Neolithic North African Paper

E-L19 is over 20k years old too, so it could have been present all over North Africa and the southern Levant. I think that these Y-DNA (E-L19) and mtDNA (M1 and U6a) could well represent indigenous Late Palaeolithic Northwest Africans.

yes that could be, allthough in the neolithic context one would expect some influx from SW Asia too
in the PCA chart however there is some distance between IAM and Natufian/Levant Neo, so if there was an influx from there it was not a replacement, but admixture of Levantine with local North Africans
 
Yes Maciamo. there is a chance. You can find several Amazighs belonging to PF7444 but this is rather unlikely because it is splitted only 2600 ybp from their European cousins of this same subclade.
 
I have taken a look into the KEB6 genome from Neolithic Kelif el Boroud.
He belong to P77 branch.
M70+, L162+, L208+, Y4119+, CTS2214+, Z709+, Z710+, L906+, Y4984+, P77+
According to the authors, the Neolithic ancient KEB6 individual, belonged to a group that crossed the strait of Gibraltar from Iberian Peninsula to North Africa. Also they point his origin to the Early Neolithic Europe.

This is so curious because the KEB site is dated to 5665 yBP (5730-5600 yBP) and P77 is dated to 5500 yBP (6500-4500 yBP).

KEB6 belongs to P77 close to their Birthdate. So it looks like this P77 Late Neolithic population had a extreme movility through Europe until crossing Gibraltar.

I got this IRISPLEX results with the available genome data for KEB6:

Predicted phenotype
p-value--------------AUC-----------Loss
blue eye-------------0.99--------------0
intermediate eye--0.01--------------0
brown eye------------0-----------------0
blond hair-------------0----------------0.028
brown hair------------0-----------------0.015
red hair----------------1----------------0.097
black hair-------------0-----------------0.014
light hair---------------1-----------------0.007
dark hair---------------0-----------------0.007

 
I think this admixture table is from the target survey of this thread - have somebody thoughts about how they could have disrupted this European first farmers component into two groups, roughly said "iberian" and "southeast+central Europe"?View attachment 10002
 
The Mtdna:

IAM.3: M1b1
IAM4: U6a1b
IAM5: U6a1b
IAM6: U6a7
IAM7: U6a3
KEB1: X2b
KEB3: K1a1b1
KEB4: K1a1b1
KEB6: K1a4a1
KEB7: T2b3
KEB8: X2b
TOR1: T2c1d
TOR5: J2b1a
TOR6: T2b3
TOR7: T2b3
TOR8: K1a1
TOR11: K1a2a
TOR12: J2b1a
BOT1: K1a4a1

The Y dna:

IAM4: E-L19
IAM5: E-L19
KEB6: T-Y6671 (matches a TSI NA20520 in description)
TOR5: G-Z39334 (G-P303)

BOT1 and KEB6 have the same unique mtdna marker and we know KEB.6 ydna is T-P77 .........so BOT1 could be a relative of KEB6
 
I think this admixture table is from the target survey of this thread - have somebody thoughts about how they could have disrupted this European first farmers component into two groups, roughly said "iberian" and "southeast+central Europe"?View attachment 10002

wanted to say: discriminated! No clue, noboby here? (even if it is not in the very focus of this thread)
I
 
wanted to say: discriminated! No clue, noboby here? (even if it is not in the very focus of this thread)
I

I can't see the attachment, Moesan.

I can't recall any paper that found any appreciable difference between them. Can you?

As time went on, however, differing amounts of WHG plus that WHG coming from slightly different groups, and then accompanying drift down the years might have meant you could distinguish between the two groups.

How do you see this relating to the North African result?
 
I can't see the attachment, Moesan.

I can't recall any paper that found any appreciable difference between them. Can you?

As time went on, however, differing amounts of WHG plus that WHG coming from slightly different groups, and then accompanying drift down the years might have meant you could distinguish between the two groups.

How do you see this relating to the North African result?

Sorry, I'm afraid i'm growing old - I was mixing to papers that are remotley related (region) but not the same; here under:


Rosa Fregel et al., Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe. BioRxiv 2017 (pre-pub). DOI:10.1101/191569

Will you ever pardon me?
buona sera!
 
It would seem that it decreased because, at least in part, of Iberian Neolithic entering the genome.

In Egypt there was a rise by the time of the first millennium BC from the prior paper, but then much more of a rise with the Islamic slave trade. I think I recall that in Egypt proportionally more of the slave input was from East African women, whereas in Morocco it was higher in SSA from West Africa.

The Sahara was quite a barrier when desert like conditions prevailed.

Was it that big of a barrier if Taforalt was 1/3 SSA?
 
Was it that big of a barrier if Taforalt was 1/3 SSA?

ratchet: I interpret what Angela is saying is that the Sahara Desert, which is could be 7 million or so years old, at least 2-3 million, when it is in its Dry phase is a barrier to migration.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles...frican,ranging from 2 to 3 million years ago.

