PDA

View Full Version : 12,000 year old Natufian Village Excavated in the Jordan Valley



Angela
19-02-16, 19:32
See:

http://archaeology.org/news/4191-160218-israel-paleolithic-neolithic-village

"JERUSALEM, ISRAEL—Archaeologists have discovered a prehistoric village in the Jordan Valley that appears to have been occupied by both Paleolithic foraging peoples and early Neolithic farmers. Stone tools at the site strongly resemble those made by the Late Paleolithic Natufian culture, which lasted from about 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Buildings and many artifacts found at the site, such as shell beads and other examples of jewelry, more closely resemble those found in early
agricultural communities."

I always like to have some geographical orientation:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/19/10/315D546300000578-3454359-image-a-13_1455878912533.jpg

See also:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/.premium-1.703820

Giant Village From 12,000 Years Ago Found in Galilee Overturns Theories

"Scholars had thought climate stress in the late Natufian period forced humans in the Levant to revert to nomadism. Evidently, not so. "

"Yet towards the end of the Natufian period, about 12,000 years, archaeological evidence shows that peoples in the Levant had been abandoning that settled lifestyle, reverting at least in part to a nomadic lifestyle, involving hunting and gathering. "

"Some scholars link the reversion to nomadism to intense aridification in the Levant in the late Natufian. Others think it connected to a period of intense cold in the northern hemisphere, called the Younger Dryas, (after an alpine flower that thrived and spread in the cold weather produced by sudden, drastic drops in average temperatures).

Yet now the big village by the Sea of Galilee shows that at least some people stayed firmly settled down. Maybe that Dryas cold completely skipped over this region of the Jordan Valley, which is part of the Great Rift Valley, Grosman suggests.

At 1,200 square meters in area, the village is big. It also shows signs of continuous fixed settlement throughout the period by a relatively large community, at least 100 people. " We now postulate that settlement before the Neolithic was a gradual process," Grosman told Haaretz. "

This is an interesting artifact found there. A weight for fishing nets?

http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2016/02/image_3644_3-Natufian-Village.jpg

LeBrok
20-02-16, 03:29
Could be the case that the only surviving Natufians were the once close to big water reservoirs. It was too dry to farm anywhere else, I guess. Whatever didn't kill them made the surviving ones stronger. Afterwords they explosively expanded all over the Eurasia.

PLEASE, SOMEONE FINALLY GIVE US THE NATUFIAN GENOME!!!

Maleth
20-02-16, 08:43
PLEASE, SOMEONE FINALLY GIVE US THE NATUFIAN GENOME!!!

I shouted that silently when I read about this new discovery.....its a great find anyway :)

bicicleur
20-02-16, 10:31
it is not the only Natufian settlement during the youngest dryas
also Mureybet along the Euphrates remained populated

Angela
20-02-16, 17:41
Well, when we do get an analysis of a Natufian genome we'll see if they carried G2a, as this paper says was likely carried by the people of the PPN.

Vaskarides et al:
Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31963-Greek-Cypriot-population-reveals-elements-consistent-with-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age?p=475498#post475498
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31963-Greek-Cypriot-population-reveals-elements-consistent-with-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age?p=475498#post475498)

""The pre-Greek influence is most plausibly encapsulated by the following G2a haplogroups: U5*, PF3147*, L91, L293, P303*, and CTS342. Notably, most of these lineages occur in Anatolian ancient DNA specimens over 8200 years old [53 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#CR53)]."

As for the Pottery Neolithic, they see that as possibly represented by J2b.

""Both genetic data from the literature and Syria (Chiaroni J, unpublished results) show a frequency peak of J2b-M205 in the Southern Levant in which the frequency decreases northwards with latitude (Pearson’s R 2 = 0.282, p value = 0.011). The J2b-M205 distribution coincides with the Neolithic crop package dissemination found in common between the Levant and Cyprus [5 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#CR5)]. Also J2b-M12 Td estimates (Table 3 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#Tab3)) coupled with the J2b-M205 distribution overlap significantly with the Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze Age pattern of settlements in Nicosia, Pafos, Limassol, and Kyreneia (chi-square = 11.29, p  < .00084). This suggests the possibility that Cyprus experienced a later (Pottery Neolithic) immigration from the Southern Levant.""

I'll be very interested to see if any "E" shows up. We have a pre-cursor to E-V13 in western Mediterranean European Cardial, and then possible E-M78 in mid-late Neolithic just north of the Balkans. It's the in between stages that we need to understand.

LeBrok
20-02-16, 18:30
Well, when we do get an analysis of a Natufian genome we'll see if they carried G2a, as this paper says was likely carried by the people of the PPN.

