The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

Megalophias said:
All of Natufian Y DNA was CT. All non-Sub-Saharan African ancient Y DNA everywhere has been CT.
Click to expand...

There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.
 
Parafarne said:
There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.
Click to expand...

they might be T and H among the natufians in addition to e-z830
i doubt they were J and R but who knows i might be wrong
 
Parafarne said:
There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.
Click to expand...
Both Natufian CTs were E1b1b according to Genetiker (could be wrong but probably not). The T and H2 are from Pre-Pottery Neolithic thousands of years later and with more Anatolian-type ancestry. At present we don't know whether the Natufians had T and H2 or not.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear, what I was trying to ask is do you mean CT is Basal Eurasian, or part of CT Is Basal and part is Crown Eurasian, or what?
 
Parafarne said:
oh yes I meant n.african, but if today you mix half hg E+ half eurasian hg then why you get people with very dark complexions then why since ancient times n.africans were on caucasoid side in your view?how they don't look like ethiopians for example? Sudanese has more eurasian hg than say morocco(85% E) so please explain why sudanese don't look like algerians?
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'm a bit confused by this last post of yours: what is 'hg E' for you? The Y-haplogroup one? if the haplo, it cannot be compared to "half eurasian" (global autosomals). Otherwise, 1- modern Egyptians are not very dark concerning skin, as a whole - 2 -
classification doesn't depend only on skin colour, bones structures and other traits are more important concerning DNA weight -
and the paleo N-Africans showed very few common features with Ethiopians, and even Egyptians of the 3000 BC were a bit different from Ethiopians. BTW I'm not sure there are not sustructures concerning types among today Ethiopians. You produce comparisons and %'s that are a bit unbased, according to me.No offense.
 
Megalophias said:
Both Natufian CTs were E1b1b according to Genetiker (could be wrong but probably not). The T and H2 are from Pre-Pottery Neolithic thousands of years later and with more Anatolian-type ancestry. At present we don't know whether the Natufians had T and H2 or not.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear, what I was trying to ask is do you mean CT is Basal Eurasian, or part of CT Is Basal and part is Crown Eurasian, or what?
Click to expand...

IMO CT, natufians were half bEU half african.
 
MOESAN said:
Sorry but I'm a bit confused by this last post of yours: what is 'hg E' for you? The Y-haplogroup one? if the haplo, it cannot be compared to "half eurasian" (global autosomals). Otherwise, 1- modern Egyptians are not very dark concerning skin, as a whole - 2 -
classification doesn't depend only on skin colour, bones structures and other traits are more important concerning DNA weight -
and the paleo N-Africans showed very few common features with Ethiopians, and even Egyptians of the 3000 BC were a bit different from Ethiopians. BTW I'm not sure there are not sustructures concerning types among today Ethiopians. You produce comparisons and %'s that are a bit unbased, according to me.No offense.
Click to expand...

lol look haplogroup e1b1b1 origin is in ethiopia or not? at some point they looked more sub saharan or not? so then they mixed with eurasians to make natufian culture, n.african cultures(mesolithic) so I was discussing how, when this process happened in this region. megalopolis is saying complete natufian ydna were Hg E1b1b so I then said how come they looked eurasian which group is resposible for their caucasoid looks today bEU or some other group?
 
Parafarne said:
lol look haplogroup e1b1b1 origin is in ethiopia or not? at some point they looked more sub saharan or not? so then they mixed with eurasians to make natufian culture, n.african cultures(mesolithic) so I was discussing how, when this process happened in this region. megalopolis is saying complete natufian ydna were Hg E1b1b so I then said how come they looked eurasian which group is resposible for their caucasoid looks today bEU or some other group?
Click to expand...

Mesolithic East Africans more often than not tend to be Caucasoid, like Mesolithic North Africans:

28au8t5.jpg
 
The Taforalt men (Morocco 14-15 000 years ago) all had E-M35 and they were modelled as about half (maybe less) Ancestral North African and half (maybe more) West Eurasian. A likely scenario is that E-M35 came with the African side and the mt DNA (M1, U6) with the West Eurasian side. In the same model Natufians had modest Taforalt-related ancestry, so the Ancestral North African element was minor and likely already diluted.

Just because 5 male Natufians from Rafeqet Cave were (probably) all E-M35 doesn't mean all Natufians everywhere must have been, and even if they were it doesn't mean they had to have half their autosomal ancestry from the original source of the E.

Estimates of proportions of Basal Eurasian ancestry vary wildly, and I'm still not sure it even existed, but certainly they aren't half Basal and half East African or anything like that. Natufians hardly show any detectable Sub-Saharan African affinity at all.
 
Taforalt is a very interesting population. The Dzudzuana pre-print (hopefully the full study gets published relatively soon) explicitly stated they had no SSA ancestry, but they seem very diverged from all other Eurasian populations, and on PCA they plot basically like contemporary North Africans, though whether that's an artifact of projection bias I don't know. I don't really make too much of them being modeled as "Ancestral North African" and West Eurasian for now. I think they probably do have some very diverged African ancestry from the Aterian period, but that's going to be too old to tie back to E-M35.
 
So n.africans, e.africans must have been thouroughly eurasianized in levant before let them populate africa in prehistory, I thought its very recent phenomena.
 
Important findings regarding origin of basal eurasians, well they were the southern group of old lineages like hg g, f togather with n.african hg e, but the question is why they hadn't had neanderthal mixture? well because they lived in proxemity to hot desert of s.levant and neanderthals after living 700,000 years in cold northern climate regions could not settle in bEU areas because of allergy to hot clime so these groups didn't intremingle with eachother. after thousands of years bEU moved north\westward to form part of middle eastern mixture we see nowadays. africans too lived in hot climates so they didn't have neanderthal mixture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 218395 times.

Back
Top