Page 21 of 40 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 399

Thread: The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

  1. #201
    Registered Users
    Posts
    355
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    So far, I have seen evidence of cultural influences from the northern Egyptian Neolithic on more southerly Egyptians during the predynastic, but there is stronger evidence of a great continuity of the pre-existing lifestyles of the pre-Levantine migrants in Egypt reflected in the south, and with the cultural change being transitional rather than abrupt and with limited (though not negligible) and slower transition to food production and animal domestication.
    I think you and I are talking about somewhat different periods - you're referring to the immediate predynastic period (4000 BCE-ish) whereas I was initially talking all the way to very start of the Neolithic in Egypt itself, which is around 6,000 BCE. But in any case you're right, the Neolithic in Egypt does ultimately originate as an import more or less from the Levant - cattle, sheep, goats, emmer, barley, the whole Neolithic package was basically imported from around 6,000 BCE onwards (see this post if you're interested in reading more literature on the topic).


    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    Likewise, the migrants who entered the Lower Nile Valley were likeliest to be Para-Semitic and/or very early Semitic speakers. Some previously undetected early loanwords in Egyptian appear to buttress that viewpoint well. Also, the lexical and grammatical differences between Egyptian and Semitic languages are too great for them to have come from a common into-Africa Levantine migration. Rather, their differences speak to a very long period of separation between their two respective lineages. That's an even more important observation when taking into account that Semitic shows a closer genealogical relationship to Cushitic than it even does to Egyptian.
    If you're talking about Levantine immigrants in the pre-dynastic period than yes they would presumably be a form of early Semites, however in the 5,000-6,000 BCE time frame I was talking about I don't think there's any particular reason to link any Levantine immigration to Egypt to Semites. Agamemnon has linked the earliest proto-Semites in the Levant to the Timnian culture which seems to be around 4,000-4,500 BCE, which would make them too young to be linked to the diffusion of Levantine domesticates to Egypt, but I have seen some older dates associated to that culture as well (including in one of those papers I linked above).

    Ultimately what I'm most curious about when it comes to Neolithic/pre-dynastic Egypt is figuring out how much of their ancestry really is due to Levantine immigration versus how much was old stock indigenous hunter-gatherer that eventually adopted agriculture. One important point made in that paper on the Fayum Neolithic is that Levantine crops like emmer and barley were not easily adapted to the Nile environment, the people that made those crops work there were clearly experienced cultivators who no doubt went through a lot of trial and error in refining their farming techniques in a specifically Egyptian context, but who also had a deep understanding of these specific (foreign) crops and how to best optimize them within that context. So it seems unlikely to me that some local hunter-gatherer group just decided to adopt Levantine crops and start farming, and that initial major cereal cultivation was a mostly acculturated indigenous Egyptian hunter-gatherer phenonmenon. But the opposite is true of animal domesticates like sheep, goats, cattle - even if those were fairly early imports from outside Egypt, it seems those domesticates were initially only integrated as supplements to a still primarily hunting and foraging society. So in other words, mobile bands of local HGs could pick up these domesticates from some recent Levantine outsiders and adopt a sort of primitive, supplemental herding economy while still primarily relying on hunting and gathering, which seems to have been exactly the case in 6th millenium Egypt. No need to imagine some population replacement in that particular case.
    Last edited by TuaMan; 11-30-2020 at 03:08 AM.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to TuaMan For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (11-30-2020),  Awale (11-30-2020),  beyoku (10-14-2021),  Coldmountains (11-30-2020),  drobbah (11-30-2020),  Gadzooks (11-30-2020),  Keneki20 (11-30-2020),  Michał (11-30-2020),  Riverman (11-30-2020),  Ryukendo (11-30-2020)

  3. #202
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,661
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by TuaMan View Post
    What are you basing this on exactly, and when are you dating OoA? Ust-Ishm is the oldest Eurasian we have at 45,000 ybp and he clearly was not particularly West or East shifted.
    Tianyuan is ~40000 kya and is already clearly on the East Asian branch, and the dating of admixture with Neanderthals is usually to around 50-60kya.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Awale (11-30-2020)

