Arabo-Persian Gulf Basin possible homeland of Basal Eurasians?

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).

It's very interesting, but some or all of these skeletons are not Natufians. As just one example, the sample from Hotu is from Iran during the Neolithic, and with a genetic profile very different from Neolithic people in Anatolia and the Levant. The sample is, however, from some analyses done, 66% Basal Eurasian.

FWIW, the nose is said to be "protruding". That certainly makes sense to me for Iran, as I associate such noses with that part of the world and the terrain found there. I'm not so certain about lands that were in the Arabo Persian Gulf basin, and I don't know that I would call the noses on the Jericho skulls "protruding", necessarily, but the forehead etc. seems accurate.

Anyone have a link to where the "supposed" Basal Eurasian percentage in Natufians or even PPNB Levantines can be found? If I ever saved it, I can't find it now.
 
It's very interesting, but some or all of these skeletons are not Natufians. As just one example, the sample from Hotu is from Iran during the Neolithic, and with a genetic profile very different from Neolithic people in Anatolia and the Levant. The sample is, however, from some analyses done, 66% Basal Eurasian.

FWIW, the nose is said to be "protruding". That certainly makes sense to me for Iran, as I associate such noses with that part of the world and the terrain found there. I'm not so certain about lands that were in the Arabo Persian Gulf basin, and I don't know that I would call the noses on the Jericho skulls "protruding", necessarily, but the forehead etc. seems accurate.

Anyone have a link to where the "supposed" Basal Eurasian percentage in Natufians or even PPNB Levantines can be found? If I ever saved it, I can't find it now.

It's less than the Hotu if i remember correctly. 45-50% which i find it quite interesting. I would expect Basal Eurasian percentage to peak more in South.
 
I knew it was less. That's one of the reasons I'm still not completely sold on the conclusions of this paper.
 
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

Also H, which is now extremely rare and doesn't seem to have done well in Europe following the Paleolithic, being as the majority of men in Europe with it belong to the Indian/South Asian branch, probably because of the Gypsies.
 
This is a description of literature on the remains from Hotu Cave. Some of the samples may not have been anatomically complete, and I don't know whether the DNA extracted from "IIIb" is the same as Hotu III. The general character is robust individuals with a prominent chin, robust zygomatic bones, heavy brow, and prominent nose. Carleton Coon said that the Hotu individuals all appeared Cro-Magnon-like.
 
Converter:https://github.com/teepean/SRA_FASTQ-to-BAM-Kit(But I am using an older version from 2015 because I had problemswith the new one)

The converter can be used by using the windows console, I don't know how it is called in English, in German it is called “Eingabeaufforderung” You have to do following:

1. D:
2. cd D:\SRA_FASTQ to BAMKit
3.fq2bam ERR1937833_2.fastq

And it starts. Depending on the file size it can take from many hours to days, even a week.
If a file is named “blabla.fastq.gz” you have to delete the “.gz” like this: “blabla.fastq” to make it work.
There are often bam files on ENA, but sometimes they are damaged and you have to convert fastq to bam by yourself, or sadly whole upload bam and fastq are damaged and cannot be used.

Egyptian DNA files:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB15464

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB20294

the app is incomplete, ... this is how I made it work:
in the main directory (the fq2bam.bat location) add a new folder named dev, ... Open It and Add a new folder and name it shm

you need to download a human reference genome (as an alternative I copied and pasted hs37d5.fa.gz from the WGSExtract-Betav2b app)
... move it in the bin folder,
... rename the genome to ref.fa
... open command prompt CMD and navigate to the bin folder (or go in to the bin folder, click to highlight the address bar at the top, type CMD and then press Enter)

... in the command prompt console type: bwa index -a bwtsw ref.fa and press Enter

that should have created 5 new files (ref.fa.sa, ref.fa.amb, ref.fa.ann, ref.fa.pac, ref.fa.bwt)
... now Move the new 5 files ​and ref.fa in to the main directory (the fq2bam.bat location).

