I do not believe we have Natufian DNA

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

Hello everyone. As the title states, I do not believe we have Eurasian DNA. I'm not an Afrocentricist. I just find the following weird:

1. The paternal lineage of the Natufians are not related to Cushitic speaking groups. It's E3B yes, but it's e1b1b1b or e1b1b undifferentiated or e1b1 undifferentiated. They don't have E-V32 (e1b1b1a1a1b), E-V12 or e1b1b1a. So how can they be our ancestors?

2. The Natufians only act as a best representation of a component of autosomal DNA Somalis and other Cushites have currently. This is due to available genetic material from archeology. If an archeological study of e1b1b1a representatives from Northeastern Africa were available, those components would fit better. So why should we accept Natufians being our supposed Eurasian ancestors, when they're just the best fit right now?

3. E1b1b1a seems to be found more commonly in Egypt and Libya. Also, that region seems to be a launching point for other descendents of that lineage. Cushites seem to have a particular one, which is from E-V12 going to E-V32 (the common Cushites paternal marker). So, why don't we simply conclude that a back migration from North Africa to East Africa occurred, and then a moment of intermixing with indigenous East African people, which formed the Cushitic speaking people today?

Just wondering if anyone else has any information that can justify why we should take a connection with the Natufians seriously.

 

[Sophisticate]

Hello everyone. As the title states, I do not believe we have Eurasian DNA. I'm not an Afrocentricist. I just find the following weird:

1. The paternal lineage of the Natufians are not related to Cushitic speaking groups. It's E3B yes, but it's e1b1b1b or e1b1b undifferentiated or e1b1 undifferentiated. They don't have E-V32 (e1b1b1a1a1b), E-V12 or e1b1b1a. So how can they be our ancestors?

2. The Natufians only act as a best representation of a component of autosomal DNA Somalis and other Cushites have currently. This is due to available genetic material from archeology. If an archeological study of e1b1b1a representatives from Northeastern Africa were available, those components would fit better. So why should we accept Natufians being our supposed Eurasian ancestors, when they're just the best fit right now?

3. E1b1b1a seems to be found more commonly in Egypt and Libya. Also, that region seems to be a launching point for other descendents of that lineage. Cushites seem to have a particular one, which is from E-V12 going to E-V32 (the common Cushites paternal marker). So, why don't we simply conclude that a back migration from North Africa to East Africa occurred, and then a moment of intermixing with proto-Nilotic people, which formed the Cushitic speaking people today?

Just wondering if anyone else has any information that can justify why we should take a connection with the Natufians seriously.

Not proto-Nilotic either. Please scrub that from your lexicon. It's also inaccurate.

 

[mohammdov]

It's origins similar to the Natufians, not from the Natufians

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

Not proto-Nilotic either. Please scrub that from your lexicon. It's also inaccurate.

Sure, essentially whatever the nilo-saharan common component is. I don't know what other name exists for it, but autosomal DNA showcases a connection there. Unless you have evidence concluding otherwise, in which case I'd like to see it and I can retract that part. But that's not really the main point of my thread.

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

It's origins similar to the Natufians, not from the Natufians

That's the conclusion I currently have so far.

 

[Sophisticate]

Sure, essentially whatever the nilo-saharan common component is. I don't know what other name exists for it, but autosomal DNA showcases a connection there. Unless you have evidence concluding otherwise, in which case I'd like to see it and I can retract that part. But that's not really the main point of my thread.

It's not Nilo-Saharan either. It is some form of Ancient East African. Also, let us not forget there was more than one AEA group. In the future, who knows? Maybe they'll label some of this input specific to Somalis - Ancient Somali Hunter-gatherer (ASH). I think AEA will do for now.

As I said, I like precision in labels so as not to confuse.

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

It's not Nilo-Saharan either. It is some form of Ancient East African. Also, let us not forget there was more than one AEA group. In the future, who knows? Maybe they'll label some of this input specific to Somalis - Ancient Somali Hunter-gatherer (ASH). I think AEA will do for now.

As I said, I like precision in labels so as not to confuse.

Ah, I understand your point now. Yeah I'll change the statement then. I get what you mean.

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

I just called it indigenous East African. It's as accurate a label as we got imo

 

[Yami]

E-V12 & E-V32 wasn’t around when the Natufians were out and about. You underestimate how old this culture was

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

E-V12 & E-V32 wasn’t around when the Natifian were out and about. You underestimate how old this culture was

You're right in the sense that the culture is about 3-5k years older than E-V12 and E-V32. However it isn't as old as E-V68, which is the ancestor or E-V12 and E-V32. None of the 5 specimen collected from the Natufian archeological studies have E-V68 in them.

