe to North Africa
10k before the LGM started. M1 is not as old
and its parent may technically be a true back
migration from the Arabian tectonic plate.

This redux of Fig. 2 offers a different perspective.




One thing I really miss about Old School phys
anth is the representative pictures but the
world's too interconnected for that now.

Notice Shaigi and Amazigh in Fig. 2b. Damn
nigh identical. Google up some images of
Shagai and 'Berbers'. Nearly identical?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?

---

Read this

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/03/14/science.aar8380.DC1/aar8380_vandeLoosdrecht_SM.pdf

---

quote:

---

An alternative model is that populations with microlithic bladelet technologies followed a land route and spread westwards from the Near East to the Maghreb before 15,000 yBP. This would assume that the Iberomaurusian is related to the Natufian and earlier Epipaleolithic technologies of the Near East. However, the oldest Iberomaurusian microlithic bladelet technologies are mostly earlier than the equivalents in the intervening geographic areas of Egypt and Libya. Nevertheless it is possible to accommodate an intrusion of populations from the east that admixed with local populations and replaced MSA technologies with ones dominated by microlithic bladelets.

---

quote:

---

This model would suggest that the Iberomaurusian emerged from the MSA or ‘transitional technocomplexes’ in Africa. At Taforalt, the layers underlying the Iberomaurusian are rich in adzes and adze flakes and a simple flake technology (10) that overlie typically MSA layers. The dating of the adze layers is still preliminary but suggests an age range of ~26,000 and 24,000 cal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Okay if this back migrant DNA in northern Africa was the result of the Hyksos and other such migrants in the second millennium, how come it's in the Taforalt? Why do the Taforalt seem closer to modern North Africans and Europeans on that graph unless north Africa had looked the way it does as early as 15,000 years ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
But would it make sense then if Natufians were a subset of Taforalt diversity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
But would it make sense then if Natufians were a subset of Taforalt diversity?

---

This where the discrepancy comes in, if you've been following.

I can only speak for myself.

What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.

Lemme know if you understand.

---

quote:

---

No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis

-- Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers"

---

quote:

---

In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six 831 (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African 832 populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that 833 Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to 834 belong to E1b1b1b (16). 835

- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018
Supplementary Materials

---

quote:

---

It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt.

- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018
Supplementary Materials

.


.

---

How are they getting Taforalt 36.5% SSA out of E1b1b ?
I'm not saying it's wrong I just want to know how they get there as regard to the haplogroups?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
screw me... How much times do I have to bump the same comment

"I feel like I have to get too creative to explain the discrepancy in SSA relatedness for E1b1b if I were to Attribute Taforalts contemporary NON-NATUFIAN ancestry to M78. Now if East Africans were originally much more "Near eastern" autosomally from the get-go... theoretically a sample like Afa28 might not be less SSA in comparison to Taforalt but less Natufian-like?..."

EDIT: Links fixed
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Where are you guys getting your genetic history?

Autosomes are always going to tie to residence.

That's why uniparentals are for deep ancestry.

There's a relationship but Taforalt didn't seed Natufians.

No way getting around U6 migrated from Asia before
multifurcation in the Maghreb and movement to the
east of Africa and back again to the Maghreb.

Considering M1's late coalescence compared to
other M subclades, it too is likely to come
to the continent from outside unless some L3M
sat in E Afr upon thousands of years before
coalescing whereas in S Asia L3M had many
first step clades way way earlier than M1.


Distribution and frequency of Maghreb specific
U6 and n&e Afr M1 hardly makes for their pops
making a founder migration in the Levant.

Compare the E. Levant E is mostly 123.
Maghreb E is superyoung 81. It may track
language dispersal of Tamazight to the
Maghreb with a returning U6 subclade,
an interesting parallel to Shaigi and
Amazigh genomes at K=10 in Fig. 2.

Natufians are E-M123 upstreamers. These
males didn't migrate from the Maghreb.
Natufians derive from SE Med and NE Afr
antecedents.

Mushabeans weren't Maghrebi. They were
Nile Valley. They were the Natufians'
African parentage.

The 36% African in Natufian is based on
the genome not uniparentals alone. The
proposers advise its probably indigenous
northern African from a population that
roots indigenous W Afrs and indigenous
Lakes Africans well before the Neolithic.

Maurusian industry started ~20k in the Pleistocene.
Natufian culture is Holocene from ~12k.
Aterian peoples bled into Maurusian but
they were long finished and done before
Mushabea or Kebbaran.

Uniparentals and archaeology are against
a Natufian <- Maurusian <- Source scenario.
Nor do uniparentals and archaeology support
a Maurusian <- Source -> Natufian scenario.

What confirms either of those two proposals, please?


Who can run a simple TreeMix on the concerned?

Loosbrecht is clear:
... the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt
makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the
ancestral population of later Natufians who do not
harbor sub-Saharan ancestry.

Natufians do have an Omo like component at 6%.
Omo river is south of the Sahara but Eurovision
often sees Ethiopia and the non-Kenyan Horn as
other than sub-Sahara (Kenya's desert be damned).
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
This where the discrepancy comes in, if you've been following.

I can only speak for myself.

What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.

Lemme know if you understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Maurusian industry started ~20k in the Pleistocene.
Natufian culture is Holocene from ~12k.
Aterian peoples bled into Maurusian but
they were long finished and done before
Mushabea or Kebbaran.

Uniparentals and archaeology are against
a Natufian <- Maurusian <- Source scenario.
Nor do uniparentals and archaeology support
a Maurusian <- Source -> Natufian scenario.

What confirms either of those two proposals, please?

---

quote:

---

Aterian peoples are the only hope of a common source
for Maurusians and Mushabeans (the Africans that went
into the Levant, met the Kebberans, who then mingled
engendering the Natufians, a morphological
heterogeneous looking people changing
over time as the African elements
are absorbed into the local gen pop).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
No reason to back up. At this point
I advise reading anthropologists and
archaeologists to learn about cultural
industries instead of relying on
geneticists summaries for what is
outside their field.

Afterwards you can meld from each discipline
into your pop gens wisdom, knowing first hand
the other fields findings.

---

I'm not an Archeologist... (yet at least). But I coulda sworn Mushibian culture was most similar to Ibermaurasian culture, as well as Nile-Valley. And I have yet to read any of this from a genetics study yet either for that matter.

But I could be wrong and Aterians are most similar to Mushibians but I'd hope if you had proof of that you'd let me know before more time is wasted.

...lemme find some receipts though in the mean time. lol.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
Marieke van de Loosdrecht1, Abdeljalil Bouzouggar2,3,*,†, Louise Humphrey4, Cosimo Posth1, Nick Barton5, Ayinuer Aximu-Petri3, Birgit Nickel3, Sarah Nagel3, El Hassan Talbi6, Mohammed Abdeljalil El Hajraoui2, Saaïd Amzazi7, Jean-Jacques Hublin3, Svante Pääbo3, Stephan Schiffels1, Matthias Meyer3, Wolfgang Haak1,†, Choongwon Jeong1,*,†, Johannes Krause1,*,†
2018

____________________________________________________


^^ the first article to find North African Y DNA in
" Iberomaurusians"

and they simultaneously have cold adapted limb proportions
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Really we're all speculating, even the pros.

I have two twelve year old posts tieing
real Old Skool arch to 2006 uniparental info.

Sorely in need of 2018 precision. Would like
me to update it? The original does give the
gist but it's β level no V lab nrY mutations
or any advances since 2006


EDIT: while el M was composing

# Halfan was contemporaneous to, some say
influenced, Maurusian. Helwan was thought
to have some Natufian output.


Lot of steps to get back to Aterians in Egypt's
Western Desert. When the industry was outmoded
did its former practicers die out? Did they
adapt their fishing to Khormusan fishing?

M78 men pulled maybe their first sex biased
gene flow against the previous Maghreb males
U6 ex-mates? Notice the U6 east to west then
U6a west to east then U6a1 east to west moves.
Maybe U6a1 bought I mean brought the 78s with
them 20k when they left NE Afr and went back
to NW Afr where U6b'c sisters welcomed them
home with that fresh meat.


EDIT 2 the Ol Skule Cambridge ; Ish, can you update? Some dates are a little off nowadays.




gonna dash another timeline here, more Pleistocene
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
EDITS:
Yeah, what's the point of discussing on ES if we're to discard or disregard classic info. please bump
And it's the Halfan ~17,000 from the nile valley... Which might be a decent lead.