  5. #203
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,661
    Sex

    A couple of comments here:

    The model of Lispon et. al. regarding the quantity of Eurasian ancestry in Iberomaurusians is almost certainly more correct than then model of such ancestry in the original Iberomaurusian paper. If you look at the original paper, the authors had no one other than modern African samples to use, and did not attempt to fit Iberomaurusians in qpGraph (which would have given them ghost populations to work with); the biggest problems with the Natufians+Yoruba model (which was the most obvious model due to the high shared drift of Iberomaurusians with both Natufians and Yoruba) was that Hadza, Mbuti and basically all other African populations were much, much closer to Iberomaurusians than they were to any combination of Natufian+Yoruba. At that time there was a lot of debate about how this could be; the Lipson et al Shum Laka paper resolves this by pushing "Basal Human" ancestry into Yoruba and by creating an ANA "ghost" that contributed to Yoruba and Iberomaurusians (and also Pygmies and Shum Laka), so the model became Natufian+ANA instead of Natufian+straight Yoruba. So Lipson et al at least at least found a solution to the most glaring problem regarding the phylogeny of the ancestors of Iberomaurusians, while the original paper leaves it unsolved.

    I also find it impossible to believe that ANA made its way in a back-migration to Africa. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever that ANA and Basal Eurasian are related--the fact is that you can get further from ENA without getting closer to Africans (which implies Basal Eurasians). Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans), or the major component of Mota is (barring their basal human admixture). Its hard to imagine that ANA and a bunch of other African components, including the ancestors of Nilotes and Ethiopian hunter-gatherers, all made a back-migration to Africa. Rather, the pattern of differentiation of the different components in Africa, and their deep divergence, makes me think they're a legacy of "African multiregionalism" from the Middle Paleolithic, where so-called behavioral modernity was glimmering on and off in archaeological terms all across Africa. Its important to remember that demographic inference generally dates OoA expansion to ~55 kya but the separation of the OoA population from the closest African populations (according to Lipson et al, Mota minus Basal Human) to >70 kya (which implies the ANA, ancestors of Nilotes, and Mota populations split at even older ages).
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 11-30-2020 at 06:32 AM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Awale (11-30-2020),  beyoku (11-30-2020),  Coldmountains (11-30-2020),  Gadzooks (11-30-2020),  gihanga.rwanda (12-04-2020),  Keneki20 (11-30-2020),  Lenny Nero (11-30-2020),  Pribislav (11-30-2020),  theplayer (11-30-2020),  Tsakhur (12-02-2020)

  7. #204
    Registered Users
    Posts
    355
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Tianyuan is ~40000 kya and is already clearly on the East Asian branch, and the dating of admixture with Neanderthals is usually to around 50-60kya.
    When would you say West and East Eurasians first split then, 45,000 kya, 50,000 kya?

  8. #205
    Banned
    Posts
    121
    Sex
    Location
    Winter is quite cold you know

    Hawaii
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    A couple of comments here:

    The model of Lispon et. al. regarding the quantity of Eurasian ancestry in Iberomaurusians is almost certainly more correct than then model of such ancestry in the original Iberomaurusian paper. If you look at the original paper, the authors had no one other than modern African samples to use, and did not attempt to fit Iberomaurusians in qpGraph (which would have given them ghost populations to work with); the biggest problems with the Natufians+Yoruba model (which was the most obvious model due to the high shared drift of Iberomaurusians with both Natufians and Yoruba) was that Hadza, Mbuti and basically all other African populations were much, much closer to Iberomaurusians than they were to any combination of Natufian+Yoruba. At that time there was a lot of debate about how this could be; the Lipson et al Shum Laka paper resolves this by pushing "Basal Human" ancestry into Yoruba and by creating an ANA "ghost" that contributed to Yoruba and Iberomaurusians (and also Pygmies and Shum Laka), so the model became Natufian+ANA instead of Natufian+straight Yoruba. So Lipson et al at least at least found a solution to the most glaring problem regarding the phylogeny of the ancestors of Iberomaurusians, while the original paper leaves it unsolved.