 

[MarcusAbdul]

Hello everyone. As the title states, I do not believe we have Eurasian DNA. I'm not an Afrocentricist. I just find the following weird:

1. The paternal lineage of the Natufians are not related to Cushitic speaking groups. It's E3B yes, but it's e1b1b1b or e1b1b undifferentiated or e1b1 undifferentiated. They don't have E-V32 (e1b1b1a1a1b), E-V12 or e1b1b1a. So how can they be our ancestors?

2. The Natufians only act as a best representation of a component of autosomal DNA Somalis and other Cushites have currently. This is due to available genetic material from archeology. If an archeological study of e1b1b1a representatives from Northeastern Africa were available, those components would fit better. So why should we accept Natufians being our supposed Eurasian ancestors, when they're just the best fit right now?

3. E1b1b1a seems to be found more commonly in Egypt and Libya. Also, that region seems to be a launching point for other descendents of that lineage. Cushites seem to have a particular one, which is from E-V12 going to E-V32 (the common Cushites paternal marker). So, why don't we simply conclude that a back migration from North Africa to East Africa occurred, and then a moment of intermixing with indigenous East African people, which formed the Cushitic speaking people today?

Just wondering if anyone else has any information that can justify why we should take a connection with the Natufians seriously.

Eurasian DNA is a genetic fact, back by any study, That's not something to be debated, Eurasians are simply Africans who migrated and phenotypically changed and became very genetically distant to the point where we can tell what is "Eurasian". If Horners did not have any Eurasian dna, they would not be intermediate between West African/Nilotic groups as well as certain Ethiopians groups which possess little Eurasian and Middle Easterners, secondly many somalis have Eurasian mtdna as well as lights skip snps. Plus, if they had no Eurasian dna, we wouldn't tell the difference the fact that we can rules out that possibility.

The problem is that, Egypt and by extent North Africa was dominated by people of mostly West Eurasian ancestry, we got that Eurasian ancestry indirectly.

You are right on, one thing Natufians are not our actual ancestors there was a natufian like population in Egypt/Sudan, which was genetically similar. North Africa experienced very direct back migrations from Eurasia which in turn affected their neighbors.

The reality is that, there used to exist ancestral north africans who were native to the region, but due to Eurasian back migration they no longer exist. Eurasian back migration is likely why North Africans look the way they do and cluster closer to other West Eurasians. It is again a genetic fact Sxb.

 

[MarcusAbdul]

It's not Nilo-Saharan either. It is some form of Ancient East African. Also, let us not forget there was more than one AEA group. In the future, who knows? Maybe they'll label some of this input specific to Somalis - Ancient Somali Hunter-gatherer (ASH). I think AEA will do for now.

As I said, I like precision in labels so as not to confuse.

Nile Valley was diverse, with many different groups. It could be a possibility some may be ASH, like a southern version of mota but definitely not all of it. What do you think about the idea that our Cushitic ancestors split about 5000 which corresponds to cave paintings around the Horn, as well as goats and sheeps. As well as our Y dna which also splits roughly around that area, it would make a lot sense, because we likely have some neolithic levantine ancestry.
The IBM and Natufians had no light skin snps

 

[NidarNidar]

Not proto-Nilotic either. Please scrub that from your lexicon. It's also inaccurate.

More of a common ancestor that separated and eventually split to become the proto nilotes.

It's origins similar to the Natufians, not from the Natufians

From what I've read Iberomaurusians and Natufians were cousins both being downstream of E-M35.

There is quite a bit of genetic overlap, from what I've read Somalis are on average 25% Natufian-like and 15% Iberomaurusian

We know E-M35 was present in Egypt by the Upper Paleolithic, the Taforalt samples all possessed subclades of E-M96, Natufians are a much younger population, that probably split off Iberomaurusians, this subset of Iberomaurisians would have been located in Northeast Africa, and gradually moved to the levant via the Sinai, J1 carry quite a bit of Natufian ancestry due to marrying Natufians woman, and themselves marrying "semetic" mtDNA haplogroups HV, N1 and U3.

The Semitic language precursor has been identified in the carrying E-M34 which is downstream of E-Z827, during the Mesolithic.

 

[Step a side]

Natufian were our uncles. Anatolian hunter gatherers kept entering Africa, mixing with us E1b1b North Africans, to the point that all the E1b1b tribes from the Maghreb to Sudan carried the same west Euroasian base ancestry as far back as Taforalt. I call it base ancestry because modern North Africans have additional west Euroasian ancestry like Anatolian farmer, Iran farmer etc which we lack.

 

[MarcusAbdul]

Natufian were our uncles. Anatolian hunter gatherers kept entering Africa, mixing with us E1b1b North Africans, to the point that all the E1b1b tribes from the Maghreb to Sudan carried the same west Euroasian base ancestry as far back as Taforalt. I call it base ancestry because modern North Africans have additional west Euroasian ancestry like Anatolian farmer, Iran farmer etc which we lack.