Here's some Receipts for the Newcomers ..Such as myself to an extent. Starting with Uniparental(nrY) information.

quote:

---

"
Haplogroup E-M78 the other defining haplogroup in the PCA, has an African origin in
northeastern African, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern
and eastern Africa (Cruciani et al., 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most
Sudanese populations it has exceptionally high frequency in few populations like those
coming from western Sudan and particularly Darfur area and the Beja. The analysis of
M78 subclades among Sudanese suggests that two subclades, E-V12 and E-V22, which
are very common in northern African (Cruciani et al., 2007), might have been brought to
Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000-
8,000 years ago. Sudden climate change might have forced several Neolithic cultures/people
to shift northwards to the Mediterranean and southwards to the Sahel and Nile Valley.

---

quote:

---

10.1007/BF01117080


Ofer Bar-Yosef and Anna Belfer-Cohen '89

---

quote:

---

"The Mushabians moved into Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping techniques. Worth noting is the microburin technique, which was designed to obtain oblique snaps on bladelets, and microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points. These types are commonly found in the Iberomaurusian and at sites in the Nile Valley earlier than in the Levant (Phillips 1975; Phillips and Mintz 1977; Bar-Yosef 1980; Close 1978). The almost 60 Mushabian sites of both the early and later phases which have been studied reflect highly mobile small groups, which exploited the desertic region around the Mediterranean vegetational belt (Bar-Yosef 1981; Goring-Morris 1985).

[...]

The time range of the Mushabian, based on stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates, correlates with that of the Geometric Kebaran (14,000 12,800 B.P.; see Fig. 2) and suggests the coexistence of two entities. The Mushabian lithic industry is different from that of the Geometric Kebaran. Moreover, there is a close affinity between the Mushabian technotypological attributes and those of the Iberomaurusian and related industries in North Africa (e.g., Tixier, 1963; Camps, 1978), the Nile Valley (Phillips, 1973), and Nubia (Close, 1977)."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Tukuler
You can probably see where this is going...

but before I go on and potentially waste my time...

Do you know of any evidence of Microburin techniques being used by the Maurasians before 18kya??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm looking at M35 when I look at Natufians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun:
[q]

What I believe is happening is that The taforalt and the Natufians are half brothers with an African dad, but their moms are eurasian cousins with taforalts mom in particular having African(conventionally) in her.

Lemme know if you understand. [/Q]

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
No ElMaestro! All were African Great Lakes migrants! Black men weren't chasing after white women 20,000 years ago. SMH


And that goes for mtDNA U6 also.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^ just ignore this first he says "all carried ancestral alleles for pigmentation. Ie all black people. "

then he says
" Black men weren't chasing after white women 20,000 years ago."

the new avatar has not resolved the contradictory mind

---------------------------------------------
xyyman, favorite word for March/April "Great Lakes"
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Jungle Fever? That's not scientific.
Socio-Sexual biased gene flow is the phrase.


Anyway ... Ever have to explain this stuff to
an inquisitive Soaps watcher? What am I doing?
Population Genetics booboo. I'm writing some
thing like:

Homesick U6a1 went back to Maghreb taking E-M78 along.
M1 homewreckers fled east, led by M78 cheaters.
Mashreqi gossipers made the Horn a good looking
further place for disgraced M1|M78 to move on.

Homeless Z287 were taken in by Levant mtDNA's.
First-generation Z830 mated local women, the only game in town.
Second generation M123 was no longer continental African.


But where they're gonna read it I gotta stuffy
it all up in jargon only insiders understand
or make believe they do.

Say what? Flipper's coming on? Lemme get off
the 'net. Mix me another Jamaica Me Happy with
that Smith&Cross. Don't forget the Coco Rèal.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
"Homesick U6a1 went back to Maghreb taking E-M78 along.
M1 homewreckers fled east, led by M78 cheaters.
Mashreqi gossipers made the Horn a good looking
further place for disgraced M1|M78 to move on. "


Africa has the root of U6a, Europe and Asia has SUB-CLADES!!

The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents - Bernard Secher





https://s17.postimg.org/61gmhqw2n/mt_DNA_Africa_U6a_Europe.jpg
MOD:Oversized img Converted To Link Format

[ 31. March 2018, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
There was no "back-migration of mtDNA U from Europe to Africa. It never happened!!!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 




 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


xyyman, disregarding the Romanian remains of 35K let's say hypothetically that people in Algeria brought haplogroup U6 to Europe Why should we care?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
There was no "back-migration of mtDNA U from Europe to Africa. It never happened!!!

---

quote:

---

my previous post:

Two years ago Rumanian 35k U6 was found.
U6 is E Euro in origin per known physical

U6 ←U ←R ←N ←L3.

L3 born in Africa
N born in AME
R born in Eurasia
U born in Eurasia
U6 born in Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
U6 came from the Middle East. Not Europe.

---

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Just because U6 was found in Romania 35,000 years ago does not mean it originated there. U6 is between 40 and 50 thousand years old. The oldest human remains in Europe don't go that far back. Most scientists place the first humans in Europe between 40 and 50 thousand years ago. So it is very unlikely that U6 originated there in Romania. More likely is it arose in Africa or even the Levant, but among populations that for all intents and purposes were Africans. And that 35,000 year old sample of U6 is not tied to any modern European. Most likely a wave of R and U carrying migrants arose in Africa at the point of OOA 60,000 years ago. But when you are talking about populations over 40,000 years old this just becomes a case of splitting hairs. All these populations would have been African in every sense of the word at that time and prior.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Why does this matter if the entire U clade came from N which came from Asia?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Thanks you Doug. I just back in...
Looking to respond but you did already. Sometimes I wonder if everyone else is a retard on this forum.

What was/is found in Romania is exactly where and what it should be at that time in human history consistent with an African origin. The fools do not see that. Apples and apples guys not apples and oranges. SMH.


Admin:

Keep the insults to a low.

[ 30. March 2018, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Even when the hypothesis makes absolutely no sense I am surprised when the "conscious" ones are gullible to it when they should know better and see through the "sleight of hands". No people ...mtDNA U6* 35,000years ago in Roamania is exactly consistent with an African origin of mtDNA U.

When we sample 35000yo aDNA from Africa and it is confirmed to be a subclade of U6 ONLY then we can safely assume mtDNA U6 is of non-African origin.

As it stands right now we do NOT have comparable samples FROM Africa at this point in time.

But we do have Kefi samples @ 22000ya. mtDNA U/H.?

I hope some of you use what little common sense you have. No Brilliance needed,

Lioness, Oshun and the like get a free pass....wink! I expect better of you ..."conscious"... ones.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Some of you who understand Skoglund and the new aDNA data from North Africa can see the many surpirses.

What mtDNA U6* were white Europeans that backmigrated from Romania then turned black as they entered Africa?

We know North Africans and Levantines were black as all aDNA has shown to this point. We know Luxmanda was really a "Eurasian" living in Tanzania who carried mtDNA L2a. So was she an European-African or an African-European...lol! Such fools.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Haplogroup U descends from the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree. The defining mutations (A11467G, A12308G, G12372A) are estimated to have arisen between 43,000 and 50,000 years ago, in the early Upper Paleolithic

Ancient DNA classified as belonging to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup has been recovered from human skeletal remains found in Western Siberia, which have been dated to c. 45,000 years ago
( Ust’-Ishim )
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

U6a'b'd'c born in Africa.
U6's generational offspring are considered not
just northern African but a Maghrebi Imazighen
('Berber' speakers) marker. This makes for low
level female genetic continuity from before the
last Ice Age to the present in the Maghreb al
Aqsa. Birth and at least 20,000 years residence
make U6 downstream clades indigenous African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

blah blah blah multiple posts of flamebait sermons and other such irrelevant shitnoonecaresabout

---

Back from vacation and still can't accept that no one gives a fuck about him lol. He's not gonna stop making multiple posts until he gets the attention he craves for on ES.



