Arabo-Persian Gulf Basin possible homeland of Basal Eurasians?

[Doggerland]

angela the masks of jericho
belong to the ppnb period
which is later than natufian period
even by y dna we see difference the natufians were majority E ( so i can't rule out upturned nose or some other african traits )
in ppnb remain while E is present in 33% but we do see some other y haplogroups : T, H
so it is possible the not upturned nose you see is a results of there influence or change in face morfology
when the E mixed with T and H that might results in hook nose or straight nose you see in those death masks of the ppnb remains ....

Haplogroups do not predict anything anatomically.

As I mentioned before, I do not say there where no hook or straight noses in Natufians, I only say this traits cannot be seen in current samples analysed by me, nothing more

 

[kingdavid]

Haplogroups do not predict anything anatomically.

As I mentioned before, I do not say there where no hook or straight noses in Natufians, I only say this traits cannot be seen in current samples analysed by me, nothing more

very interesting to think natufian nose was like this :

 

[Doggerland]

Or perhaps like this King Tut reconstruction?:http://www.geocities.ws/joao_marri/kingtutboyside.jpg

http://www.solarnavigator.net/histo..._tut_boy_king_pharaoh_head_reconstruction.jpg

I will no longer interrupt the discussion here, I will be back when ancient Egyptian samples are done for analysis but like I said, I don't think they will be of good quality. Then I will make an analysis for the Natufian traits with ancient samples and modern ones.

 

[Hawk]

angela the masks of jericho
belong to the ppnb period
which is later than natufian period
even by y dna we see difference the natufians were majority E ( so i can't rule out upturned nose or some other african traits )
in ppnb remain while E is present in 33% but we do see some other y haplogroups : T, H
so it is possible the not upturned nose you see is a results of there influence or change in face morfology
when the E mixed with T and H that might results in hook nose or straight nose you see in those death masks of the ppnb remains ....

All of those unclassified BT/CT are probably E-M35, so PPNB were likely ~60-70% E-M35.

 

[kingdavid]

All of those unclassified BT/CT are probably E-M35, so PPNB were likely ~60-70% E-M35.

Realy
What a dominant
If that was the case how we e1b1b1
Became such unimportant branch in today modern middle east?
Did j1 who came from the north in bronze age time reduced our number so much ?
Did they brought new technology with them ?
:shocked:

 

[American]

Well then, clearly PPNB people had different kinds of noses. There is nothing short and upturned about the noses at Jericho. Or perhaps their artwork didn't always resemble them accurately.

I'd also be very interested to see Bedouins and Saudis with short, upturned noses.

This is what the Saudis I've seen look like:

There are also, of course, men of the purest Saudi descent who do have a slight hook to their noses.

Yemeni man:

Feel free to google "Yemeni" men. You won't see a short, upturned nose among them.

Bedouin:

I picked one of the handsome ones, but the noses are all the same.

Bedouin woman from the Negev:

The only Saudi women who are going to have short, upturned noses are those who have had plastic surgery. There are more nose jobs done in the Near East than anywhere in the world. Even Queen Rania, who I think is a very beautiful woman, has clearly had one. All you have to do is go back and look at pictures of her when she was young and compare them to the present day.

People really shouldn't rely on the things they see and read on so called "anthro" sites. It's almost always a cherry picked bunch of nonsense based on some sort of underlying agenda.

The Bedouin definitely have more than their share of pretty faces. That lady looks almost Gypsy to me.

In any case, I wouldn't say those noses (PPNB) are either extreme (upturned or aquiline). They look kinda moderate, and I would even say they'd fit pretty much anywhere in Europe, with a few exceptions.

Perhaps I shouldn't have made such absolute claims. I certainly don't think upturned noses are as common among Bedouins or Yemenis as they are among Finns or Saami.