The Dry Sahara has been in place 3,000 BC, and the decrease in rainfall probably started 1K years earlier, and will likely not return to a Green Sahara, more rain and more desert like you see in Arizona maybe, till around 17,000 AD, the Green Sahara's last maybe a several thousand years before starting the cycle back to Dry Sahara, like now.

This brief Science article also suggest Sahara is 5-7 million years old and that is when the recurrent Sahara started, i.e. the pattern of Dry Sahara to Green Sahara.

From the article "Our results testify that the onset of recurrent desert conditions in the Sahara started at least 7 million years ago (5–7)."

https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...Nxrf5MajmKZnQMmLYVGc79qatAOR4Iq0siK4RQdEwYPAY

The Dry Sahara lasts usually for 20,000 years, which puts the next Green Sahara around 17,000 AD

https://www.livescience.com/23140-sahara-desert.html

The last Green Sahara period was for about 6,000 years.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-green-sahara-ancient-rainfall-regime.html

So based on what the Scientist are telling us, there is Dry Sahara that last 20,000 years then a Green that might last 6,000 before starting the cycle back to Dry. So the Taroralt who was 1/3 SSA could have been in a Green period or traveled there during a Green period. Once the Dry Sahara kicked back in, trade between North Africa and SSA gets cut off as does migrations from SSA to North Africa. The Nile River however would allow for trade and commerce to happen between Egypt and the East African Horn, but as you move West, no.

In addition, I would think it was a Dry Sahara during OOA migrations as all the migration routes went East, either straight into West-Asia and perhaps some went up the Nile valley into NE Africa, then West Asia. Don't hold me to this hypothesis but it fits the way the Sahara has these recurrent long Dry periods to shorter Green periods.
 
Last edited:
Was it that big of a barrier if Taforalt was 1/3 SSA?


In the original study the Taforalt were modeled as 2/3 Natufian and 1/3 SSA. Having said this, according to the study by Lazaridis et al. (2018), the Iberomaurusians were of nearly equal mixture of Ancestral North African (ANA) and Dzudzuana. The Dzudzuana sample from Gerogia is the oldest (26,000 years old) Western Asian sample. It also shows that is obviously at the root of the origins of the vast majority of modern West Eurasians. So when going by the Lazaridis study ~ 55% of the Taforalt ancestry is Dzudzuana-like, and ~45% derives from ANA- related population. Furthermore, ANA appears to have split from non-Africans after the ancestral populations of Sub-Saharan Africans did, but prior to the non-African genetic bottleneck. That means that the ANA component is neither Eurasian nor SSA but something of its own. However, ANA seems to be closer to Eurasians than to SSAs. In my opinion ANA was probably a kind of precursor of the Eurasian lineage. Lazaridis assert that the detected SSA was not a true admixture into Taforalt, but a result of Taforalt ancestry being embedded in current SSAs, which why this affinity comes out falsely as admixture. So this false SSA signal can be attributed to the contribution of Taforalt-like population into Sub-Saharan gene pool. Therefore, the Natufians did not contribute their DNA into the Taforalt but it's the other way. The Natufians seem to rather having received ~26% of Taforalt- admixture. Hence, they trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana. Besides, the hp of Taforalt was E1b1b-M78 which very likely originated in North Africa. With that being said it seems to me that no study could really address the estimated dating of the admixture event that created the ancient Iberomaurusian population.
 
In the original study the Taforalt were modeled as 2/3 Natufian and 1/3 SSA. Having said this, according to the study by Lazaridis et al. (2018), the Iberomaurusians were of nearly equal mixture of Ancestral North African (ANA) and Dzudzuana. The Dzudzuana sample from Gerogia is the oldest (26,000 years old) Western Asian sample. It also shows that is obviously at the root of the origins of the vast majority of modern West Eurasians. So when going by the Lazaridis study ~ 55% of the Taforalt ancestry is Dzudzuana-like, and ~45% derives from ANA- related population. Furthermore, ANA appears to have split from non-Africans after the ancestral populations of Sub-Saharan Africans did, but prior to the non-African genetic bottleneck. That means that the ANA component is neither Eurasian nor SSA but something of its own. However, ANA seems to be closer to Eurasians than to SSAs. In my opinion ANA was probably a kind of precursor of the Eurasian lineage. Lazaridis assert that the detected SSA was not a true admixture into Taforalt, but a result of Taforalt ancestry being embedded in current SSAs, which why this affinity comes out falsely as admixture. So this false SSA signal can be attributed to the contribution of Taforalt-like population into Sub-Saharan gene pool. Therefore, the Natufians did not contribute their DNA into the Taforalt but it's the other way. The Natufians seem to rather having received ~26% of Taforalt- admixture. Hence, they trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana. Besides, the hp of Taforalt was E1b1b-M78 which very likely originated in North Africa. With that being said it seems to me that no study could really address the estimated dating of the admixture event that created the ancient Iberomaurusian population.

That's an awesome explanation. Thank you. I think people are misrepresenting this component for their agendas. Like you said the ANA component is endemic to North Africa and its relation with SSA is admixture from North Africa into SSA rather than the other way around.
 

This thread has been viewed 22776 times.

Back
Top