So stop flooding the topic with multiple posts.And learn to use a damn edit button. Do not flame people (that aren't even thinking about you) over what they don't know when you still don't edit your shit right. This forum format's ancient, so how many years does it take to learn how to put consecutive statements in the same post unless you're TRYING to force people to notice you (and your flame baiting)? Is this the first time mods have seen this? Why is this only unacceptable when the white supremacist weirdos come in like CT? Can you mods make him keep his shit to one post until time elapses or someone responds so we can ignore him? The ignore feature doesn't work.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The irony is that you guys are right. U6's people came from Asia. As far as the archaeological correlate of the subclade (U6abcd) that eventually went into Africa, it's probably the Levantine Aurignacian.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Haplogroup U descends from the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree. The defining mutations (A11467G, A12308G, G12372A) are estimated to have arisen between 43,000 and 50,000 years ago, in the early Upper Paleolithic

Ancient DNA classified as belonging to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup has been recovered from human skeletal remains found in Western Siberia, which have been dated to c. 45,000 years ago
( Ust’-Ishim )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The irony is that you guys are right. U6's people came from Asia. As far as the archaeological correlate of the subclade (U6abcd) that eventually went into Africa, it's probably the Levantine Aurignacian.

---

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.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

^This individual's mtDNA did not give birth to African U6, if that's what you're thinking.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Let me guess. Black European women migrated enmasse, without their men, to Africa from Romania ...no the Levantine....no mid-East...no..eh!...somewhere. lol! stupid people. JUngle fever 350000bc


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@ Oshun. All those red circles show European women carrying L1b, N, R0, U, H, V etc migrating enmasse to Africa. SMH. Why do I bother?
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
I forgot the study but it was posted on here but it reconfirmed that U6 came from the Middle East...
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Haplogroup U descends from the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree. The defining mutations (A11467G, A12308G, G12372A) are estimated to have arisen between 43,000 and 50,000 years ago, in the early Upper Paleolithic (around 46,530 ± 3,290 years before present, with a 95% confidence interval per Behar et al., 2012).

Ancient DNA classified as belonging to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup has been recovered from human skeletal remains found in Western Siberia, which have been dated to c. 45,000 years ago.[4]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The idea that Siberians backmigrated all the way back to Europe and then Africa to re introduce U to the continent is far fetched and illogical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Let me guess. Black European women migrated enmasse, without their men, to Africa from Romania ...no the Levantine....no mid-East...no..eh!...somewhere. lol! stupid people. JUngle fever 350000bc

---

No, a group comprised of men and women migrate to a new location. They get into a war in that new area and they lose the war. They men are killed and the victors take the women. That is one possibility. It doesn't even have to be in large masses because after thousands of years later a small group can multiply into a new group.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

Algerian Mozabites, highest frequencies of U6 in Africa
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Good arguments all around.

A method implied by Swenet will
tell us a lot; line up as much of
the mitogenomes accessible
to ascertain any lineal direct
relationships of Roumania & Maghreb.

Meanwhile are the authors
misleadingly pointing to
PM1 U6 ancestral to U6a'b'd'c?

Figure 2. Distribution of the U6 mitochondrial lineages.
(A) Phylogenetic analysis and temporal estimates for lineages including the Pestera Muierii-1 (PM1) from the mitochondrial tree.


In lieu of editing my last
post here's some relevant
Hirbo for some reason last
August I took notes on .

Sorry for block of text.
If I underscored points
it'd only take away from
the overall presentation.


"
Middle Paleolithic tool industries of northeast Africa, which might
have served as transition technology to the Near East, have been
broadly classified into two complexes: Nubian that is riverine that
probably expanded northward from the Sudan, and the Lower Nile valley
complex [586]. The Lower Nile valley complex is described as flexible,
which made it possible for its users to adapt and exploit different
environments including the desert [586]. The Lower Nile valley complex
is considered as a continuation of industry practiced by earlier occupiers
of the Nile Valley (from 90 kya), before subsequent transition to Upper
Paleolithic industry around 40 kya [586]. Similarity between stone tool
technologies dated to between 35-44 kya at Nazlet khater 4 in Egypt
and those used at the site in the Levant (Boker Tachtit) [691, 692]
serves as evidence of a transition of modern humans from Africa to Eurasia.
In fact, archeological findings from several 30 - 50 kyo sites in the Levant
have been termed “transitional industries” between the Middle and Upper
Paleolithic [29].


The Upper Paleolithic industries thought to be the work of modern humans
seem to have appeared somewhat earlier in western Asia than in Europe [29].
Some historians argue that the 40 kya common tradition that marks the
behavioral modernity sometimes attributed to Neanderthal (art, personal
decoration, ritualized burials, formal bone tools and gift exchange),
might represent the expansion of Upper Paleolithic anatomically modern
human populations across Europe [393, 685, 693]. Despite the fact that
Europe was settled by modern humans by the end of the Middle Paleolithic
(by 30 kya) [404, 694], the early European modern human fossil evidence
from Mladec (28 kya) [695] exhibit features that support substantial and
relatively recent African ancestry [26]. Moreover, a study of comparison
in body proportions of skeleton samples from the European Early Upper
Paleolithic (30 -20 kya) shows that they cluster with recent African
samples rather than European Late upper Paleolithic (19-10 kya) samples
indicating that there was some gene flow and/or migration from Africa
associated with the emergence of modern humans in Europe [696]. Therefore,
the sequence of historical events and archaeological evidence above,
indicates that the expansion from Africa into Southwest Asia might
have taken place around 40 - 50 kya. This is further supported by
anatomically modern human produced tools shared between North Africa
and the Near east [697].


During two periods, the African faunal zone seems to have extended briefly
into the Near East and allowed modern humans to expand their range out of
Africa into southwestern Asia [698] before contracting back [699]. These
two periods, about 100 kya and 50 kya, coincide with the initial unsuccessful
and the second the later expansion out of Africa, respectively [29, 148, 684, 686].
Therefore, the contiguous area that constitutes part of north Africa,
specifically the Nile valley and near East, might have also acted as
a corridor of human range expansion from Africa and population contraction
back to Africa from 40 kya up to the late Pleistocene (20 kya) [586].


The scenario described above fits the genetic evidence and time period for
modern human dispersal from Africa through the northern route [17], mostly
by individuals with R0 mtDNA lineages (sub-family of the N-clade). Based on
principal components analysis (PCA) of a dataset of 940 individuals from 53
representative global populations typed at ~650,000 SNPs as part of the
Human Genome Diversity Project [343], Reich et al., [555] speculated that
there was sub-Saharan African gene flow into Europe and the rest of Eurasia.
Moreover, based on a novel PCA and clustering method which was used to
determine the phylogeny of 1737 complete human mtDNA sequences, Alexe et al.,
[191] argued that M and N mtDNA clades arose due to two different migration
events that represent the previously described southern and northern routes
respectively. They [191] further argue that the N carrying population that
followed the northern route split along an East-West geographic division,
resulting in a western “European R clade” containing the haplogroups H, V,
H/V, J, T and U, and an eastern “Eurasian N subclade” containing haplogroups
B, R5, F, A, N9, I, W and X. However, considering the distribution pattern of
the „Eurasian N-clades‟ in Southeast Asia, the

408
Pacific and the Americas, some of the N clades might have been present in
individuals who followed the southern route. Interestingly, the R clades
that are found in South/Southeast Asia and the Americas (A, B, F, N9,
R5-R11, P and Y) seem to have split off from other R clades that are mainly
found in the Near East and Europe about 50-70 kya [190]. Such a scenario may
indicate that the N clade split within Africa before its expansion out of Africa.
The M haplogroup, whose M1 haplotype is predominantly East African and whose
other haplotypes are found in the Indian subcontinent and southeastern Asia,
might also reflect a population split just before/or after the out-of Africa
migration, with most of the M haplotype carrying populations expanding through
the southern route. The TMRCA age estimates based on ~4600 sequences – N=3191,
M=1416 (60 from this study and the rest from previously published data) of the
N and M haplogroup lineages are 41 – 67 ky (Kivisild et al., [220] 62.11±6.09 ky
and Mishmar et al., [178] 47.92±6.98 ky) and 41 – 62 (Kivisild et al., [220]
55.76±4.36 ky and Mishmar et al., [178] 45.11±4.53 ky), respectively (Appendix 7b).
These age estimates for the two haplogroups concurs with estimates done using
a corrected time-dependent mutation rate based on the entire mtDNA genome using
a maximum likelihood method which estimated the TMRCA of the N haplogroup to be
76.92±17.53 ky and the TMRCA of the M haplogroup to be 73.3±9.64 ky [190]
(Appendix 7b).