I still do maintain, however, that they are far more common among southern Arabians than among Levantines or Caucasians, who have far more aquiline, very large noses. When you look where aquiline noses are most predominant, there is no doubt it is in the Caucasus and adjacent regions. Among Amerindians it's the Andean groups. There appears to be something about cold and dry climates that is likely to produce those noses.

As far as the original phenotype of the Basal Eurasians is concerned, it is important to note that the south of Arabia and Hadhramaut are very different, genetically and phenotypically, from the Yemeni highlands and the rest of the Middle East. The people of al-Mahra would fall closer to the rest of the peripheral Indian-Ocean-linked Arabian Peninsula.

As for what southern Arabians look like, anthropologists have written that they are brachycephalic, and in this way distinct from the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Unlike Levantines they have small heads and thus have a head shape like the Saami (small head size and brachycephaly). They have small facial dimensions as well, which I would not expect an aquiline nose to go with.

Finally, I don't look at those websites in the first place. I can't even keep up with the racial terminology and it's confusing when I see it here. Between all the anthropologists it's never even consistent.

 

[American]

And my opinion is the opposite. Ancient peoples from Palaeolithic or Early Neolithic era had no oil painting or photograph of their death, they where not skilled artists with modern tools to create such accurate masks as the one of Abraham Lincoln. The Natufian masks look far from being anything perfect or realistic.

Ancient people just look like they have looked, the admixture is not predicting necessary how they have looked, but the SNPs of their traits. I also mentioned that before. The admixtures are taken from modern populations, their phenotypes changed over time by selection and what is now a componentlike “Eastern European” can be a mix of once neolithic and whg ancestry for example of a specific region.
The components change with the algorithm that is used and samples/SNPs that are used to define a component, but the phenotypic traits for the samples wont change, they only can be better predicted, if more work for this is done and more SNPs for phenotypic traits are known.

For me all SNPs I posted here are matching my phenotype of nose and are available, I use ftdna data.

I don't think that we can somehow agree, different positions.

This is a huge problem. These calculators make it look like "Early European Farmer" or "Neolithic Farmer" or whatever label they come up with is a consistent admixture. It isn't. It is an unstable mixture of Basal Eurasians with some WHG-related population from West Asia, and then possibly CHGs, which both aforementioned groups contributed to.

This Bronze-Age Iranian woman had a lot of ANE ancestry and even looked somewhat Amerindian as a result. Otherwise in her phenotype that WHG-related component is visible. But unfortunately admixture calculators never show that Iranians and other West Asians have anything WHG-like, when they clearly do, because it's subsumed into something else.

 

[Hawk]

Realy
What a dominant
If that was the case how we e1b1b1
Became such unimportant branch in today modern middle east?
Did j1 who came from the north in bronze age time reduced our number so much ?
Did they brought new technology with them ?
:shocked:

I guess those BT/CT should be E-M35. Half natural causes, half the reason of J1 spread. But J1 spread and dominance must have happened after they acquired Afro-Asiatic speech. So they must have arose to power latter on. Afro-Asiatic language didn't come from North to South, it was reverse.

 

[Riverman]

I guess those BT/CT should be E-M35. Half natural causes, half the reason of J1 spread. But J1 spread and dominance must have happened after they acquired Afro-Asiatic speech. So they must have arose to power latter on. Afro-Asiatic language didn't come from North to South, it was reverse.

That's true. The main factor seems to have been the metal age. There was a shift in the whole of the Near East and even into Anatolia towards the Iranian-CHG ancestry and J-dominance. Just like in Europe, there were shifts caused by transitions and migrations. In the case of the Near East, E1b1b was not completely replaced, but got reduced by it. Just like R1a and I2 came into areas of Eastern Central and South Eastern Europe which were more dominated by E-V13 in the Iron Age. There is no rule for lasting continuity in any region, even on the contrary. The E1b1b spread in the Near before might have been one big wave which largely eliminated older variation in the region during the Neolithic transition, the question is just whether it was coming from within or not.

