The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[davit]

Add to that the fact that West Eurasians always had a much bigger variation in body proportions and morphology than American Indians. To give you an impression, just check:


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...A_III1_139-157

So neither West Eurasians/Caucasoids nor Subsaharan Africans (Pygmies!) have all the same proportions at all. There was quite a lot of variation within the West Eurasian sphere, this was always noted, not just for North Africa, but also for parts of the Near East, but especially South Asia, and generally for pre-LGM Upper Paleolithic specimen. Guess what, IBM WEA contribution looks to be Upper Paleolithic rather and in Tenerians Proto-Mediterranean, not coming directly from the Ice Age refugia.

There are huge individual differences in Central Europeans to this day. Some of the variation might date back to the Neolithic.

Wouldn't the South Asian diversity be caused by admixture with non West Eurasians?

[Riverman]

Wouldn't the South Asian diversity be caused by admixture with non West Eurasians?

To a large degree most likely yes, since the AASI heavy population are longer limbed, but on the other hand you had WEA with longer body proportions too and a wide ranging variation throughout WEA individually to this day.

[madaleninha]

I don't know about long bones, but I've seen studies comparing Amerindians who practiced agriculture with Amerindian hunters / gatherers. The study of Amerindians is very interesting, given how genetically homogeneous they are. The result is that these two groups were quite different with respect to skull morphology. So the adaptation doesn't seem to take that long.

[Riverman]

I don't know about long bones, but I've seen studies comparing Amerindians who practiced agriculture with Amerindian hunters / gatherers. The study of Amerindians is very interesting, given how genetically homogeneous they are. The result is that these two groups were quite different with respect to skull morphology. So the adaptation doesn't seem to take that long.

I'd say it depends on the kind of trait we're talking about and its not like all American Indians are the same and even neighbouring foragers and farmers can have different origins. Some might have been different already even before starting to farm actually. But there are some trends among farmers under specific conditions.

[beyoku]

I don't know about long bones, but I've seen studies comparing Amerindians who practiced agriculture with Amerindian hunters / gatherers. The study of Amerindians is very interesting, given how genetically homogeneous they are. The result is that these two groups were quite different with respect to skull morphology. So the adaptation doesn't seem to take that long.

This is mirrored with "Paleo American" remains that look African yet have genetic continuity with Modern Native Americans.

[Aleph]

This makes me look forward to Gobero samples being genetically tested at some point in the future. Are those samples still kept and preserved somewhere?

[Cabaon]

The morphological SSA affinities among Natufians are well-known. That is why the absence of SSA genetic ancestry in Lazaridis et al.'s first investigation was so surprising. Can we stop making up history to satisfy fantasies? Lazaridis et al:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...311v1.full.pdf

"Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated
from north or sub-Saharan Africa , 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)"

Modern peninsular arabs show the greatest amount of natufian ancestry (which can reach 70% in some communities), they still don't show any "morphological SSA affinities". How do you explain it ?

other craniometric studies show something else :

"In terms of description, the observations that were made by A. Keith, H. Vallois and D. Ferembach present a fairly high degree of homogeneity (2). The natufians, whether they are from Shoukbah, Athlit, Erq el-Ahmar or Mallaha, are people with large skulls, dolichocephalic or sometimes mesocephalic. The glabella is prominent, the forehead straight, the cranial vault moderately elevated and the occipital protruding. These are the characters that we also noticed in Fallah, but with a slightly more slender structure, thus confirming the observations of D. Ferembach (3); [...]There is little or no alveolar prognathism"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41489379?seq=1


Also how do you explain that the "morphologically SSA" people of Jebel Sahaba show no affinities to Natufians ? :

The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.2315

[Cabaon]

Nah . . . We are not talking about that old tired "we are all from Africa" argument. We are talking about the fact that Afroasiatic languages and neolithic populations in the Levant being associated with recent African ancestry. Recent as in Africans migrated into the Middle East (probably via the NIle Valley) to introduce Afroasiatic languages and African paternal groups into Levantine groups such as the Natufians long after the initial OOA population movement. It was probably multiple population movements.

You have to be very specific, we don't speak of a an asiatic migration when it comes to the indo-european expansion so why should we speak about "africans" when it comes to PAAs ? Paleolithic north africans were already distinct genetically and physically in comparison to other africans and these languages were probably spread by people already sharing affinities with other west eurasians not SSAs

[davit]

You have to be very specific, we don't speak of a an asiatic migration when it comes to the indo-european expansion so why should we speak about "africans" when it comes to PAAs ? Paleolithic north africans were already distinct genetically and physically in comparison to other africans and these languages were probably spread by people already sharing affinities with other west eurasians not SSAs

Exactly. There is also no point in characterizing a population by the continent when they come from. When we speak of Europe we distinguish between WHG, EHG, SHG, EEF etc so why group an entire continent together especially since the populations of Africa were closer to Eurasians and in later periods if not mostly Eurasian?

[etrusco]

Modern peninsular arabs show the greatest amount of natufian ancestry (which can reach 70% in some communities), they still don't show any "morphological SSA affinities". How do you explain it ?

other craniometric studies show something else :

"In terms of description, the observations that were made by A. Keith, H. Vallois and D. Ferembach present a fairly high degree of homogeneity (2). The natufians, whether they are from Shoukbah, Athlit, Erq el-Ahmar or Mallaha, are people with large skulls, dolichocephalic or sometimes mesocephalic. The glabella is prominent, the forehead straight, the cranial vault moderately elevated and the occipital protruding. These are the characters that we also noticed in Fallah, but with a slightly more slender structure, thus confirming the observations of D. Ferembach (3); [...]There is little or no alveolar prognathism"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41489379?seq=1


Also how do you explain that the "morphologically SSA" people of Jebel Sahaba show no affinities to Natufians ? :



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.2315

I would add as a side note that IMHO Natufians as such could not have migrated from SSA nor from anywhere else. They were an even mix of West Eurasian and Basal Eurasian dna. This mix IIRC happened in the Levant and not anywhere else. Basal Eurasian as per the interesting avatar of Brandon Pilcher ( thanks for that) was an african based population. But the whole Natufian package formed in the Levant. It did not arrive full formed from somewhere else