It is still not yet clear whether M and N arose in Africa just before the
exodus, or just after it (as indicated by the close relationship and similar
ages for M and N (as estimated above), but it is highly unlikely that it
happened further east in India as speculated elsewhere [598] based on high
diversity of M [412, 600, 700, 701]. The ages of the haplogroups coupled with
the distribution pattern of N and M haplotypes described above are consistent
with the

409
hypothesis that they diverged prior to migration of modern humans
out of Africa or just after it. This time period coincides perfectly with the
return to warm, moist conditions in global climate after volcanic ash from the
Mt. Toba eruption (which took place 73 kya in modern-day Sumatra) dissipated.
The effects of the eruption on the tropics and sub tropics were reduced temperature,
precipitation and increased aridity, and may have lasted until 60 kya [393]. It
is hypothesized that these events led to a contraction of the human population,
reducing genetic diversity and limiting the distribution of human populations to
areas with climatically favorable conditions and ecologically stable environments
[48, 110, 393]. The climatic conditions improved around 57 kya with increased
insolation (solar radiation received) and precipitation in northern Africa [393].
During dry periods, environmental barriers associated with the severity of the
Sahara desert could have made the northern route difficult, so it is likely
that this route was more suitable during wetter climatic periods [702]; thus
the expansion may have been more likely during the wet periods of 43-57 kya
[393, 592]. Recent study‟s [703] findings of a crude age estimate (13.6 – 108.4 kya)
and distribution pattern of 17q21 inversion (microtubular associated protein
tau (MAPT) inversion), mainly across Europe, Central and southwestern Asia
and Africa [703], also seem to conform to northern route out-of-Africa human
and Neolithic expansion.
"
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Why don't you stick to editing......?

What do you think the discussion is about? Repeating it doesn't clarify anything. Apples and apples is the only way to resolve this.

Because a "dead end" of U6 was found in Romania from 35,000 does mean it originated in Romania ...or the middle East. Might as well make N and all it's sub-clade be of European origin like all those red circles. Even when Africans carry the highest diversity and ancestral clades of all these haplo-groups. SMH. Asses.


Let me read what Sage has to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
I forgot the study but it was posted on here but it reconfirmed that U6 came from the Middle East...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
I forgot the study but it was posted on here but it reconfirmed that U6 came from the Middle East...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
There was no "back-migration of mtDNA U from Europe to Africa. It never happened!!!

---

quote:

---

Introduction

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"

[...]

The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.

---

—Hervella et al. 2016


See a similar trend involving U6a and L1b






—Sarah Tishkoff et al.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@xyyman

You know you can ignore the post right?
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm saying the subclade that made its way to Africa stopped in the Levant, first. The Romanian individual belongs to another subclade. Both subclades originate with a parent population that migrated from Asia.

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.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

^This individual's mtDNA did not give birth to African U6, if that's what you're thinking.

---

quote:

---

Complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome analyses have greatly improved the phylogeny and phylogeography of human mtDNA. Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 has been considered as a molecular signal of a Paleolithic return to North Africa of modern humans from southwestern Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:







—Sarah Tishkoff et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm saying the subclade that made its way to Africa stopped in the Levant, first. The Romanian individual belongs to another subclade. Both subclades originate with a parent population that migrated from Asia.

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.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

^This individual's mtDNA did not give birth to African U6, if that's what you're thinking.

---

You're absolutely right.




PM1 U6 is a sister of the African Root U6,
a great aunt to the eldest African U6a,
great aunt to U6b'd,
and aunt of the young African U6c.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



If you look at Pestera cu Oase also from Romania on this chart and older than PM1 (Pestera Muieri ) that is haplogroup N. That is ancestral to mtDNA R and R is ancestor to U.

U1 and U5 are older on this chart than U6

If you look at Pestera Muieri that was a woman also found in Romania who carried basal U6*

That haplogroup was formed before it split into
U6a U6b and U6c.

This particular woman was not an ancestor herself to other individuals of these U6 splits but she carried the older basal U6* lineage type.

So her age, 35K is not the age of the basal U6* (50k) she carried

Although the exact origin dates are estimates.
But so far that Romanian specimen is the oldest human remains found bearing U6
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Sometimes it's better to revisit and reread your notes than to speak off the top from what you remember. Above I was arguing that U6 originated somewhere in Central Asia, and that UP European U6* and African U6abcd are two subclades separating from a Central Asian U6 carrying parent population that was on its way to West Eurasia. This is a wrongly remembered version of my original thoughts on U6. In my original notes this is what I had in mind.

U6 is analogous to R-V88, in that the both derive from (Central) Asian parents (mtDNA U and Y-DNA R), but also in that both were originally thought to be African, but have now turned out to have older offshoots in West Eurasia than in Africa. The older West Eurasian offshoots make sense because West Eurasia lies in between Central Asia and Africa.

The credible and latest estimates assign U6 a date of ~37ky old. If this is accurate (a big IF), then the Levantine Aurignacian comes into focus as an archaeological correlate of U6. And if the Levantine Aurignacian really is associated with U6, then U6 must have originated fully inside the Levant as Elite Diasporan was saying (not in Central Asia as I was alluding to above). The Levantine Aurignacian starts exactly around the time the latest research suggests U6 originated. See table 1, fig 2 and fig 3:

Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1701450/tab-pdf

A couple of implications of this scenario that U6 itself (not just a U6 subclade) was spread by the Levantine Aurignacian people:

--In this scenario U6abd and some stage of pre-U6c represent the entry into Africa as two already differentiated branches, not as a single U6abcd clade as I was suggesting earlier
--Since U6abd is 32ky old according Behar et al., the entry into Africa by U6abd and pre-U6c must have taken place around that time. They could have been attracted by the 33ky old wet spell in North Africa. By 32kya the Levantine Aurignacian had changed or declined (depending on how one interprets the archaeological record), which could indicate a partial displacement of Levantine Aurignacian population. This fits the 32ky old backmigration date well
--This relatively late entry into Africa explains why UP European U6* is basal compared to U6abd and U6c
--In this scenario mtDNA U was the Central Asian parent population, not U6 as I was arguing earlier
--In this scenario UP European U6* migrated from the Levant, not directly from the aforementioned Central Asian parent population

I may end up being wrong in my reading, but this is more accurate representation of my original thoughts on Asia, the Levantine Aurignacian and U6.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
My point? Don't just throw things out there without a reference of sort. That is like trolling. If you are not sure and can't back it up keep it to yourself ..until you can.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@xyyman

You know you can ignore the post right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
My point? Don't just throw things out there without a reference of sort. That is like trolling. If you are not sure and can't back it up keep it to yourself ..until you can.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@xyyman

You know you can ignore the post right?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ah, but what is the age of U6 in the Arabian Plate?

Is AP U6 from pre-history
or from the Amazigh girls
whom one physician ranked
the most perfect slave?

"The Berber women are from the island of Barbara (sic), which is between the west and the south.
Their color is mostly black, though some pale ones can be found among them. If you can find one
whose mother is of Kutama, whose father is of Sanhaja, and whose origin is Masmuda, then you
will find her naturally inclined to obedience and loyalty in all matters, active in service, suited both
to motherhood and to pleasure, for they are the most solicitous in caring for their children. Abu
Uthman the slave-dealer says, If it happens that a Berber girl with her racial excellence is imported
at the age of nine, spends three years in Medina and three years in Mecca, comes to Iraq at the age
of fifteen and is educated in Iraq, and is bought at the age of twenty-five, then she adds to the
excellence of her race the roguishness of the Medinans, the languor of the Meccans, and the
culture of the women of Iraq. Then she is worthy to be hidden in the eyelid and placed in the eye."

~ ibn Butlān, a Nestorian Christian physician of Baghdad ~

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I would, but he's already been baiting in this thread multiple times already. Why are you defending yourself against trolling by someone who just finished making multiple (and consecutive) posts flame baiting (calling other people here retarded, etc)? You think he really cares about keeping this thread troll free? He's not going to stop. He'll just find a new way to bait later. If you want him to stop, make him. Don't ask him to get back on topic, finally tell him you'll do something. This has been the second (or fourth time if going by posts?) he's been on his messy diva bait shit.Make him stop it so we can get back to the topic, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".

All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.

Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Lets just say we need more aDNA. The problem right now is the current models of the ancient origins of certain DNA lineages are based primarily on remains and DNA samples from said remains which are primarily from Eurasia and far older than any remains that have been sampled in Africa.

