There Was No Natufian Back Migration
- Thread starter Xabeshi
- Start date
Arabsiyawi
HA Activist.
mhhhh nice distance
The alchemist
VIP
Natufian is a RELATIVELY good proxy. No one here with even an ounce of competence would say Natufian are the cause of our ancestry. It is the other way around. We share ancestry because Natufian is substantially northeast African HG:
Basically Natufian has extra 5% Southwest Asian HG-like (the Iran Neolithic has exessive Basal ancestry that is African-like, and that is what defines much of that affinity, not real prehistoric Iranian ancestry) ancestry which is irrelevant to us. We only capture the ~40-50% we need which Natufian has more than.
This is all proxy. I'd rather use Natufian and Sudanese7 instead of simulated that cut genetics, all to narrow distance (still, those shortening of gaps gives us insight). I accept adequate simuations where we have constraints and discrete/isolated values (ANA, spesifically); also use these methodologies to inspect and measure proportional sub-structure (that is what these things are best for, honestly). Natufian is already substantially similar to our non-AEA side so it is sufficient. I am not trying to narrow to 0% distance because often times, when we use Natufian it is to shape basal layers, not mix in with recent ones. The simulated contrived coordinate sure gives good fit, still it is not delineated enough where we can't tell if potential "Basal Eurasian" is not taken from the AEA side. Natufian functions very, in fact, it might be better because it does not blur the lines. It provides worse fit but we have better delineation. And it is consistent across the board. The first coordinate posted had substantial Dinka-like enrichment.
I would not even use mixed populations that are closer in proximity. If the Skhirat-Rouazi had closer distance, I would still prefer Natufian, no question. That is why I am reluctant to use the Old-Kingdom samples; they have too much Levantine food producing layers. I might as well use Arabians at that point. It gets the same job done.
As I said, I rarely use simulated samples that are chopped up like that exept one for the sake of modelling alone, but here is one dubbed "Basa Eurasian" which consists of Zlaty Kun, removing Bacho-Kiro and "Western Eurasian." In reality this is just closer to Africican drift rahter than "Basal Eurasian" but such hypothetical might capture something that we see fall in Iran Neolithic:
As you see again, higher basal drift for this simulated coordinate with the difference being Natufian having ~5% higher southwest Asian.
I'm not sure why this individual used Mota. Mota is not a proxy for our ancestry actually. It only has part AEA ancestry with the rest being divergent, especially when it comes to the non-AEA ancestry. Very strange choice. According to Lipson et al 2022, Mota is a basal lineage that has existed for at least since the OOA ancestry and recieved a Ghost population admixture of 30% post 50 kya. I don't know why people include this in models unless they are checking for actual Ethiopian HG ancestry, or modelling HG diversity toward southern African clines.
The "Ethio-Somali" component mentioned in the paper from 2014 was talking about the backmigration of southwest Asians some 23kya that was terminal Levantine Aurignicians who were basically related to Anatolian HG and Dzudzuana (these populations are separate related lineages). It does not describe the entire Cushitic ancestry because we're talking about a deeper population period.
Please don't post Reddit threads about these topics here as if has something we have not exhausted to a greater degree. Every time I see something written on that forum it is always incorrect. Much of what is written there is directly copped from this forum, yet they still did not take notes, since they deliver their own clusterfuckery.
Basically Natufian has extra 5% Southwest Asian HG-like (the Iran Neolithic has exessive Basal ancestry that is African-like, and that is what defines much of that affinity, not real prehistoric Iranian ancestry) ancestry which is irrelevant to us. We only capture the ~40-50% we need which Natufian has more than.