Vaskarides et al:
Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31963-Greek-Cypriot-population-reveals-elements-consistent-with-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age?p=475498#post475498
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31963-Greek-Cypriot-population-reveals-elements-consistent-with-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age?p=475498#post475498)

""The pre-Greek influence is most plausibly encapsulated by the following G2a haplogroups: U5*, PF3147*, L91, L293, P303*, and CTS342. Notably, most of these lineages occur in Anatolian ancient DNA specimens over 8200 years old [53 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#CR53)]."

As for the Pottery Neolithic, they see that as possibly represented by J2b.

""Both genetic data from the literature and Syria (Chiaroni J, unpublished results) show a frequency peak of J2b-M205 in the Southern Levant in which the frequency decreases northwards with latitude (Pearson’s R 2 = 0.282, p value = 0.011). The J2b-M205 distribution coincides with the Neolithic crop package dissemination found in common between the Levant and Cyprus [5 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#CR5)]. Also J2b-M12 Td estimates (Table 3 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html#Tab3)) coupled with the J2b-M205 distribution overlap significantly with the Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze Age pattern of settlements in Nicosia, Pafos, Limassol, and Kyreneia (chi-square = 11.29, p  < .00084). This suggests the possibility that Cyprus experienced a later (Pottery Neolithic) immigration from the Southern Levant.""

I'll be very interested to see if any "E" shows up. We have a pre-cursor to E-V13 in western Mediterranean European Cardial, and then possible E-M78 in mid-late Neolithic just north of the Balkans. It's the in between stages that we need to understand.
Yes, more and more it looks like G2a is the Natufian signature, not E-V13 I expected some time ago. J2b expansion definitely fits Pottery Neolithic.

Maleth
20-02-16, 20:14
I'll be very interested to see if any "E" shows up. We have a pre-cursor to E-V13 in western Mediterranean European Cardial, and then possible E-M78 in mid-late Neolithic just north of the Balkans. It's the in between stages that we need to understand.


Yes, more and more it looks like G2a is the Natufian signature, not E-V13 I expected some time ago. J2b expansion definitely fits Pottery Neolithic.

Indeed, however I will not exclude an already reasonable genetic mix within Natufian culture depending to were the settlements are located. I still feel there can be some E (not E-V13) admixture. E-V13 will be out of the equation. It seems more and more to know its birth in the south of Europe. The pre-cursor thing will be very interesting to determine its route.

Fire Haired14
20-02-16, 21:50
I expect Natufians to definitely be "West Eurasian"(WHG, ANE) and or "West Asian"(ancestry CHG and EEF share), and have plenty of modern Western mtDNA under R0, R2, UK, N1, and N2 like EEF and CHG did. The mtDNA two K1c samples from Mesolithic Greece seems to be being ignored. That is in complete discontinuity with Mesolithic Europeans further west. K is probably a West Asian/ENF lineage. K1c is pretty popular in modern Europeans, and I'll post a lot about K soon because I have over 1,000 K1 mitogenomes.

The K1c in Mesolithic Greece could mean they were similar to EEF. Mesolithic Greece/Anatolia could be the source of G2a and the Natufians might have little to do with EEF. mtDNA HV(xH), R0a, U1, U3, J1b, N1b look pretty old and diverse in SouthWest Asia, and I wouldn't be surprised if Natufians have a lot to do with SW Asians and little to do with anyone else.

BTW: Y DNA E1b in West Eurasia is very shallow. Basically 100% is E1b1b1-M35, and like 100% of M35 falls under a select few subclades. I agree it is very possible Natufians had it, but it doesn't look like an ultra-ingenious lineage in West Asia.

Angela
20-02-16, 22:43
I expect Natufians to definitely be "West Eurasian"(WHG, ANE) and or "West Asian"(ancestry CHG and EEF share), and have plenty of modern Western mtDNA under R0, R2, UK, N1, and N2 like EEF and CHG did. The mtDNA two K1c samples from Mesolithic Greece seems to be being ignored. That is in complete discontinuity with Mesolithic Europeans further west. K is probably a West Asian/ENF lineage. K1c is pretty popular in modern Europeans, and I'll post a lot about K soon because I have over 1,000 K1 mitogenomes.

The K1c in Mesolithic Greece could mean they were similar to EEF. Mesolithic Greece/Anatolia could be the source of G2a and the Natufians might have little to do with EEF. mtDNA HV(xH), R0a, U1, U3, J1b, N1b look pretty old and diverse in SouthWest Asia, and I wouldn't be surprised if Natufians have a lot to do with SW Asians and little to do with anyone else.

Since when are "West Asians", by which I take you to mean EEF and CHG, not "West Eurasian"? Perhaps you mean to draw a distinction between so called "Basal Eurasian" and those populations descended from the "Non-Basal Eurasian" branch of the OOA people and calling the latter West Eurasian? In those terms both EEF and CHG would seem to be descended from both groups, i.e. carrying both "Basal Eurasian" and "Non-Basal Eurasian" ancestry, with the "Non-Basal Eurasian" ancestry being related to or similar to ANE/WHG.