Until we get samples from African remains in North Africa, the Nile valley and so forth between 30 and 50 KYA we will never know for certain that migrating Africans were not the basis of these lineages.

This is the only thing I see here. Not necessarily a conspiracy but a model that is based on a lot of speculation, assumptions, missing data and hypothetical models.

---

quote:

---

Archaeologists have long puzzled over the origins and spread of Later Stone Age culture in ancient Morocco. However, the international study published in Science, has revealed the genetic profiles of ancient Moroccan remains and in doing so, details of their ancestry. The findings suggest that the bones have substantial Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African-related ancestries (63.5% and 36.5%, respectively).

As the oldest human DNA evidence discovered in Africa, to date, the findings provide genomic evidence of contacts between North Africa and the Near East, as well as areas south of the Sahara, suggesting that more people were migrating in and out of North Africa 15,000 years ago, than previously believed.

The team of international archaeologists, including researchers from Oxford University, Morocco and the Natural History Museum in London, found bones from more than 10 human skeletons inside Taforalt cave in eastern Morocco. The remains were then directly radiocarbon dated at Oxford and analysed for aDNA.

Long term excavations at the site, associated with the Later Sone Age (LSA) Ibermomaurusian culture, have been co-directed by one of the co-authors of the paper, Professor Nick Barton of Oxford’s School of Archaeology. The project was therefore also intended to investigate the origins of the LSA in North Africa and the ancient Moroccan people.

Also known as the Iberomaurusians, the research findings suggest that the inhabitants of Taforalt Cave mainly shared their ancestry with early peoples living in the northeast Africa (Libya and Egypt). They also imply that connection existed with the Near East (Natufian) peoples 15,000 years ago – long before previously thought.

However, in the absence of more ancient genomic data from Africa, it is not yet possible to predict where the core area of LSA expansion lay. Surprisingly, some of the oldest archaeologically dated LSA finds occur in Morocco and Algeria, and not as might be predicted by the genetics in areas further to the south or east.

Professor Nick Barton said: ‘The results of this study are intriguing and call for a re-think of ideas. The genetics are telling us one thing, but the archaeological dating is telling us another’.

Of this apparent evidence gap he added: ‘Clearly the only way this can be resolved is by finding further genomic data from human remains in each of these potential source areas’.

---

quote:

---

The Later Stone Age (or LSA) is a period in African prehistory that follows the Middle Stone Age.

The Later Stone Age is associated with the advent of modern human behavior in Africa, although definitions of this concept and means of studying it are up for debate. The transition from the Middle Stone Age to the Later Stone Age is thought to have occurred first in eastern Africa between 50,000 and 39,000 years ago. It is also thought that Later Stone Age peoples and/or their technologies spread out of Africa over the next several thousand years.[1]

The terms "Early Stone Age", "Middle Stone Age" and "Later Stone Age" in the context of African archaeology are not to be confused with the terms Lower Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic, and Upper Paleolithic. They were introduced in the 1920s, as it became clear that the existing chronological system of Upper, Middle, and Lower Paleolithic was not a suitable correlate to the prehistoric past in Africa. Some scholars, however, continue to view these two chronologies as parallel, arguing that they both represent the development of behavioral modernity.[2]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] please lets not regress to the run of the mill & "All haplogroups are from Africa" ..isms please

Also Xyyman...

---

\\ https://s17.postimg.org/9fpm6kkhb/mt_DNA_Africa.jpg

Hervella et al
"The U6 haplogroup is the **only** sub-haplogroup within the U clade currently present in Africa,.."

BTW- You understand my point here? IT IS A LIE!!! ALL BRANCHES OF mtDNA U is found IN AFRICA!!! ALL of them. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
.. this is your last warning from me fam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
ok! ok! I will cheat. I am not waiting one day.


What they have concluded is that the Natufians are indeed related to East Africans as they should be. But the Natufians did NOT bring farming into Europe. farming was brought into Europe by an entirely different population...albeit related to the Natufians.

tic! tic! tic!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

@Djehuti can you give thoughts on the Halfan -> Oranian connections possibly being mediated via M78 ~17kya?

---

Sorry for the late response...

It used to be thought that the Halfan Culture of the Nile Valley was the progenitor or Oranian (Ibero-maurusian) Culture of the Maghreb but the earliest Oranian sites predate the Halfan culture by several millennia. Though I do recall some sites in the coastal Cyrenaica area of Libya (Dabban Culture?) which may hold potential being the true progenitors of the Oranian and thus be the missing link between the Maghreb and the Nile Valley. That is something I'll have to look up unless Swenet has some answers to that.

In regards to E-M78, there was no doubt a presence of that lineage among people of the Oranian including members of the parent lineage E-V68, but there could potentially be other African clades during that time period which we don't know about. Furthermore are the morphological differences between these E-M78 carriers.

In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch
'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt'

We also have visual examples below from 2000 Joel Irish paper on Iberomaurusians:


Lateral views of three Late Pleistocene male crania showing alveolar prognathism in Jebel Sahaba 117-10 (top), but not in Taforalt XI-C1 (middle) or Afalou 3 (bottom).

Interestingly all three possess similar shaped neurocrania, especially the top (Jebel Sahaba) and middle (Taforalt) and the same top and middle have similarly shaped mandibles especially in regards to the ramus, though this is just a judgement based on eye alone. The point is even though E-M78 may have spread from the Nile Valley west to the Maghreb there was still a general distinction in morphotype.

Though Colin Groves had this to say:

Today the North African and Subsaharan genepools are separated by the Sahara arid zone, a wide sparsely populated region whose people are intermediate morphologically between “Caucasoid” and “Negroid”. While the late and terminal Pleistocene populations of northern Africa were noticeably more robust than their present-day descendants (as were those of Europe), like them they were differentiated into more northerly “Caucasoid” and more southerly “Negroid” morphologies. Yet the transition between these two geographic forms was much further north in the terminal Pleistocene than today; the terminal Pleistocene Nubians and the Asselar skull are as “Negroid” as are the modern Teita of Kenya; the intermediates today are the Dogon of Mali, but in the terminal Pleistocene the intermediates were the people of Afalou-bou-Rhummel in Algeria.
'The Terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of northern Africa'
C.P. Groves, A. Thorne, Canberra

Also featuring Groves' Factor Analysis:


Factor 1= Robusticity
Factor 2= "Caucasoid"-"Negroid" contrast

By the way, do you have a copy of the full Loosdrecht paper I can get my hands on??
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
It used to be thought that the Halfan Culture of the Nile Valley was the progenitor or Oranian (Ibero-maurusian) Culture of the Maghreb but the earliest Oranian sites predate the Halfan culture by several millennia. Though I do recall some sites in the coastal Cyrenaica area of Libya (Dabban Culture?) which may hold potential being the true progenitors of the Oranian and thus be the missing link between the Maghreb and the Nile Valley. That is something I'll have to look up unless Swenet has some answers to that.

---

quote:

---

"[..] ....Throughout most of the eastern Sahara,
however, the Aterian appears to have replaced the Mousterian, though
the latter continued on in the Nile Valley adopting a few Aterian
traits - but not the tang - and a late form (Khormusan) gave place to
a diminutive or micro-Levallois tradition (Halfan) about 20000 years
ago."

-- On the Halfan Culture:

"Many of the stone tools are quite small and have been termed
microblades and microflakes; they are often removed from small
unprepared nuclei and have one edge blunted or 'backed' by what is
often called Ouchtata-like retouch. In addition there are small quantities
of burins and scrapers (fig. 5.5.7-14), a few bone tools, and perhaps
microburins. It is interesting to find this simple microblade technique
in the Nile Valley at this early date, apparently some millennia before
it appears in the Sahara or the Maghrib; it is not yet clear if it represents
an indigenous evolution from a highly specialized Levallois flake
technology or if it should be seen in terms of stimulus diffusion from
some other region."