    I also find it impossible to believe that ANA made its way in a back-migration to Africa. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever that ANA and Basal Eurasian are related--the fact is that you can get further from ENA without getting closer to Africans (which implies Basal Eurasians). Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans), or the major component of Mota is (barring their basal human admixture). Its hard to imagine that ANA and a bunch of other African components, including the ancestors of Nilotes and Ethiopian hunter-gatherers, all made a back-migration to Africa. Rather, the pattern of differentiation of the different components in Africa, and their deep divergence, makes me think they're a legacy of "African multiregionalism" from the Middle Paleolithic, where so-called behavioral modernity was glimmering on and off in archaeological terms all across Africa. Its important to remember that demographic inference generally dates OoA expansion to ~55 kya but the separation of the OoA population from the closest African populations (according to Lipson et al, Mota minus Basal Human) to >70 kya (which implies the ANA, ancestors of Nilotes, and Mota populations split at even older ages).
    Why do you think the Shum Laka paper has resolved it? It's highly questionable speculative and theoric study at its base. It brings much more questions than answers.

    If we go by yDNA for example. Taforalt were EM215. Its sister branch EV38 is divided into EM329 prominent in Omotics and EM2 prominent in West/Central/Sth Africans.

    If yDNA is telling anything, it's that Omotics and West Africans have a closer genealogical link than ANA. But then again here it's also theoric.

    'Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans)'

    That's doubtful actually since Dinka/Nilotes have West African ancestries. In fact that's the main difference between modern Dinkas and the non-Omotics African ancestry of Horner populations unless one is referring to Ancestral East African?

    'Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans)'

    Which brings to another big questionment within Shum Laka paper which is that it has Mota having older/divergent lineages but not Ancestral East Africans. This is quite surprising, how did they manage avoiding it? It's bit kinda doubtful Ancestral East Africans had no deeper lineages. Like really none. Atleast in the case of ANA it can be explained by the ANA entering a mixing process with Dzudzuana populations up north.
    yDNA wise again, Dinka/Nilote populations have alot of yDNA deep A and B, proportionally more than West Africans for example.

    What's very interesting with Nilote populations is that they carry mostly clades of B and A. Some carry EM75 clades long separated in the Y tree and that's about it.

    The odds based on yDNA is not in favor of E-M35 originating with a proto-Nilotic population.

    What we know firmly of E-M35 lineages, is that their presence in Sub-Saharan Africa are predominantly the results of post-Neolithic pastoralist expansion especially on the behave of Cushitic populations from North Africa. So before the Chalcholithic or so, there was no much E-M35 men south of Sudan.

    Omotics yDNA is predominantly EM329, with sizeable yDNA A, and a good chunk of yDNA E-M34 and J/J*

    Now it's quite interesting because this good chunk of E-M34 echos the Em34 found in Natufians. It's as if Em34 in Omotics and Natufians reflect both Omotics and Natufians being possible branches of a nearby North African satelite.

    But then again we can't vouch the origin of this EM34 and J at all in Omotics considering the large intermixing with neighboring Ethiosemites it remains very mysterious as Mota man was just EM329. It could be Ethiosemites gene flow?

    ANA remains (in theory) the most likely lineage to associate with EM215.
    For the reason that Taforalt men carried respectively basal EM215*, M78* lineages, and a M78 ancestral to EV13 with a possibility of some E-Z827.

    That's more E1b1b diversity in 6 Taforalt individuals than in 269 Omotic men.

    But then again to get back to one point it's also fairly plausible an ANA population in North Africa split into several groupings with one group contributing to Iberomaurusians and Natufians and the other to West Africans. If so this might give weight to the supposed hypothesis (no linguist here) that Afro-Asiatic language has either a genealogical link with Niger-Congo or that their ancestral lineages lived in close proximity.

    Did the Shum Laka take in account actual proper Iberomaurusian ancestry in Yoruba for example? Because the little to no presence of diverse Eurasian lineages in West Africa proportionally to the higher amount of mtDNA U6 has always premused to many that there was an ancient NA pre-Neolithic influx in West Africa prior the later arrival of Neolithic Eurasian lineages.