I'm still not totally convinced this "ghost" population of "Basal Eurasian" really existed, but if it did, which is perhaps more likely than not, then yes, I would think that the Natufians would carry it. Whether or not they also carried ancestry from a group descended from the non-Basal Eurasian branch, like the EEF and the CHG, remains to be seen but it's certainly possible.

It's not at all clear to me what you're talking about with regard to the mtDna and splitting it into "western" mtdna versus a "K" ENF/West Asian lineage. How are "ROa" or "N1" or "N2" not as "West Asian" or early farmer as "K"? They're certainly present from the earliest times in the Near Eastern Neolithic. If you make up your own definitions here you will just confuse people.

Or, conversely, why does the fact that as these people spread around the world, perhaps in punctuated movements with slightly different populations, and therefore some lineages wound up over-represented in one area over another make one group more "western"?

We don't have any idea yet what Natufians carried in terms of mtDna, but we know what Mesolithic Europeans carried other than the ones in Greece, and it's not any of these lineages, so I fail to see why some of them are "western" and some of them are "West Asian".

I also don't at all get what you're talking about with regard to Southwest Asia. So far as I can see, the "South-West Asian component" is just a subset of the variation in the Near East, perhaps because of drift, but also perhaps because of slightly more "Red Sea". I also don't see how Natufians could have "little to do with anyone else". Natufian settlements reach far up into areas besides the Levant. The people in the general area of the Fertile Crescent exchanged tools, seeds, domestic animals, and other technology for thousands of years. You think they didn't exchange genes as well? I think that would be very surprising.

It's true that EEF might have been present in Mesolithic Greece. That doesn't change the fact that agriculture moved from the Near East to Europe and not vice versa, and undoubtedly moved with people. In fact, it seems there were probably a couple of punctuated movements of agricultural technology bearing peoples from the Near East, the first without pottery and a later one with it, and probably carrying different uniparental markers. I don't know what revisionism is going on, but Europe is not the source of either Neolithic technology or the original Neolithic peoples.

Alan
20-02-16, 23:29
The Paleolithic Natufians might indeed be someting proto Basal/(WHG/ANE). However I expect Neolithic era Natufians to be more Basal/UHG (EEF) like.

Fire Haired14
21-02-16, 05:51
@Angela,

I meant I expect Natufians to fit somewhere in the spectrum of WHG, EHG, CHG, EEF. I didn't mean that CHG/EEF are not West Eurasian. Making them something totally differnt from WHG/EHG is crazy. I get tangled up in terms.

I never said mtDNA K is any more West Asian than R0, N1, etc., I'm just pointing out the K1c in Mesolithic Greece suggests they had a lot in common with West Asians of their era(CHG, EEF). Many years ago Dienkies posted a picture of a power-point that gave mtDNA results from Mesolithic/Neolithic Greece and none had U, all had typical EEF/CHG JT, H, K(See here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/talk-by-christina-papageorgopoulou-on.html)).

At somepoint we're going to get ancient DNA from ancestors specifically of SouthWest Asians who have little to do with EEF and Europe. Natufians might be the first batch. EEF is very related to SW Asians when compared to Europeans who lived in the same era, but they're probably more like cousins than ancestors. All of Neolithic West Asia could not have been EEF, because then where the heck did SW Asians come from? Further East in Iran or South in Arabia? If not, they must have been living in SW Asia.

Okay, sure Natufians were ancestors of first farmers and lived in a big area. That still doesn't mean they had to of been THE ancestors of EEF. We have to consider EEF learned how to farm and were native to Anatolia/Aegean.

I'll have to look at lots more DNA, mtDNA/Y DNA/autsoomal DNA, before I make a confident prediction.

LeBrok
21-02-16, 09:17
@Angela,

I meant I expect Natufians to fit somewhere in the spectrum of WHG, EHG, CHG, EEF. I didn't mean that CHG/EEF are not West Eurasian. Making them something totally differnt from WHG/EHG is crazy. I get tangled up in terms.

I think Natufians are ENF, meaning EEF without WHG component.

bicicleur
21-02-16, 13:07
let's wait for the paper to be published

elghund
21-02-16, 21:34
My prediction for Natufian samples: mtDNA K1a (especially K1a4), H1, and H3. Subclades of J and T2 also likely.

Brutus
17-09-18, 19:40
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from northern Palestine, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%). One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup and two others belonged to the J2a2 mtDNA haplogroup.

Source: Wikipedia

Angela
17-09-18, 20:46
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from northern Palestine, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%). One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup and two others belonged to the J2a2 mtDNA haplogroup.

Source: Wikipedia

Thank you, but we know.

Beware of very old threads. Strange, but two years is old for this discipline.