-- On the Maurasians:

"[..] ...Whether or not there
was a hiatus in the occupation of the Maghrib after the Aterian, it
remains true that the first of the late Palaeolithic industries seems to
appear considerably later than in Cyrenaica though earlier than,
apparently, in Egypt or the Sahara. The earliest known date is about
20 000 BC for the Iberomaurusian of Algeria, at Tamar Hat. These late
Palaeolithic industries possess no stemmed points, no flat or invasive
retouch, practically never use the Levallois method of stone-working,
have very few side-scrapers, and are almost always based on blades and
bladelets. Two features appear in the Maghrib for the first time: the
microburin technique and Ouchtata retouch, although both were
known even earlier in the Nile Valley of Egypt. Thus there seems to
have been a sharp break in the lithic techniques and artifact forms, with
no good evidence for continuity from the local Mousterian or Aterian."

---

quote:

---

The new radiocarbon ages for Tamar Hat are closely comparable
to the ages originally obtained by Saxon et al. (1974), but are more
reliable because they are on bone collagen which has fewer issues
with possible contamination. The calibrated ages indicate a time-
span of at least 5000 years for the LSA occupation, beginning near
the base at 25,845e25,270 cal BP and ending at around
20,122e19,632 cal BP. It is noticeable that the industry appears
‘suddenly’ and with no obvious antecedence. If the dates are taken
at face value they would imply that LSA microlithic assemblages
emerged in Algeria at least ~1.4 ka calibrated years earlier than their
first appearance in Morocco, which began ~22,292e21,825 cal BP at
Taforalt (Barton et al., 2013).

---

quote:

---

"There is a high degree of similarity with phase 2 in the core-reduction procedures and in the use of soft hammer percussion but a strong divergence can be seen in the method of retouching bladelet tools fromthose in the phases above. There is no evidence of the microburin technique in the Lower Yellow Series. The distal ends of retouched bladelets are also rarely modified. Instead, the most common tool forms are obtuse-ended backed bladelets (Tixier’s type 67), with semi-abrupt or abrupt backing down one margin, and Ouchtata bladelets (Tixier’s type 70), which carry fine retouch down all or part of one edge (often the proximal portion). Pointed backed forms also occasionally occur (Fig. 5)."

[..]

"Turning to the Iberomaurusian, although the deposits at Taforalt represent a thick and fairly continuous record of human occupation, there are in fact subtle variations in the cultural sequence. The clearest example is the switch from IB1 with marginally backed (‘Ouchtata’) blades and bladelets to IB2 dominated by microlithic backed bladelets. The actual transition between the two phases is marked by a sharp sedimentary contact between Units Y2/Y1. This is clearly an erosive boundary so it is impossible to know whether the time gap of 857 years (between 15,686 - 15,010 BP and 17,204 - 16,898 BP at 2s) in the radiocarbon model is more apparent than real."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
TBH, I'm not aware of Microburine industries in the near east that isn't (or is older than) Mushabian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Nebekian (~25-22 ka), then Nizzanian (20-18.5 ka), then Mushabian. Not that the microburin technique is rocket science anyway.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241685318_The_Levantine_Upper_Palaeolithic_and_Epipalaeolithic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
perplexing, We have transition and gradual development in the Nile regime. But to the west west we have skeletons & older dates however, spontaneous industries. TBH, I'm not aware of Microburine industries in the near east that isn't (or is older than) Mushabian. But I'm prompted to subscribe to at least one pulse migration OOA and to the Maghreb (at least to the Taforalt) during the Early M78 days being responsible for these "sudden" industries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
do you believe Mushabian culture is an extension of Nizzanian or Nebekian culture? or are all these instances spontaneous...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Archaeologists have long puzzled over the origins and spread of Later Stone Age culture in ancient Morocco. However, the international study published in Science, has revealed the genetic profiles of ancient Moroccan remains and in doing so, details of their ancestry. The findings suggest that the bones have substantial Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African-related ancestries (63.5% and 36.5%, respectively).

As the oldest human DNA evidence discovered in Africa, to date, the findings provide genomic evidence of contacts between North Africa and the Near East, as well as areas south of the Sahara, suggesting that more people were migrating in and out of North Africa 15,000 years ago, than previously believed.

The team of international archaeologists, including researchers from Oxford University, Morocco and the Natural History Museum in London, found bones from more than 10 human skeletons inside Taforalt cave in eastern Morocco. The remains were then directly radiocarbon dated at Oxford and analysed for aDNA.

Long term excavations at the site, associated with the Later Sone Age (LSA) Ibermomaurusian culture, have been co-directed by one of the co-authors of the paper, Professor Nick Barton of Oxford’s School of Archaeology. The project was therefore also intended to investigate the origins of the LSA in North Africa and the ancient Moroccan people.

Also known as the Iberomaurusians, the research findings suggest that the inhabitants of Taforalt Cave mainly shared their ancestry with early peoples living in the northeast Africa (Libya and Egypt). They also imply that connection existed with the Near East (Natufian) peoples 15,000 years ago – long before previously thought.

However, in the absence of more ancient genomic data from Africa, it is not yet possible to predict where the core area of LSA expansion lay. Surprisingly, some of the oldest archaeologically dated LSA finds occur in Morocco and Algeria, and not as might be predicted by the genetics in areas further to the south or east.

Professor Nick Barton said: ‘The results of this study are intriguing and call for a re-think of ideas. The genetics are telling us one thing, but the archaeological dating is telling us another’.

Of this apparent evidence gap he added: ‘Clearly the only way this can be resolved is by finding further genomic data from human remains in each of these potential source areas’.

---

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-03-21-oldest-dna-africa-offers-clues-ancient-cultures

FYI:

quote:

---

The Later Stone Age (or LSA) is a period in African prehistory that follows the Middle Stone Age.

The Later Stone Age is associated with the advent of modern human behavior in Africa, although definitions of this concept and means of studying it are up for debate. The transition from the Middle Stone Age to the Later Stone Age is thought to have occurred first in eastern Africa between 50,000 and 39,000 years ago. It is also thought that Later Stone Age peoples and/or their technologies spread out of Africa over the next several thousand years.[1]

The terms "Early Stone Age", "Middle Stone Age" and "Later Stone Age" in the context of African archaeology are not to be confused with the terms Lower Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic, and Upper Paleolithic. They were introduced in the 1920s, as it became clear that the existing chronological system of Upper, Middle, and Lower Paleolithic was not a suitable correlate to the prehistoric past in Africa. Some scholars, however, continue to view these two chronologies as parallel, arguing that they both represent the development of behavioral modernity.[2]

---

" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_Stone_Age[/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
As far as the origins of the LSA (note researchers trying to lie/play confused again in the bolded part). The second (wikipedia) excerpt is closer to the mark, although it is far more complex than what it says.

---

Thanks. Pretty much my same sentiments.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Makes you wonder why he calls the Iberomaurusian 'LSA'? Since he studies it and talks about it only as U6-linked, isolated from and independent of the actual LSA.

Not that North African archaeology is not riddled with internal inconsistencies in nomenclature:

quote:

---

The
earliest Middle Paleolithic or rather Middle Stone Age
industries of northeast Africa are the same that were made
in sub-Saharan Africa (Van Peer et al. 2003). The
unwarranted separation of Egypt from its heartland has been
an artefact of research traditions, fuelled perhaps by
Egyptocentric ideas emanating from Pharaonic archaeology
and anthropology.

---

http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2004/Van_Peer_2004_p215-225.pdf
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
Bumping this thread to address a certain argument that the SSA ancestry in Taforalt represents a holdover from Aterians or other MSA populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...Still going.

LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.

The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.

..Doug just concede.

---

I would question that relict MSA ancestry would look like that of any modern SSA population. In my current opinion, MSA populations after 100kya would probably represent a different lineage altogether from that of extant humans.

I don't remember the name of the source, but I once read a couple of chapters that Christopher Ehret contributed to a book on human prehistory. The major theme in those chapters was the expansion of Late Stone Age (LSA) populations from East Africa across other regions of the continent and then onwards to Eurasia etc. His argument was that the MSA populations elsewhere in Africa at that time weren't quite "us" in the sense that LSA were. MSA were closer to us in affinity than Neanderthals or Denisovans, but behaviorally and cognitively they were still distinct from the LSA ancestors of modern-day humans. The way Ehret portrayed it, the vast majority of modern African and non-African ancestry can be traced to LSA people, not MSA like the Aterians, Lupembans, etc.

This has given me the view that those MSA populations that hadn't evolved into LSA should be considered another group of archaic populations rather than truly modern humans. They're probably good candidates for the non-Neanderthal/Denisovan archaic ancestry that certain SSA populations appear to have inherited, but that ancestry is still in the minority. The remaining majority of SSA ancestry should be LSA.