8l68vmn.gif

End of my fix :)

test:
open command prompt, type: fq2bam yoursample.fastq

The newly created .bam needs to be sorted / indexed (I did it with the latest WGSExtract-Betav3).
 
test: … results of CL23 fastq file processed with the fix above:

Dodecad Globe 13:
CL23_Dod_Globe13,0.84,0.72,2.10,0.00,9.74,0.00,37.23,0.51,0.14,14.08,33.21,0.74,0.70

GedM... CL23 # AV8002260

MwZUQl1.jpg



Kx657tX.jpg
 
Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the structuring of the modern human population in the three main groups, in the awake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite the poor climatic conditions for recovery of ancient DNA human evidence in Arabia, the availability of genomic data from neighbouring ancient specimens and of informative statistical tools allow better modelling the ancestry of these populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in 291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking west Arabia with Levant, and east Arabia with Iran and Caucasus. East Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for possible bias due to recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, east Arabians were also the ones with higher similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were so far the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans that diverged from the common European-East Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, and before the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results are strong evidence to include the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf as possible home of basal Eurasians, to be investigated further on namely by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.24.432678v1

Jovialis:

While this is not the paper in the biorxiv pre-print, it is I think somewhat related:

Almarri et al 2021 "The genomic history of the Middle East". One of the key highlights from the paper finds that Basal Eurasian and African (recent) ancestry in Arabians deplete their Neanderthal ancestry. Some of the interesting findings are a clustering of Levant and Iraqi Arabs together, Iraqi-Kurds cluster with Central Iranians and Arabian populations cluster together. The modern Arabian populations are closer to the ancient Levant populations (Natufian and Levant Neolithic) while modern Levantine populations are closer to Bronze Age Europeans.


https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/...m/retrieve/pii/S0092867421008394?showall=true

If you, Angela, and other moderators think this paper deserves its own thread, please feel free to do so.

Best Regards, PT
 
Jovialis:

While this is not the paper in the biorxiv pre-print, it is I think somewhat related:

Almarri et al 2021 "The genomic history of the Middle East". One of the key highlights from the paper finds that Basal Eurasian and African (recent) ancestry in Arabians deplete their Neanderthal ancestry. Some of the interesting findings are a clustering of Levant and Iraqi Arabs together, Iraqi-Kurds cluster with Central Iranians and Arabian populations cluster together. The modern Arabian populations are closer to the ancient Levant populations (Natufian and Levant Neolithic) while modern Levantine populations are closer to Bronze Age Europeans.


https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/...m/retrieve/pii/S0092867421008394?showall=true

If you, Angela, and other moderators think this paper deserves its own thread, please feel free to do so.

Best Regards, PT



Hi Palermo, I haven't seen that you've already linked this genetic study. Thus I posted the same study on another thread.
 
Hi Palermo, I haven't seen that you've already linked this genetic study. Thus I posted the same study on another thread.

How are you Real Expert. Sorry about that, If I posted it after you had started a thread on it, my apologies. I looked and did not see one so I may have just missed it.

Anyway, interesting paper.

Regards, PT
 
How are you Real Expert. Sorry about that, If I posted it after you had started a thread on it, my apologies. I looked and did not see one so I may have just missed it.

Anyway, interesting paper.

Regards, PT

Never mind! Indeed the paper is interesting. When it comes to history, culture and genetics the Middle East is a very interesting place.
 
the app is incomplete, ... this is how I made it work:

Thanks! I will try it later.

Natufian anatomical trait comparison based on SNPs to modern populations:

It has to be noted, that many modern populations are not available because there is no free access sample to be found, or the available samples are of poor quality, not enough SNPs. Native Americans, East Asians and Oceanians not included (I don't think that it would make sense)

Middle East 75%
Swede 70%
Estonian 67% European 67% Ashkenazi Jewish 67% Northern South Asian 67%
Netherlands 65% United Kingdom 65%
Danish 61% Pygmy 61% African 61%
Basque 51%
Bedouin 50%
Sardinian 48%
Orcadian 46%
Adygei 45% Palestine 45%
French 44% Russian 44%
Italian 43%
Hungarian 39%
Turkish 36%
Ukrainian 21.4 %

Natufians seemed clearly to have looked like today's Middle Easterns, but with LGM/SHG. Its interesting because there where very early neolithic individuals in southern Greece which also had features of SHG.

The nose feature (More upturned nose tip) that was discussed here can also be found in West European HG, Aurignacian, Denisova, EHG, Magdalenian, Neanderthal, Sunghir, Zlaty Kun. Having an upturned nose tip (T) seems to be the older feature, while the G allele (Down turned nose tip) seems to be the newer one.
That's not the same feature as having an upturned nose bridge. Someone can have a hooked nose bridge, but an upturned nose tip. But the SNP for nose bridge is not available for current Natufian samples.