    It doesn't look like it did because Shum Laka graphs have West Africans with no West Eurasian ancestry which is highly implausible as many studies, including even commercial tests have tested positive for Neanderthal alleles in West Africans. So this famous drift mentioned might just be actual Taforalt admixture embedded with Neanderthal alleles.

    Also modeling Taforalt as a mix of Natufian and Yoruba was so anachronistic that it looked totally unprofessional . The other paper provided by an Israeli archeologist made much more sense.
    This Israeli archeologist has in fact long time been claiming Natufians showed archeological evidences of a partial North African origin , this is also why he provided a model where Iberomaurusian didn't derive any Natufian ancestry but the actual opposite way, with Natufians deriving ancestry from an Iberomaurusian grouping, and Iberomaurusians contributing ancestry to West Africans and Natufians, and, being a much earlier than either both, admixture event between a Dzudzuana type of ancient pop and an yet unsampled African lineage closer to the OoA (ANA).
    Last edited by Echo; 12-01-2020 at 03:54 AM.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Echo For This Useful Post:

     maroco (11-30-2020),  TuaMan (11-30-2020)

  10. #206
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,543
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    A couple of comments here:

    The model of Lispon et. al. regarding the quantity of Eurasian ancestry in Iberomaurusians is almost certainly more correct than then model of such ancestry in the original Iberomaurusian paper. If you look at the original paper, the authors had no one other than modern African samples to use, and did not attempt to fit Iberomaurusians in qpGraph (which would have given them ghost populations to work with); the biggest problems with the Natufians+Yoruba model (which was the most obvious model due to the high shared drift of Iberomaurusians with both Natufians and Yoruba) was that Hadza, Mbuti and basically all other African populations were much, much closer to Iberomaurusians than they were to any combination of Natufian+Yoruba. At that time there was a lot of debate about how this could be; the Lipson et al Shum Laka paper resolves this by pushing "Basal Human" ancestry into Yoruba and by creating an ANA "ghost" that contributed to Yoruba and Iberomaurusians (and also Pygmies and Shum Laka), so the model became Natufian+ANA instead of Natufian+straight Yoruba. So Lipson et al at least at least found a solution to the most glaring problem regarding the phylogeny of the ancestors of Iberomaurusians, while the original paper leaves it unsolved.

    I also find it impossible to believe that ANA made its way in a back-migration to Africa. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever that ANA and Basal Eurasian are related--the fact is that you can get further from ENA without getting closer to Africans (which implies Basal Eurasians). Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans), or the major component of Mota is (barring their basal human admixture). Its hard to imagine that ANA and a bunch of other African components, including the ancestors of Nilotes and Ethiopian hunter-gatherers, all made a back-migration to Africa. Rather, the pattern of differentiation of the different components in Africa, and their deep divergence, makes me think they're a legacy of "African multiregionalism" from the Middle Paleolithic, where so-called behavioral modernity was glimmering on and off in archaeological terms all across Africa. Its important to remember that demographic inference generally dates OoA expansion to ~55 kya but the separation of the OoA population from the closest African populations (according to Lipson et al, Mota minus Basal Human) to >70 kya (which implies the ANA, ancestors of Nilotes, and Mota populations split at even older ages).
    I agree with the rest of what you said, but there is one problem, namely that you refuse ANA being a back migrant because of a proposed late OOA mainly. Currently that's the main argument against, but I think it won't hold. Because regardless of whether ANA was an actual back migration or not, coming from North East Africa, the dating doesn't fit too well. Its either a back migration or North East Africa, but it would equal a back migration, because its one major source group from which first OOA made it, then the spread in Africa on top of more Basal African H.s. populations. We now know that even the San are mixed Basal- with modern SSA and Eurasian ancestry. There is no reference and Mota is unlikely to be one. We need older African genomes to compare with and they will unlock a quite different picture.
    Any kind of back migration/spread from North East Africa at that scale, and there were more than one (!) presumably skewed all estimates concerning the branching event and another problem is that the differentiation of the different, most likely highly different, Basal H.s. African groups is not worked out too well too, because of these limitations. I mean before the papers on North Africans, the brancing and mixture events were not even recognise by the mainstream at all! And we still have no sufficient data on Subsaharans, even after Mota and Shum Laka.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Echo (11-30-2020),  TuaMan (11-30-2020)