Concerning Natufians, their phenotypes were generally quite variable, so you might read out of a couple of samples what you will, but generally speaking, most authors considered them closest to "Proto-Mediterranean".

Obviously modern Southern Arabs and Yemenis are not like Natufians, but they come closest to them from all living populations. The main difference to other West Eurasians is their size and gracile bones, and that's actually an old Near Eastern tradition which started before Natufians, but was probably strongest among them, which is part of the reason they looked "Proto-Mediterranean", with more refined, smaller and gracile features.

The Southern Arabian nose is mainly smaller, narrower, more delicate, more often straight and less downturned in comparison to more Northern Near Easterners. That's not the same as an upturned nose, which appears individually, but is not typical for the region and its population.

 

[Jovialis]

^^I disagree, Riverman.


I would consider paleolithic Caucasian people as "Proto-Mediterranean", if anything. They're similar to Anatolain_N which is the majority of what all Mediterranean people are composed of in autosomal DNA. I speculate that Neolithic Anatolians are perhaps a remnant of these paleolithic Caucasian people. Besides, Natufians themselves, are 73% Paleolithic Caucasian (Dzudzuana), and 27% Ancestral North African.

 

[Hawk]

^^I disagree, Riverman.


I would consider paleolithic Caucasian people as "Proto-Mediterranean", if anything. They're similar to Anatolain_N which is the majority of what all Mediterranean people are composed of in autosomal DNA. I speculate that Neolithic Anatolians are perhaps a remnant of these paleolithic Caucasian people. Besides, Natufians themselves, are 73% Paleolithic Caucasian (Dzudzuana), and 27% Ancestral North African.

But Dzudzuana has Basal Eurasian influence? Because i am confused at this part.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Dzudzuana was all over the place, in the Levant, in Transcaucasia and in central Anatolia, that must have been just before tribes got into isolation because of LGM
and the Iberomaurisians carried it further into Africa even during LGM (around 25 ka into the Atlas Mts, ca 22 ka upper Nile Halfan industries)

 

[Hawk]

Dzudzuana was all over the place, in the Levant, in Transcaucasia and in central Anatolia, that must have been just before tribes got into isolation because of LGM
and the Iberomaurisians carried it further into Africa even during LGM (around 25 ka into the Atlas Mts, ca 22 ka upper Nile Halfan industries)

Makes sense, but i am wondering what does Dzudzuana represent as an autosomal component, a basal to others or compound? Let's say 70% UHG (Unknown Hunter Gatherer) + 30% Basal Eurasian?

 

[Jovialis]

Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’ were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full.pdf

72% Villabruna-like + 28% Basal Eurasian = Dzudzuana

 

[bicicleur 2]

the 'Common West Eurasian' was the autosomal op Y-DNA IJ before it admixed with other tribes

IJ split in Transcaucasia, I entered Europa as Gravettians

 

[Hawk]

ANA was definitely the autosomal of Y-DNA E and specifically E-M35, they started dilluting by mixing with Basal Eurasians and Dzudzuana, this is apparent on becoming more petite and Mediterranean-like in appearance in comparison with the more robust/coarse apparance of ANA-like rich populations.

 

[bicicleur 2]

ANA was definitely the autosomal of Y-DNA E and specifically E-M35, they started dilluting by mixing with Basal Eurasians and Dzudzuana, this is apparent on becoming more petite and Mediterranean-like in appearance in comparison with the more robust/coarse apparance of ANA-like rich populations.

during LGM the Nile ran completely dry, it didn't reach the Mediterranean any more
the Nile Valley and North Africa had become completely inhabitable and void of human life
I suppose Iberomaurisian E-M35 moved out of the Nile Valley into the Levant when that happened
there they learned about geometric microliths and hunting with bow and arrow to supplement their diet, which in the pre LGM Nile Valley was more plant-based (Khormusan industries)
from the Levant they repopulated North Africa and the Nile Valley thanks to new technologies they'd learned from Dzudzuana people

geometric microliths originated in India
I suspect that is where the Basal Eurasians came from