I'm not denying that there is Aterian ancestry in Taforalt or other LSA North Africans (there probably is a little bit of MSA admixture in all of us), but I'm skeptical that this accounts for all the SSA-like ancestry in Taforalt. Most modern SSA ancestry should be still closer to LSA North Africans than would any MSA population, for the reasons I explained above. Therefore, I would expect any Aterian ancestry in Taforalt to form an outgroup separate from both SSA and OOA populations, and therefore it shouldn't be confused with SSA ancestry in the OP study's algorithm.

If anyone has a different interpretation, I'm all ears.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
This European is on point......I would like to read the Ehret paper. It would be interesting. I thought he was a linguist. Did he gather all that from linguistics studies.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
This European is on point......I would like to read the Ehret paper. It would be interesting. I thought he was a linguist. Did he gather all that from linguistics studies.

---

I think he summarized it all based on a mixture of archaeological and linguistic data. But I don't remember the title of the book those chapters came from. I think it was from some British university though.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
maybe one of these..


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



If you look at Pestera cu Oase also from Romania on this chart and older than PM1 (Pestera Muieri ) that is haplogroup N. That is ancestral to mtDNA R and R is ancestor to U.

U1 and U5 are older on this chart than U6

If you look at Pestera Muieri that was a woman also found in Romania who carried basal U6*

That haplogroup was formed before it split into
U6a U6b and U6c.

This particular woman was not an ancestor herself to other individuals of these U6 splits but she carried the older basal U6* lineage type.

So her age, 35K is not the age of the basal U6* (50k) she carried

Although the exact origin dates are estimates.
But so far that Romanian specimen is the oldest human remains found bearing U6

---

The schematic above is a unconstrained bayes algorithm. Do you know how ridiculous that is?


The part you forgot you post, I will post for you.

quote:

---

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent"

[...]

The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.”

---

~Hervella et al. 2016

You and your countless back migrations.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
The post above shows the descent and ascent

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Didn't haplogroup U come from N? Wasn't N being said to have originated in Asia? descendants of Backmigrants that then mutated in Africa.

---

Further more:

quote:

---

Results

The Saudi mtDNA profile confirms the absence of autochthonous mtDNA lineages in Arabia with coalescence ages deep enough to support population continuity in the region since the out-of-Africa episode.

[…]

Introduction

At the beginning of this century, studies based on mtDNA complete genomes [15–18] confirmed that only two mtDNA lineages (named M and N), sister branches of the African macro-haplogroup L3 lineages, embraced all the mtDNA variation that exists out of Africa.

Based on the phylogeography of M and N in Eurasia, it was proposed that M and N could respectively represent the maternal signals of both a southern and a northern route out of Africa [19].

[…]

For western Eurasian haplogroups we relied on recent reviews carried out by others: N1 [6,25–29], N2 [6,27–29], N3 [26,28–30], N5 [27,31], and X [6,26,27,32]. In addition, 553 Arabian samples previously published in Abu-Amero et al. [19]) were also included in our study.

[…]

Khor Angar (Djibouti) L3 Expected age (Kya) 70.8(52.7–88.1)

Damqawt (Yemen) N1a3a Expected age (Kya) 68.2(56.1–80.0)

---

~Rosa Fregel, Vicente Cabrera, […], and Ana M. González (2015)

Carriers of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N Lineages Reached Australia around 50,000 Years Ago following a Northern Asian Route

quote:

---

Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably haplogroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub-Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro-haplogroup N is represented by three different haplotypes of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).

---

~Viktor Cˇerny ́
Out of Arabia—The Settlement of Island Soqotra as Revealed by Mitochondrial and Y Chromosome Genetic Diversity
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
Anyone seen Daniel Shriner's commentary on the OP paper? Apparently he did his own analysis of the Taforalt data.

quote:

---

The Taforalt individuals averaged 74.5% Northern African ancestry. By comparison, the Natufians had 61.2% Arabian, 21.2% Northern African, and 10.8% Western Asian ancestries. Thus, the Natufians and the Taforalt individuals share Northern African ancestry, although to a widely differing extent. Arabian and Northern African ancestries derived from a common ancestor 14,800 years ago based on decomposition of FST or 9,400 years ago based on msmc analysis. The latter time is relatively underestimated because of the presence of 12.8–15.8% Arabian ancestry in the Northern Africans. Thus, the people who migrated from east to west into Northern Africa ~22,000 years ago did not have Northern African ancestry per se but rather had this common ancestral ancestry. Implications are that (1) Natufians did not descend from Iberomaurusians; (2) Iberomaurusians did not descend from Natufians; (3) Northern African ancestry emerged on the African continent; (4) Iberomaurusians are genetically continuous with present-day Amazighen or Berbers (11); and (5) the genetic history of the Natufians includes individuals with Northern African ancestry that migrated west to east, ultimately departing Africa and arriving in the Levant.

---

As for their sub-Saharan ancestry:

quote:

---

The Taforalt individuals averaged 22.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry, reflecting a composite of 12.0% Western African, 7.1% Omotic, and 3.4% Eastern African ancestry.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548/tab-e-letters

(excerpt)

quote:

---

RE: "Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations"

Daniel Shriner, Staff Scientist, National Human Genome Research Institute


(25 June 2018)


(1). van de Loosdrecht et al. (2) generated genome-wide data from nine individuals from Grotte des Pigeons near Taforalt. The specimens were dated to 15,100–13,900 Cal BP and have been associated with the Iberomaurusian culture, which is known from sites ranging from Morocco to Tunisia along the Mediterranean coast. The matrilines included six U6 lineages and one M1 lineage, whereas the patrilines were exclusively E1b1b. The authors claimed that “three major components that comprise the Taforalt genomes are maximized in early Holocene Levantines, East African hunter-gatherer Hadza from north-central Tanzania, and West Africans.” The authors contextualized their findings based on the absence of sub-Saharan ancestry in Natufians (3). To the contrary, reanalysis of Natufians using a more ancestrally diverse reference panel (4) revealed 6.8% sub-Saharan ancestry, shared with present-day Omotic speakers in southern Ethiopia (5). Given that this ancestry was not covered by the global reference data set used by the authors, I reanalyzed the Taforalt data.

The Taforalt individuals averaged 22.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry, reflecting a composite of 12.0% Western African, 7.1% Omotic, and 3.4% Eastern African ancestry. van de Loosdrecht et al. (2) reported that modern West Africans, such as Mandenka, Esan, Mende, and Yoruba, were most strongly related to the sub-Saharan African component


The Taforalt individuals averaged 74.5% Northern African ancestry. By comparison, the Natufians had 61.2% Arabian, 21.2% Northern African, and 10.8% Western Asian ancestries. Thus, the Natufians and the Taforalt individuals share Northern African ancestry, although to a widely differing extent. Arabian and Northern African ancestries derived from a common ancestor 14,800 years ago based on decomposition of FST or 9,400 years ago based on msmc analysis. The latter time is relatively underestimated because of the presence of 12.8–15.8% Arabian ancestry in the Northern Africans. Thus, the people who migrated from east to west into Northern Africa ~22,000 years ago did not have Northern African ancestry per se but rather had this common ancestral ancestry.

Implications are that

(1) Natufians did not descend from Iberomaurusians;

(2) Iberomaurusians did not descend from Natufians;

(3) Northern African ancestry emerged on the African continent;

(4) Iberomaurusians are genetically continuous with present-day Amazighen or Berbers (11); and

(5) the genetic history of the Natufians includes individuals with Northern African ancestry that migrated west to east, ultimately departing Africa and arriving in the Levant. 

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548/tab-e-letters

(excerpt, numbers added to listing)

quote:

---

RE: "Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations"


Questions on the Origins of the Iberomaurusians

Anonymous Reviewer

(26 April 2018)


On the first of these questions this critique will ask whether the researchers may not have fully taken into account one of their own test results, and on the second it will investigate some uncertainties of demographic modeling.

The potential evidence for European ancestry is found in Supplementary Materials Fig. S19(B), where the qpGraph diagram shows the Natufians as 37% WHG-like and 63% Basal Eurasian-like. Taforalt is then 70% Natufian-like and 30% sub-Saharan-like, which calculates to 26% WHG-like. These data are supported by Lazaridis et al. (2016) [1], who report an even larger WHG-like component of 47% for the Natufians in their Fig. S4.11.