This is all proxy. I'd rather use Natufian and Sudanese7 instead of simulated that cut genetics, all to narrow distance (still, those shortening of gaps gives us insight). I accept adequate simuations where we have constraints and discrete/isolated values (ANA, spesifically); also use these methodologies to inspect and measure proportional sub-structure (that is what these things are best for, honestly). Natufian is already substantially similar to our non-AEA side so it is sufficient. I am not trying to narrow to 0% distance because often times, when we use Natufian it is to shape basal layers, not mix in with recent ones. The simulated contrived coordinate sure gives good fit, still it is not delineated enough where we can't tell if potential "Basal Eurasian" is not taken from the AEA side. Natufian functions very, in fact, it might be better because it does not blur the lines. It provides worse fit but we have better delineation. And it is consistent across the board. The first coordinate posted had substantial Dinka-like enrichment.
I would not even use mixed populations that are closer in proximity. If the Skhirat-Rouazi had closer distance, I would still prefer Natufian, no question. That is why I am reluctant to use the Old-Kingdom samples; they have too much Levantine food producing layers. I might as well use Arabians at that point. It gets the same job done.
As I said, I rarely use simulated samples that are chopped up like that exept one for the sake of modelling alone, but here is one dubbed "Basa Eurasian" which consists of Zlaty Kun, removing Bacho-Kiro and "Western Eurasian." In reality this is just closer to Africican drift rahter than "Basal Eurasian" but such hypothetical might capture something that we see fall in Iran Neolithic:
As you see again, higher basal drift for this simulated coordinate with the difference being Natufian having ~5% higher southwest Asian.
I'm not sure why this individual used Mota. Mota is not a proxy for our ancestry actually. It only has part AEA ancestry with the rest being divergent, especially when it comes to the non-AEA ancestry. Very strange choice. According to Lipson et al 2022, Mota is a basal lineage that has existed for at least since the OOA ancestry and recieved a Ghost population admixture of 30% post 50 kya. I don't know why people include this in models unless they are checking for actual Ethiopian HG ancestry, or modelling HG diversity toward southern African clines.
The "Ethio-Somali" component mentioned in the paper from 2014 was talking about the backmigration of southwest Asians some 23kya that was terminal Levantine Aurignicians who were basically related to Anatolian HG and Dzudzuana (these populations are separate related lineages). It does not describe the entire Cushitic ancestry because we're talking about a deeper population period.
Please don't post Reddit threads about these topics here as if has something we have not exhausted to a greater degree. Every time I see something written on that forum it is always incorrect. Much of what is written there is directly copped from this forum, yet they still did not take notes, since they deliver their own clusterfuckery.
Well it also has a lot of Anatolian HG like ancestry which we have via Anatolian farmers. Anatolian farmers are basically completely downstream from Anatolian HGs
Egyptian HG + Anatolian farmers looks very similar to Natufian, which is Egyptian + Anatolian HG like.
Also we may have a small amount of direct Natufian ancestry, I don’t think most of it is real but some of it could be.
Helwan lunates are extremely rare, and given their particular hafting technique, one may wonder if these were not borrowed from other, older or contemporary assemblages. Interestingly, in southern Sinai, the assemblages of the Abu Madi I site (Bar-Yosef 1985), dated to ca. 9,600-8,300 cal BC, contain el-Khiam and tanged points, as well as small rods (bipolar retouched, narrow, double pointed microliths) and a few Helwan lunates. It seems that a site that lies some 150-250 km south of any Natufian sites including those on both sides of the Jordan Rift valley retained an old tradition. Abu Madi I is also far away from the original localities at Helwan, where a couple of dozens of Helwan lunates were found in the detailed survey carried out by F. Debono in the 1930s (Schmidt 1996 and references therein).
To this we should also add the undated context of obsidian Helwan lunates in an assemblage retrieved in Dahlak island (Eritrea) in the Red Sea some 1,800 km south of the Nile delta (Blanc 1952). By comparison to studied shell middens with lunates, the dates at Dahlak may range from ca. 6,800 to 6,000 cal BC (Bar Yosef Mayer and Beyin 2009).”
Last edited:
Trending
-
-
To the faraxs who are thinking of marrying soon - can you cook?- Started by Wervelwind
- Replies: 21
-