  12. #207
    Banned
    Posts
    121
    Sex
    Location
    Winter is quite cold you know

    Hawaii
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I agree with the rest of what you said, but there is one problem, namely that you refuse ANA being a back migrant because of a proposed late OOA mainly. Currently that's the main argument against, but I think it won't hold. Because regardless of whether ANA was an actual back migration or not, coming from North East Africa, the dating doesn't fit too well. Its either a back migration or North East Africa, but it would equal a back migration, because its one major source group from which first OOA made it, then the spread in Africa on top of more Basal African H.s. populations. We now know that even the San are mixed Basal- with modern SSA and Eurasian ancestry. There is no reference and Mota is unlikely to be one. We need older African genomes to compare with and they will unlock a quite different picture.
    Any kind of back migration/spread from North East Africa at that scale, and there were more than one (!) presumably skewed all estimates concerning the branching event and another problem is that the differentiation of the different, most likely highly different, Basal H.s. African groups is not worked out too well too, because of these limitations. I mean before the papers on North Africans, the brancing and mixture events were not even recognise by the mainstream at all! And we still have no sufficient data on Subsaharans, even after Mota and Shum Laka.
    Indeed.

    Also the Shum Laka paper has Taforalt as 46% West Eurasian. It's like they literally grabbed off the 12% of Iberomaurusian admixture in West Africans (see G25 models) and took 12% of West Eurasian ancestry out off Taforalt's skin. It makes no sense.

    The original paper had them as 60% Eurasian the rest ANA, acknowledging 12% proper Taforalt ancestry in Yoruba.

    Nobody should take Shum Laka paper very seriously.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Echo For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (11-30-2020)

  14. #208
    Banned
    Posts
    121
    Sex
    Location
    Winter is quite cold you know

    Hawaii
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I agree with the rest of what you said, but there is one problem, namely that you refuse ANA being a back migrant because of a proposed late OOA mainly. Currently that's the main argument against, but I think it won't hold. Because regardless of whether ANA was an actual back migration or not, coming from North East Africa, the dating doesn't fit too well. Its either a back migration or North East Africa, but it would equal a back migration, because its one major source group from which first OOA made it, then the spread in Africa on top of more Basal African H.s. populations. We now know that even the San are mixed Basal- with modern SSA and Eurasian ancestry. There is no reference and Mota is unlikely to be one. We need older African genomes to compare with and they will unlock a quite different picture.
    Any kind of back migration/spread from North East Africa at that scale, and there were more than one (!) presumably skewed all estimates concerning the branching event and another problem is that the differentiation of the different, most likely highly different, Basal H.s. African groups is not worked out too well too, because of these limitations. I mean before the papers on North Africans, the brancing and mixture events were not even recognise by the mainstream at all! And we still have no sufficient data on Subsaharans, even after Mota and Shum Laka.
    It also reminds of the Khoisan case indeed. It took a while until a paper came out confirming there was Eurasian ancestry in Khoisans although light skin and Neanderthal alleles were already showing it. They waited untill they were sure Cushitic pastoralists had really in flesh reached South Africa (which they did eventually).

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Echo For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (11-30-2020)

  16. #209
    Registered Users
    Posts
    702
    Sex
    Location
    Gulf of Fars
    Ethnicity
    Somali
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V32
    mtDNA (M)
    N1a

    Somalia Ethiopia Eritrea Djibouti
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    I also find it impossible to believe that ANA made its way in a back-migration to Africa. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever that ANA and Basal Eurasian are related--the fact is that you can get further from ENA without getting closer to Africans (which implies Basal Eurasians). Second, ANA is at least as distantly related to Eurasians as Dinka are (i.e. Ancient nilotes/East Africans), or the major component of Mota is (barring their basal human admixture). Its hard to imagine that ANA and a bunch of other African components, including the ancestors of Nilotes and Ethiopian hunter-gatherers, all made a back-migration to Africa. Rather, the pattern of differentiation of the different components in Africa, and their deep divergence, makes me think they're a legacy of "African multiregionalism" from the Middle Paleolithic, where so-called behavioral modernity was glimmering on and off in archaeological terms all across Africa. Its important to remember that demographic inference generally dates OoA expansion to ~55 kya but the separation of the OoA population from the closest African populations (according to Lipson et al, Mota minus Basal Human) to >70 kya (which implies the ANA, ancestors of Nilotes, and Mota populations split at even older ages).
    I don't get why some here seem to talk about ANA as though it's Basal Eurasian or something. It is not a Eurasian component. It did not seemingly take any part in the Eurasian
    bottleneck:

     


    It is basically what people around these forums like to call "SSA". Just a unique "SSA" component that is closer to Eurasians than other SSA components are either due to much of its ancestry being a sister group to the Proto-Eurasians or it having some sort of ancient Eurasian admixture similar to what Mota shows or both. Whether or not it formed south of the Sahara is semantics as some of the other "SSA" components likely didn't entirely form south of the Sahara or Sahel anyway. I mean for God's sake, it's presence in Iberomaurusians which makes up about 45% of their ancestry pretty much makes them cluster like an ancient version of modern Horners:

     



    It's even interesting how well the proportion of ANA Vs Eurasian (Dzudzuana-like ancestry) fits with where they cluster. They cluster just ahead of Tigrinyas in the direction of Eurasians which is exactly where you would expect a 55:45 Eurasian:SSA group to cluster. Even the rather impressive G25 simulation of ANA I've seen thrown around on this forum pretty much clusters like an "SSA" component that just has a downward shift toward something in the direction of ENAs and Ust-Ishim as you can see above. This is all in stark contrast to Neolithic Anatolians (mostly Dzudzuana-like derived) who still, despite the notable proposed Basal-Eurasian, still firmly cluster among Eurasians.

    The results of our analysis using the All set, as well as the results of the analysis of ref.15 do suggest that Taforalt can be modeled as a mixture of a West Eurasian related population (represented by Dzudzuana in our case) and a Sub-Saharan African lineage. However, when one uses only a single African population as a source without using others as outgroups, this mixture can only be interpreted as evidence of ancestry from a lineage basal to members of the All set, rather than as evidence of ancestry specifically specifically 44 related to the chosen African population. No Sub-Saharan African populations appear to be good sources for the ancestry of Taforalt as described previously.

    I think you're absolutely right and ANA is just further proof that Paleolithic Africa was quite diverse and housed a number of highly distinct groups who all shared in at least the fact that most of their ancestry did not partake in the Eurasian bottleneck. As for IBMs' craniofacial traits, they're interesting and might very well mark that, for whatever reason, they may have skewed toward one side of their ancestry far more than the other in this particular respect (similar to Somalis). Whatever the case, genetic data takes precedence and in that respect they seem to clearly be an intermediate population and not full Eurasians. It's interesting to note, for the record, that some Natufians clearly showed a shift in craniofacial features toward "SSA" groups like the Dahomey even though the Natufians have so far been shown to be less ANA than IBMs. This is precisely why Lazardis and co. noted in their very first paper that the original claim that there was nothing non-Eurasian in their ancestry was surprising:

    A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).

    It was expected that they were going to turn out admixed based on their craniofacial traits so the Lazaridis paper's findings back then were understandably surprising.
    Last edited by Awale; 11-30-2020 at 02:25 PM.
    فار عارابإ آ واجإب اه

  17. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Awale For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (11-30-2020),  beyoku (11-30-2020),  diini95 (12-19-2020),  Gadzooks (11-30-2020),  gihanga.rwanda (12-04-2020),  Keneki20 (11-30-2020),  Lenny Nero (11-30-2020),  leorcooper19 (12-01-2020),  Mansamusa (11-30-2020),  Megalophias (11-30-2020),  Nebuchadnezzar II (12-01-2020),  Power77 (11-30-2020),  Ryukendo (11-30-2020),  Sapporo (11-30-2020),  theplayer (11-30-2020),  Tsakhur (12-02-2020)