It should be noted that Fig. S19(B) does not give information on whether the Iberomaurusians descend from the Natufians or vice versa. The branching node above the "Natufian" oval can be either "Pre-Natufian" or "Early Iberomaurusian".

To the contrary the ADMIXTURE results in Figs. 2B and S11 show no WHG component in Natufian or Taforalt. But ADMIXTURE can be idiosyncratic depending on the particulars of population histories and weighting of samples [2]. The researchers also conduct tests of possible "three-way" ancestry for Taforalt (Supplementary Materials S8). By this they mean a unitary Natufian source, a sub-Saharan source, and a separate and additional ancient European source. The qpAdm results slightly favor models with an additional European source, however they are rejected as being less parsimonious and having higher error estimates. The qpGraph tests consistently find a 0% additional European source. But this entire approach seems unreliable, and the ambiguous qpAdm results make sense, if Natufian is itself actually 37% WHG-like — as is still illustrated in the Fig. S19(C-E) qpGraph diagrams, presented to show the 0% "additional" WHG-like input to Taforalt.

If the WHG-like ancestry as shown in Fig. S19 is tentatively accepted, there are several basic models that can be formulated for how it reaches the Iberomaurusians.

1) It could be native to the Levant, or arrive there from the Bohunician, and expand to Libya with the Dabban.


2) It could be an Epigravettian migration to North Africa via Gibraltar/Sicily establishing the Iberomaurusians, and expand by 15kya to the Levant (without the sub-Saharan-like admixture).

3) It could be an Epigravettian migration to the Levant via Anatolia, and expand to North Africa for the Iberomaurusian.

4) It could be separate migrations to North Africa via Gibraltar/Sicily by 25kya, and to the Levant via Anatolia by 15kya, with similar admixture ratios (noting that Iran Neolithic has a similar 40% EHG).

Each model has its problems, and more complex scenarios are possible.


[b] As to the sub-Saharan-like DNA in Taforalt, the study seems to assume that it must come from geographical sub-Saharan Africans. An alternative which might be available is the indigenous Aterians of North Africa.


If instead the Basal Eurasian-like DNA is native to Southwest Asia or the Nile (other options in the main paper, loc. cit.), the sub-Saharan-like DNA can plausibly be either Aterian or sub-Saharan. The Aterians are the more obvious first choice, available as a substratum in the Iberomaurusian core territory. The hyperarid Sahara of the LGM, impeding contact with the sub-Saharan region, may add to this argument depending on other chronology.

The Aterians could also in theory have both the Basal Eurasian-like and sub-Saharan-like signals as their inherent DNA. They would be a western variant of the pre-ROA population, which does not go through the ROA bottleneck.


A complicating factor is that the signals detected in Taforalt could be skewed by any unmodeled migrations into sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, Iberomaurusian descendants as the Cushitics are now a tempting source of some of the "Levantine" DNA that appears in the Horn of Africa c. 1000 BC and filters to the Khoisan. Skoglund et al. (2017) report a revolutionary two-source formation of West Africans, with an archaic Homo sapiens component, and one "most closely related to eastern Africans and non-Africans" [11].

The present study has characterized its Taforalt specimens as non-European and a third sub-Saharan. There is some evidence that they could instead be a quarter European and a third North African. It is proposed here that these questions should remain open for further investigation.

---

 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548/tab-e-letters

(excerpt)[QUOTE]"The authors contextualized their findings based on the absence of sub-Saharan ancestry in Natufians (3). To the contrary, reanalysis of Natufians using a more ancestrally diverse reference panel (4) revealed 6.8% sub-Saharan ancestry, shared with present-day Omotic speakers in southern Ethiopia (5). Given that this ancestry was not covered by the global reference data set used by the authors...."

---

It's allways a best practice to be non-assuming and use a broad data set, especially when dealing with Africa where the time-depth of human habitation is so great. Interestingly enough the Taforalt population seems to exhibit phenetic traits that seem in some instances more "northern" than the Eurasian Natufians. Certainly early Egyptians were tropical in many phenetic traits, even if they inherited "ANA" ancestry (whatever that turns out to mean). More studies with regionally specific samples between the ~ 2300 miles that separate Marrakech and Cairo will/can reveal better insight.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548/tab-e-letters

(excerpt, numbers added to listing)

quote:

---

RE: "Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations"


Questions on the Origins of the Iberomaurusians

Anonymous Reviewer

(26 April 2018)


On the first of these questions this critique will ask whether the researchers may not have fully taken into account one of their own test results, and on the second it will investigate some uncertainties of demographic modeling.

The potential evidence for European ancestry is found in Supplementary Materials Fig. S19(B), where the qpGraph diagram shows the Natufians as 37% WHG-like and 63% Basal Eurasian-like. Taforalt is then 70% Natufian-like and 30% sub-Saharan-like, which calculates to 26% WHG-like. These data are supported by Lazaridis et al. (2016) [1], who report an even larger WHG-like component of 47% for the Natufians in their Fig. S4.11.

It should be noted that Fig. S19(B) does not give information on whether the Iberomaurusians descend from the Natufians or vice versa. The branching node above the "Natufian" oval can be either "Pre-Natufian" or "Early Iberomaurusian".

To the contrary the ADMIXTURE results in Figs. 2B and S11 show no WHG component in Natufian or Taforalt. But ADMIXTURE can be idiosyncratic depending on the particulars of population histories and weighting of samples [2]. The researchers also conduct tests of possible "three-way" ancestry for Taforalt (Supplementary Materials S8). By this they mean a unitary Natufian source, a sub-Saharan source, and a separate and additional ancient European source. The qpAdm results slightly favor models with an additional European source, however they are rejected as being less parsimonious and having higher error estimates. The qpGraph tests consistently find a 0% additional European source. But this entire approach seems unreliable, and the ambiguous qpAdm results make sense, if Natufian is itself actually 37% WHG-like — as is still illustrated in the Fig. S19(C-E) qpGraph diagrams, presented to show the 0% "additional" WHG-like input to Taforalt.

If the WHG-like ancestry as shown in Fig. S19 is tentatively accepted, there are several basic models that can be formulated for how it reaches the Iberomaurusians.

1) It could be native to the Levant, or arrive there from the Bohunician, and expand to Libya with the Dabban.


2) It could be an Epigravettian migration to North Africa via Gibraltar/Sicily establishing the Iberomaurusians, and expand by 15kya to the Levant (without the sub-Saharan-like admixture).

3) It could be an Epigravettian migration to the Levant via Anatolia, and expand to North Africa for the Iberomaurusian.

4) It could be separate migrations to North Africa via Gibraltar/Sicily by 25kya, and to the Levant via Anatolia by 15kya, with similar admixture ratios (noting that Iran Neolithic has a similar 40% EHG).

Each model has its problems, and more complex scenarios are possible.


[b] As to the sub-Saharan-like DNA in Taforalt, the study seems to assume that it must come from geographical sub-Saharan Africans. An alternative which might be available is the indigenous Aterians of North Africa.


If instead the Basal Eurasian-like DNA is native to Southwest Asia or the Nile (other options in the main paper, loc. cit.), the sub-Saharan-like DNA can plausibly be either Aterian or sub-Saharan. The Aterians are the more obvious first choice, available as a substratum in the Iberomaurusian core territory. The hyperarid Sahara of the LGM, impeding contact with the sub-Saharan region, may add to this argument depending on other chronology.

The Aterians could also in theory have both the Basal Eurasian-like and sub-Saharan-like signals as their inherent DNA. They would be a western variant of the pre-ROA population, which does not go through the ROA bottleneck.


A complicating factor is that the signals detected in Taforalt could be skewed by any unmodeled migrations into sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, Iberomaurusian descendants as the Cushitics are now a tempting source of some of the "Levantine" DNA that appears in the Horn of Africa c. 1000 BC and filters to the Khoisan. Skoglund et al. (2017) report a revolutionary two-source formation of West Africans, with an archaic Homo sapiens component, and one "most closely related to eastern Africans and non-Africans" [11].

The present study has characterized its Taforalt specimens as non-European and a third sub-Saharan. There is some evidence that they could instead be a quarter European and a third North African. It is proposed here that these questions should remain open for further investigation.

---

---

Daniel Shriner seems to have a problem with sub-Saharan expansions. Disdain?
 

---

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3