Maghrebis have direct EEF, while Egyptians are more influenced by Levant ancestry. Sudan is a bit different, it's likely only lower Nubia.

I do believe our Eurasian ancestry is a bit more complicated, it's likely a mixture of Natufian-like and IBM+Neolithic Levantine which would collerate to our light skin snps and our split being around 5,000.
(Shout out to Shimbiris of course, I learnt all this useful information from him)

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

Eurasian DNA is a genetic fact, back by any study, That's not something to be debated, Eurasians are simply Africans who migrated and phenotypically changed and became very genetically distant to the point where we can tell what is "Eurasian". If Horners did not have any Eurasian dna, they would not be intermediate between West African/Nilotic groups as well as certain Ethiopians groups which possess little Eurasian and Middle Easterners, secondly many somalis have Eurasian mtdna as well as lights skip snps. Plus, if they had no Eurasian dna, we wouldn't tell the difference the fact that we can rules out that possibility.

The problem is that, Egypt and by extent North Africa was dominated by people of mostly West Eurasian ancestry, we got that Eurasian ancestry indirectly.

You are right on, one thing Natufians are not our actual ancestors there was a natufian like population in Egypt/Sudan, which was genetically similar. North Africa experienced very direct back migrations from Eurasia which in turn affected their neighbors.

The reality is that, there used to exist ancestral north africans who were native to the region, but due to Eurasian back migration they no longer exist. Eurasian back migration is likely why North Africans look the way they do and cluster closer to other West Eurasians. It is again a genetic fact Sxb.

The thing is, the conclusion I'm drawing showcases a different historical situation.

Firstly, horners do not act as an intermediate between West Africans/Nilo-saharan people and Eurasians.

Instead, a cluster of groups are classified as sub-saharan African and another cluster of groups are classified as Eurasians and Somalis are compared between the two groups. All this means is that people from the Levant and North Africa act as an intermediate between what is classified as Sub-saharan African and Eurasian. But if taken as distinct groups, the diversity in Africa would result in distances being further apart amongst different clusters of African groups. I.e., Niger-congo speakers being distinct from indigenous East African hunter gatherers being distinct from Nilo-saharan speakers being distinct from indigenous South East African hunter gatherers, etc.

Similarly, there would be distances seen among Eurasian groups as well, but they wouldn't be as distant as African groups due to the sole reason that non-Africans are younger as a whole so the diversity on a genetic level isn't that high in comparison.

Now I ask you:
Is the distant we Somalis (and other horners as an extension) have against West Africans a representation of our closeness to Eurasians or our distance from other Africans because of how long the human activity in the continent was?

I think it's both to a degree, but I believe the latter is at a higher degree.

 

[Step a side]

Maghrebis have direct EEF, while Egyptians are more influenced by Levant ancestry. Sudan is a bit different, it's likely only lower Nubia.

I do believe our Eurasian ancestry is a bit more complicated, it's likely a mixture of Natufian-like and IBM+Neolithic Levantine which would collerate to our light skin snps and our split being around 5,000.
(Shout out to Shimbiris of course, I learnt all this useful information from him)

Nah our Eurasian ancestry is simple. Vast majority is derived from Anatolian hunter gatherer. It’s these hunters that gave birth to the west Euroasian ancestry found in Taforalt and Natufian.

 

[NidarNidar]

Nah our Eurasian ancestry is simple. Vast majority is derived from Anatolian hunter gatherer. It’s these hunters that gave birth to the west Euroasian ancestry found in Taforalt and Natufian.

I forgot their name it began with a D though..... it's ancient like 25,000 years old.

 

[Sophisticate]

Nile Valley was diverse, with many different groups. It could be a possibility some may be ASH, like a southern version of mota but definitely not all of it. What do you think about the idea that our Cushitic ancestors split about 5000 which corresponds to cave paintings around the Horn, as well as goats and sheeps. As well as our Y dna which also splits roughly around that area, it would make a lot sense, because we likely have some neolithic levantine ancestry.
The IBM and Natufians had no light skin snps

I would guess admixture events are older, with waves being complex. I would much rather get a chance to see what the genetic makeup of the Late Pleistocene (29 - 14 ka), African Humid Period (14.5 - 5ka), and the dry/arid mid-Holocene (5 - 4 ka) were like among ancient Somali inhabitants and how this compares to modern populations. There is so much we don't know.

 

[NidarNidar]

I would guess admixture events are older, with waves being complex. I would much rather get a chance to see what the genetic makeup of the Late Pleistocene (29 - 14 ka), African Humid Period (14.5 - 5ka), and the dry/arid mid-Holocene (5 - 4 ka) were like among ancient Somali inhabitants and how this compares to modern populations. There is so much we don't know.

Need a stable government for that, the horn has always been harsh, prior to the African humid period, the white Nile was a seasonal river, the main Nile was dammed by dunes, and the Horn was unsuitable to humans except for the Highlands