Natufian anatomical trait comparison based on SNPs to ancient populations (No BA and IA)

Iberomaurusian 66%
Ertebolle 65%
Balkan Neolithic 64% LBK Alföld 64% Maglemose 64%
Iron Gates HG 63% Western Europe Mesolithic 63%
Greek Neolithic 58% Malawi Mesolithic 58%
Italy Mesolithic 57%
Anatolia HG 56% Cucuteni 56%
Anatolia Neolithic 55 % EHG 55% Kostenki 55% Ust Ishim 55%
Fertile Crescent Neolithic 53%
Magdalenian 50%
Sunghir 49% Trans Baikal Mesolithic 49% Zlaty Kun 49%
Aurignacian 48% Baltic HG 48% Cheddar Man 48% Neanderthal 48%
Villabruna 45%
FBC/TRB Sweden 43% Gravettian 43%
Denisova 42%
GB Neolithic 38% Mal Ta Buret 38%
CHG 36% Devils Gate Neolithic 36%

And here we have the SHG affinity again, seems that they shared a common ancestral population or a general trend of features which contributed to survival in LGM. Or they where just a mixed population of European LGM survivors and Ancient North Africans.
 
Given that some of them were e-z830 the grandfather clade of e-m123 :cool-v:
and when i look in the mirror
I see med+ berid features
Most likely the natuffians were mainly
Proto-east med type morphologically speaking
With some berid north african influence
:unsure:
 
Last edited:
A user on AG is assuming that BE isn't real but rather a fstats artifact.

He wrote this:

He points out that at first glance these stats may seem to support the idea that the Natufians lack any affinity to Sub-saharan populations. But that African admixed populations give very strange Z-scores in simple 4 pop fstat tests due to a weird quirk wherein an aversion to African populations occurs that essentially causes the tested population to prefer Eurasians strongly. This effect is particularly strong on heavily admixed East Africans.


Knowing about that quirk led me to try out some of the East African samples using the same 4 pop test to verify if these results can be taken seriously.

Looking at the results for the East Africans we see a similar lack of affinity to a SSA population. If we were to operate on the same assumptions that lead to the statement that the Natufians lacked any SSA affinity we would then have to say that these populations also lack SSA affinity, which is clearly nonsensical and is likely a result of the strange aversion to African populations I noticed earlier.


Without this lack of affinity to SSA populations is there actually any reason for us to assume the existence of some unsampled "Basal Eurasian" admixture in Ancient Near Easterners when admixture from a North and/or Northeast African population could account for the disparity in Neanderthal admixture in a more parsimonious manner.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24760-Is-Basal-Eurasian-real-or-an-fstats-artifact
 
Afro-centrists from Egyptsearch are taking this assumption now as a reason to push the idea that Basal Eurasians were Africans and not Eurasians. They do so in order to save their Ancient Egyptians were black agenda. They also argue for EEFs and Natufians being part of the African genetic substructure due to their Basal Eurasian ancestry. However, these hypocrites attacked anyone who made the distinction between "ANA" and "SSA" and insisted on that African is African. I know for a fact, that Afro-centrists have allergic reactions when scientists or laymen differentiate between the various types of African ancestry.




OriginallyPosted by Mansamusa
That'snot how the English language works. Just because Europeans and others tend to be uncomfortable about the idea of African ancestry into Western Eurasia does not mean that we have to use convoluted terms like a "para OOA" group. Let's keep it simple. Basal Eurasian was the result of an African population migrating into Eurasia. Telling us that this population of Africans was closer to OOA, which occurred around 50 to 60,000 years ago, than to modern Africans means absolutely nothing.



Considering that the fundamental feature of BE was its lack of Neanderthal ancestry, this slow and painful process of recognizing its African origins is embarrassing. African ancestry is and has always been the only known ancestry associated with little or no Neanderthal ancestry. An African origin was always and continues to be the most obvious and parsimonious explanation of BE. What is parsimonious about inventing imaginary populations prancing around somewhere in the wide region of Iran and SA to explain BE?

It's not a matter of defending African honor. It's a mere matter of scientific accuracy and geography. If the question of the geographic origins of BE is so silly and unimportant, why do most papers related to BE go through such great pains to describe it as "non-African"?"Non-African" was part of the official definition of BE when it was first discovered. Moreover, are we gonna ignore or forget that before the slow flood of relevant data that we had prominent members of the amateur genetic community mocking the very idea of an African origin for BE?




OriginallyPosted by MichalisMoriopoulos
And even if all of the major splits in the pre-Crown Eurasian human tree happened in Africa, it would still be worth making distinctions between highly diverged groups within that set. Calling all these groups African without further qualification, while technically true, wouldn't serve us in making the genetic distinctions we need to make.You could say ANF, AASI, Tianyuan are all Asians and you'd be right, but you can see why that's genetically meaningless.

Noone has a problem with differentiating the various types of African ancestry. We welcome it. I don't know of anyone who has defended BE as African early on not doing their due diligence in describing exactly why this component was African and how it was differentiated from other forms of African ancestry. I just do not get this constant accusation that acknowledging BE as African somehow means not "making distinctions between highly diverged groups within that set." We are simply defending the basic concept of accuracy in language and meaning. It's not that deep.

OriginallyPosted by beyoku
You all are a beating around the Bush.

"Basal Eurasian" is likely North East Africa.
Basal Rich ancient populations from North West Africa into the Levant and over to Iran probably carry ancestry from a COMMON North African ancestor.
This common ancestor was hypothesized years ago. This common ancestor is reinforced with the Y-DNA of Taforalt and Natufian.
These Basal Rich populations then underwent admixture in their respective regions.

North African sub Structure exists, so stop looking for "Sub Saharan" admixture in Populations containing ancestry which was wholly derived and or differentiated in North Africa and carry North African uniparental makers.

A lot of the mystery will disappear when you understand that "Eurasians" are not Genetically and geographically synonymous:
Notice in nearly every global PCA, there is a Eurasian and African genetic cline, usually in the shape of a V.
African hunter gatherers generally form the base of the African cline.
As you go down this African genetic line.........before pivoting to the Eurasian generic cline....you run into geographically Eurasian populations onthe African side of the cline.

You can add this to the fact that many of these "Eurasian" genetic components diverged in Africa, prior to OOA. Similarly to how Tianyuan Man has Native American affinities 20 thousand years before the New world was even colonized.
Many here are working from a model of a genetic"singleton" 6000 kilometers across the most diverse continent in the world were humans have existed 5 to 20 times longer than any region on earth........only for the diversity to explode in a 1000km region after crossing the Sinai. Quit playing. lol

I know its witty and edgy to argue Haplogroup E and L3 are backmigrants, but evidence wise its pretty played out.
Some of these back migration theories have E and L3 coming back from Areas with extremely strong Neanderthal land Denisovan ancestry. It makes zero sense.


Is Basal Eurasian real or an fstats artifact? - Page 8 (anthrogenica.com)
 
Afro-centrists from Egyptsearch are taking this assumption now as a reason to push the idea that Basal Eurasians were Africans and not Eurasians. They do so in order to save their Ancient Egyptians were black agenda. They also argue for EEFs and Natufians being part of the African genetic substructure due to their Basal Eurasian ancestry. However, these hypocrites attacked anyone who made the distinction between "ANA" and "SSA" and insisted on that African is African. I know for a fact, that Afro-centrists have allergic reactions when scientists or laymen differentiate between the various types of African ancestry.
Is Basal Eurasian real or an fstats artifact? - Page 8 (anthrogenica.com)
Yeah, I thought I was the only one noticing an almost political, racism/oppression, Eurocentrism narrative, some of them were trying to not so lightly peddle. Some of these posters seem to be insinuating that when both academics and amateurs, refer to Basal Eurasians as “Basal Eurasians” lol, it represents some form of Western chauvinism, which is pure nonsense. Basal Eurasians are simply a hypothetical population; they were devised to explain a specific basal genetic affinity both modern and ancient West Eurasians have, relative to all other Eurasians. It’s not a purely geographic term, because such terminology is quite vague, and provides us nothing elucidating, genetically speaking. Are Neandersovans “African” now? What about all Eurasians? No one there is really calling them out on this ideological sewage, for fear of being banned it seems. These people really should be put under greater scrutiny by the moderators over there, this is just a form of idealogical coping, and semantics. No different than Nordicism and Mediterraneanism.
 
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.
 
Didn't the early proto Caucasian peoples come out of northeastern Africa, like Ethiopia and then Egypt, into the Middle East? I could see this being true. Interesting.
 
Black Nationalists/Hoteps are hostile to actual reality. Just read Anthrogenica.
 

This thread has been viewed 30739 times.

Back
Top