Laziridis has pointed out that Yoruba were recievers of Dzudzuana admixture, they were not the source

 

[Hawk]

during LGM the Nile ran completely dry, it didn't reach the Mediterranean any more
the Nile Valley and North Africa had become completely inhabitable and void of human life
I suppose Iberomaurisian E-M35 moved out of the Nile Valley into the Levant when that happened
there they learned about geometric microliths and hunting with bow and arrow to supplement their diet, which in the pre LGM Nile Valley was more plant-based (Khormusan industries)
from the Levant they repopulated North Africa and the Nile Valley thanks to new technologies they'd learned from Dzudzuana people

geometric microliths originated in India
I suspect that is where the Basal Eurasians came from

Laziridis has pointed out that Yoruba were recievers of Dzudzuana admixture, they were not the source

I pretty much doubt it, and this paper is an attest of why i say so, chert mining was a crucial activity that has been doing during Paleolithic Egypt, the first among human beings:

https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf

Something which is not attested in Levant/Anatolia during the same timeline. So the chronology of orders is the opposite of what you are saying, it was North Africa => Levant => Anatolia instead. But the Dzudzuana admixture must have happened in the North Africa/Levant corridor, i agree.

 

[MOESAN]

to begin with,
an old study of Ferembach, in the 60's, I find a bit out of fashion and not too precise. Old typology. But spite I don't share her analysis (but who am I?) it shows already some heterogeneity:

Le Natoufien est un Homo sapiens sapiens incontestable. Les crânes sont le plus souvent volumineux, élevés ou modérément élevés, carénés, allongés ou même très allongés relativement à leur largeur ; toutefois, dans chaque série, on observe une tendance à l'arrondissement du crâne se manifestant par la présence de quelques individus mésocrânes. Le front apparaît le plus souvent vertical et bombé. Les arcades sourcilières, la glabelle (qui peut atteindre le n° IV de Martin) montrent un développement modéré, de même que le relief de la région nuchale. Les mastoîdes, par contre, apparaissent fortes. L'occipital dessine une courbe régulière. La face est large mais aussi haute (plus à Mallaha qu'à Fallah). Les orbites, écartées, entrent dans les catégories chamae ou mésoconques. Le nez devait faire saillie. La mandibule, d'aspect robuste, possédait un menton bien marqué. Les os du membre supérieur ont un aspect élancé. Ceux du membre inférieur apparaissent plus robustes. Ces Hommes devaient avoir une stature moyenne ou grande. Les Natoufiens présentent les caractères de Proto-méditerranéens. Mais ils possèdent encore plusieurs traits rappelant les Hommes du Paléolithique supérieur, en particulier ceux du type de Combe-Capelle. Il est intéressant de constater que ces ancêtres des Méditerranéens modernes existent déjà sous deux types différents évoquant les deux sous-races actuelles : l'Atlanto-méditerranéenne (ou Eurafricaine) d'aspect plus robuste que FIbéro-insulaire (ou Méditerranéenne gracile). Les premiers sont représentés par les squelettes de Mallaha et d'Erq el-Ahmar, les seconds par ceux de Fallah et de Hotu Cave, qui se distinguent des précédents par leur crâne plus élevé, leur écaille temporale davantage arquée, leur mastoïde plus petite, le reHef de leur région nuchale, la saillie de leurs arcades sourcilières et de leur glabelle en moyenne plus atténuée ; leurs mandibules ont des dimensions et une épaisseur moindre ; leurs os des membres se montrent plus grêles (Ferembach, 1962).

 

[MOESAN]

I have a metric study, different: shows some heterogeneity in time and space and within/between Natufian groups; interesting despite it's not too precise concerning shapes;
I cannot copy it here, sorry; I 'll try to replace the pictures by a digest.