  18. #210
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,543
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Awale View Post
    I don't get why some here seem to talk about ANA as though it's Basal Eurasian or something. It is not a Eurasian component. It did not seemingly take any part in the Eurasian
    bottleneck:
    But the graph is showing exactly what I was talking about, that ANA branched off from BEA-EA the latest of all other African components, by far. In this graph its ANA splits from all EA first, then BEA splits from EA. Still, its one pathway and the distance to for example Mota - I know it has basal African ancestry, is just immense. Going one step back and comparing with South Africa HG/San and you bring it into perspective, because the Basal African ancestry, even without archaic admixture, was on a completely different clade for that time. I mean that's a huge difference by all means. This doesn't answer where the split of ANA - EA happened, but most likely are, once more North East Africa or the Near East.

    It is basically what people around these forums like to call "SSA". Just a unique "SSA" component that is closer to Eurasians than other SSA components are either due to much of its
    ancestry being a sister group to the Proto-Eurasians or it having some sort of ancient Eurasian admixture similar to what Mota shows or both.
    The point is it was closer to Eurasians before mixing with Basal African ancestral groups. And it only became modern SSA by mixing with these Basal Africans. That's the story it tells. Like West Eurasians were not modern Caucasoids before the components intermixed neither. What makes the case of West Africa so curious that a lot of the mixing and spread happened so recently, its a really new, heterogenous grouping, which directly relates to the oftentimes quoted high genetic diversity of the macroregion. ANA-like ancestry was the main component in West Africans and it introduced modern, derived features, typical for modern SSA. Going through various local populations, you can still see in groups and individuals, large differences in the proportional and morphological characteristics of the phenotypes. This is the heterogeneity produced by this fairly recent admiture events.
    I mean the Mandinka are obviously more influenced by ANA and IM than other groups are, especially tropical forest hunter gatherers. They are clearly SSA, but they are it in a different way, because of a lower degree of admixture and tropical adaptation. And the variation goes down all the way through the Niger-Kordofanian expansion zone, even in places where there is little to no more recent Eurasian admixture.

    Let's say it like that, a person can't exist without the father, but won't exist without the mother either. In the case of SSA its like the father had one ancestry (ANA), while the mother had another (Basal African). The father was closer or at least as closely related to his cousins (BEA), than to his wife. This I'm saying from the strictly genetical perspective, phenotypically I think the ANA of the very South West, which produced SSA, were already more SSA ("Negroid") even before the admixture. Actually I do think they introduced the more modern and derived SSA morphology to the region, so at least in some respects, they might have been even "quite typical" actually. Like I signified above, when saying that the Sahel zone groups, people in regions like Senegal and Mali come closest, I might again refer to the Mandinka in particular, among other ethnic groups from the region. Its visible in the phenotype, to this day imho.

    Whether or not it formed south of the Sahara
    is semantics as some of the other "SSA" components likely didn't entirely form south of the Sahara or Sahel anyway.
    At the time ANA was formed, its even unlikely that in the West African tropics lived any kind of fully modern H.s. specimen, so that is kind of irrelevant to the debate? The question is where in North Africa or even the Near East it branched off from EA, that's the question. What ANA really shows is, that West Africans have one ancestral component which is fairly closer to Eurasians, which was shifted away by the Basal African H.s. (and possible archaic) admixture event in West Africa and SSA in general itself. Of course the same is true in the North, because "Main Eurasians" being shifted significantly by their Neandertal admixture into a different direction.
    That's actually the important lesson, that there probably was one largerly unified modern human core group, like some authors constantly suggest, and that one of the main reasons for the differentiations were, beside drift and selection, almost directly from the start, the admixture with other, older, regional populations. ANA was part of this fully modern, derived H.s. core group before its dispersal most likely. Otherwise the differences between Subsaharan Africans and Eurasians would be much bigger.
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-30-2020 at 03:10 PM.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     davit (11-30-2020)

Page 21 of 40 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-03-2019, 06:47 PM
  2. The First Farmers if Europe Prof Stephan Shennan
    By Judith in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2018, 07:57 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2018, 05:54 AM
  4. Early farmers from across Europe were direct descendants of Aegeans
    By rock hunter in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 10:43 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •