The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[maroco]

The sampled Natufians are not an ideal representative of West Eurasian ancestry. They have significant admixture from aboriginal North African populations, such as ANA and "Basal Eurasian". Assuming proto-Afroasiatic originated among an aboriginal Northeast African population with either one or both of those ancestries, the apparent "Natufian" ancestry in that Omotic-speaking population could reflect admixture between proto-AA speakers and whoever was living in the Horn before the former moved south.

Natufian is meant to represent southern levant and I wouldn’t consider them having significant admixture from North Africa, they are in the range of 12 to 15 percent

[davit]

The sampled Natufians are not an ideal representative of West Eurasian ancestry. They have significant admixture from aboriginal North African populations, such as ANA and "Basal Eurasian". Assuming proto-Afroasiatic originated among an aboriginal Northeast African population with either one or both of those ancestries, the apparent "Natufian" ancestry in that Omotic-speaking population could reflect admixture between proto-AA speakers and whoever was living in the Horn before the former moved south.

Unless there is a Basal Eurasian sample from North Africa only you are privy to calling Basal Eurasian an aboriginal North African population is speculation at best.

[The Saite]

again, from Northern Egypt ... Also, since the Ancient Egyptian language has its roots in southern rather than northern Egypt, the results of the mummies you used are not as meaningful as they appear to be.

You people can't just dismiss the Ancient Egyptian results of Abusir by throwing random words every-time like it's North Egyptian or that the root of Egypt was in the South. Since There is No absolutely such things as that, Abusir isn't North Egypt. Don't act like the sequenced were Heartland Delta or some kind of Northern fringe old Alexandrians. The site of Abusir belonged to the Naqada Culture where we find Cemeteries related to it.

From Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt :

Near the village of Abusir el-Meleq a late Predynastic cemetery (Nagada IId2–IIIb, circa 3250–3050 BC) was discovered on the northeast edge of Gebel Abusir, a desert ridge several kilometers in length running in a northeast-southwest direction along the west bank of the Nile near the entrance to the Fayum (29°15′ N, 31°05′ E). This cemetery, along with the nearby cemeteries of Gerza and Haraga (somewhat earlier in date), and that of Kafr Tarkhan (with somewhat later burials), exemplify the developed and late stages of the Nagada culture in northern Upper Egypt.

The Inhabitants of the Area until now days are Considered Upper Egyptians (with Similar traditions, Culture, linguistics as whole other Upper Egypt) not Lower Egyptians. It should be noted also that all Egy Cultures of the pre-dynastic had origins among the Fayoum Neolithic tradition AND not from the South. Ironically Fayoum is very close to Abusir, so these individuals we have were representing the original Egyptians of pre's Civilization time period (and if you think they were Levant_BA shifted then discard it, and you will be left with something Neolithic_Levantine like). Hence even if future tested upper Egyptians did have Dinka as you would like to see, then they had obtained it later through foreigners not that the northerners lost it.

[ybmpark]

Northern Asians and Native Americans are no unmixed East Asians, neither genetically nor phenotypically.

The same can be said of your "Caucasoid" ANE rich people.
MA1 comes closest to being the "purest" and he was classified as Mongoloid.
East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.
Even among East Asians we have Mongols and Ainu the latter of which are often mistaken as Caucasoid.

P.S. It seems incredibly silly an idea that since ANE and WHG shared a few thousand years at most of their long 40000+ years old histories ANE are your brothers.
If some ANE looked like you it is almost purely by a coincident or admixture. ANE's a few thousand years of shared drift did little to make them look like you.

[davit]

The same can be said of your "Caucasoid" ANE rich people.
MA1 comes closest to being the "purest" and he was classified as Mongoloid.
East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.
Even among East Asians we have Mongols and Ainu the latter of which are often mistaken as Caucasoid.

MA1 wasn't derived for EDAR so I doubt he looked Mongoloid. Maybe the skull shape was more typical of East Eurasians.

Also agree. The Ainu are very "Caucasoid".

[Ryukendo]

At the time R came into existence and spread to the steppe, West- and East Eurasian in the modern context, as racial groups, didn't even exist... Additionally, take a look at the ANE related phenotypes if you like.

Eh, not true, East and West Eurasians existed almost as soon as the Out-of-Africa event. Very important not to confuse populations with modern continental races.

[Riverman]

The same can be said of your "Caucasoid" ANE rich people.
MA1 comes closest to being the "purest" and he was classified as Mongoloid.
East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.
Even among East Asians we have Mongols and Ainu the latter of which are often mistaken as Caucasoid.

You mix everything up, its even difficult to try to get started.

But this sentence alone is a bummer:

East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.

If that's your best definition of "East Eurasian", there is no way we can have a meaningful debate. Its wrong going by the following possible categorisations:
- Historically
- Ethnically
- Linguistically
- Phenotypically
- Genetically
- Geographically

Biogeographically, there is still the Wallace Line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

Better leave it at this point or write me a PM. This thread is OT enough.

Eh, not true, East and West Eurasians existed almost as soon as the Out-of-Africa event. Very important not to confuse populations with modern continental races.

ANE was genetically not closer to East Asian than to the neighbouring Western groups. True, phenotypes are different from genetic ancestry. The trajectory of ANE was however going in the Cauasoid direction more than the East Asian, which even came, fully evolved, much later into existence anyway (LGM). So they were on a continuous variation from West to East, but still closer to the West than (later) East Asian populations.

[davit]

Eh, not true, East and West Eurasians existed almost as soon as the Out-of-Africa event. Very important not to confuse populations with modern continental races.

There had to have been some gap no given F hadn't diversified into G, H, IJ, K1, K2?

[ybmpark]

If that's your best definition of "East Eurasian", there is no way we can have a meaningful debate. Its wrong going by the following possible categorisations:
- Historically
- Ethnically
- Linguistically
- Phenotypically
- Genetically
- Geographically

You have listed all the categories that serious scholars should not mix up.
As I said East-West Eurasians are statistical constructions. they do not exist outside academic papers and computers that run their simulations.

ANE was genetically not closer to East Asian to the neighbouring Western groups. True, phenotypes are different from genetic ancestry. The trajectory of ANE was however going in the Cauasoid direction more than the East Asian, which even came, fully evolved, much later into existence anyway (LGM). So they were on a continuous variation from West to East, but still closer to the West than (later) East.

I too do not want to commandeer this thread but this just cracks me up. Genetics does not have trajectory. Besides minor issues like imprinting genetics has no memory. If you do not understand this you are not fit to engage in any meaningful discussion.

[Riverman]

I too do not want to commandeer this thread but this just cracks me up. Genetics does not have trajectory. Besides minor issues like imprinting genetics has no memory. If you do not understand this you are not fit to engage in any meaningful discussion.

Populations can have an evolutionary trejectory though, at least as long as the same kind of selection works on them. The ANE were first big game steppe hunters, akin to the West Eurasian groups in Europe. The ANE evolution was different and more similar to the Western than to the Eastern neighbours, which their later phenotypes prove. The Eastern ANE group which ended up in Siberia and moved up to America went a different path and branched off at some point, because they were staying in a cold refuge zone during the LGM, close to the sea and mixing with East Asians proper, before moving on to America. While that happened the Western groups evaded it, first as big game hunters, then by moving West and South, mixing with West Eurasians. This caused the chain event during the LGM, among other factors, which I talked about. With percussions down to Subsaharan Africa, because one group pushed the next into so far less populated refuge zones. These were clearly defined adaptive strategies and habitats, resulting in specific evolutionary trends in the West and the East respectively.