Stone Age North Africans had Sub-Saharan ancestry

>The other third of the Iberomaurusians' heritage comes from a previously unknown ancient population originating from Sub-Saharan Africa. The Sahara Desert is difficult to cross even today much less in ancient times, but somehow Stone Age people managed to make the trip.

>While the researchers are certain that some of the ancestors of the Iberomaurusians came from this region south of the Sahara, they could find no precise genetic match with modern populations, meaning it’s possible that their heritage came from a population that no longer exists.

>Bouzouggar suspects that the ancient African population that mixed into the Iberomaurusians could have been the Aterians, who were among the first to use the bow and arrow and to wear ornaments, indicative of advanced symbolic behaviors.

I don't come here much anymore but for a long time I advocated the belief of an Indigenous "black"/"supra-saharan" African population in what is now the Sahara and North Africa.

Of course I was laughed at despite the cave paintings, mitochondrial DNA and facial reconstructions but here.

Eat shit Mediterraneanists.

google.com/amp/s/www.seeker.com/amphtml/archaeology/dna-reveals-stone-age-north-africans-had-near-eastern-and-sub-saharan-ancestors

Attached: 060ecfdca8d1cb5de2c05dd427585762.jpg (336x450, 38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21082907/
biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/191569
kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/geography/people/academic/drake/Research/The-Sahara-Megalakes-Project/Lake-Megachad.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laal_language
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFAa7oxWpcNN-OdMMjBdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=2002168194
en.lisapoyakama.org/the-egyptian-dna-case-truth-and-lies/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Pictured below in OP is a reconstruction of kiffians

Pictured here is cave art of around the same era

Attached: eb11771ee5aa2b12262b8c6c37cb453e.jpg (351x549, 181K)

>More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago.

>Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa.

>The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans.

>Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21082907/

Congrats you feel vindicated?
They we're still around 2/3rds Natufian related though, so probably looked more like Obama and Beyonce instead of a Bantu or a Nilo-Saharan speaking person

Maybe they were kings all along

2/3 Natufian
1/3 SSA
And that was some 20.000 years ago.

According to another recent paper in late Neolithic Iberian groups moved to North Africa. I doubt much of this SSA ancestry remained in historical Berbers.

I never claimed purity but when assholes think they can claim some bullshit narrative about North Africa and Saharan populations it's annoying.

I have Zenaga ancestry from my grandfather and the way North Africans act towards those with "Sub-Saharan" features is so misconstrued and rooted in obsolete colonial "science".

This all should have been obvious, but the white inferiority complex fights these intrinsic concepts tooth and nail.

Also the reason why it does not show is because they used Yoruba and Mande people as their sole representatives of Sub-Saharan genetic diversity.

Now once they understand this new population they'll be able to compare it with other modern tribes. It'll be significant for sure; from the Draa down through the Mauritanian coast and probably with the Haratin of the old oasis and Fulani.

Regardless Aterians are more ancient than those migrants.

>the way North Africans act towards those with "Sub-Saharan" features is so misconstrued and rooted in obsolete colonial "science".

God forbid it's the other way around lol.

Sub-Saharans from North Africa were conquered by more advanced population from the Near-East (Proto-Natufians). It explains why Natufians didn't have Sub-Saharan ancestry.

Where do Natufians come from

Or you know, could've just diluted out the SSA ancestry through sexual selection or out breeding them like most Neolithic societies did when they encountered HG. Not everythings about genocide you know

European farmers became more HG over time, not less.

I'm not talking about genocide. It's very likely that some Natufian ancestors moved West and encountered SSA which explains why those Natufians who remained in the Near East didn't have Sub-Saharan admixture.

Think of it like Northern Europe
Indigenous population = SSA
1st migration 20,000 years ago 1/3rd SSA 2/3rds NatufianHG =Euro Neolithic farmers
2nd migration 4000 years ago Mostly Natufian = Steppenigg migrations where Northern Euro is 50% steppe nig, 35% farmer, and 15% HG.
Basically multiple migrations could've diluted SSA component

Okay, I guess I shouldn't use terms such as 'conquered' and 'more advanced'. Maybe this is not what happened. I'm not a white supremacist.

Meh I'm just being anal.
It could've been genocide I'm just trying to point out there's multiple ways to get the same result

We are really lacking when it comes to ancient DNA. For North Africa it seems to be

Paleolithic - 2/3 Natufian (or rather Natufian-like population) + 1/3 SSA
Neolithic - Iberian Farmer DNA + the rest

And there were of course later migrations. Historical Berbers were probably rather different than Paleolithic populations.

Well it is speculated that the Iberomaurusiens did not even speak an Afro-Asiatic language but that this was later introduced. The funny part about this article is that there has been evidence of North Africa becoming more "black" over time due to mixing with slave girls. So you could say the first NAfricans got bleached and then blacked themselves again.

biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/191569

>Early Neolithic Moroccans are distantly related to Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (~9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (~6,500 BCE). Although an expansion in Early Neolithic times is also plausible, the high divergence observed in Early Neolithic Moroccans suggests a long-term isolation and an early arrival in North Africa for this population. This scenario is consistent with early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities who adopted certain innovations from neighbouring populations. Late Neolithic (~3,000 BCE) Moroccans, in contrast, share an Iberian component, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the southern Iberian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ~5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian migration into the Maghreb.

So for me this scenario is the most plausible.

>the high divergence observed in Early Neolithic Moroccans suggests a long-term isolation and an early arrival in North Africa for this population.
Their ancestors arrived in the Paleolithic and mixed with the locals creating what we call Iberomaurusians. With time SSA genes diluted).
Then before 3000 BC another group from Iberia moved there.

>This scenario is consistent with early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities who adopted certain innovations from neighbouring populations
I haven't read the whole paper but maybe they mean Algeria which is consistent with my proposed East-West migration of Natufian ancestors.

>No hard, scientific evidence
>Just going off pure conjecture and guesstimates

Attached: WE.jpg (900x900, 62K)

When will Berbers accept their Iberian roots?

Attached: 44281189.jpg (720x540, 96K)

This migration probably introduced R1b-V88 to Africa

Modern Maghrebis have still about 13-14% of recent Yoruba like ancestry on top of that 7-8% from the Paleolithic. So it's both.

Eurogenes shows a total SSA admixture of 12% on Algerians and Moroccans.

They lived around Mega-Chad, which allowed easy migration from the north into the south. When the lakes dried up, their refugium became Sub-Saharan Africa.

Probably not. They must have entered Africa around the time that Mega-Chad was drying up or after because there's no evidence of Balkan farmers in Africa before that.
We have enough mesolithic V88 from Balkans, Latvia and Ukraine to be confident about it's origin in Europe.

I never said it's origin was in Africa, I said they lived around Mega Chad. The lake dried up from the North, capturing everybody that lived to the south. They entered around 6000-5000 BC

> The oldest archaeological sites found in the vicinity of Lake Chad are thought to have been first occupied soon after the desiccation of Lake Megachad and date to about 4,000 BP.

> These settlement sites are found at an altitude of 298m along the margin of a once larger Lake Chad (Breunig et al, 1996) suggesting the retreat of Lake Megachad from the 305m shoreline before 4,000 BP (Figure 2.7). As the lake level continued to fall it became divided into three separate water bodies with Lake Chad and Lake Fitri in the southern basin and another lake in the Bodele depression to the north (Figure 2.7). Lake Chad initially had a shoreline altitude of 289±1.4 m and an area of 22,000 km2 controlled by a sill with overflow to the north along the Bahr el Ghazal, which fed into the Bodele Depression.

> kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/geography/people/academic/drake/Research/The-Sahara-Megalakes-Project/Lake-Megachad.aspx


Explains how the R1b became trapped in Sub-Saharan Africa.

You wish it, Rachid.

Attached: blankmapeuropegjpclfv1a0.png (2100x1525, 241K)

Laal language seems related to V88 originally and Chadic only later
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laal_language

>Uses the older K8 from Eurogenes to prove a point.

Take a look yourself at the more recent K7 admixture instead.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFAa7oxWpcNN-OdMMjBdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=2002168194

Algerians are 11.45% SSA.

Capsians apparently also had slight Subsaharan admixture;

You do understand that the component they found is not the one found among modern sub-saharans or even Berbers? Its 20,000 years old for fucks sake.

Algerians and Moroccans have about 1/4 of it. Pretty remarkable continuity.

Fuck off bantu boy, Natufians did not have SSA because Natufians spread from Levant to north Africa, not from Morocco to Levant like OP likes to claim.

No its not. Just fucking stop. Natufians are not some stone age mutts from Morocco, get over it.

All those memes about sicilians, and they probably have less ssa admixture than most white anglo americans. I've even seen maghrebians being racist about sicilians despite their significant ssa admixture.

The i r o n y.

Proof?

>Though the scientists found clear markers linking the heritage in question to sub-Saharan Africa, no previously identified population has the precise combination of genetic markers that the Taforalt individuals had.

I really doubt if that signal was found among modern algerians and moroccans it would not show simple SSA at higher ks. A 20,000 yeard old iaolate component would just jump at you from the data. Yet, their african admixture is more modern like.

I literally said they spread from the Near East to North Africa.

The paper
There are many ways to investigate this and no, not all SSA admixture in NA is from them.

The paper says nothing about Algerians or Moroccans, other than that the Tarofalt had even more SSA.

F3 outgroup stats

So far there is no proof that any of it is.

Provide a quote or a table, it's so annoying to argue with "look this up, google it" kind of people.

North African here
Who are you and why are you so obsessed with this shit? Honestly fuck your dumb western identity politics

Attached: 1454719253381.png (587x571, 227K)

>looking for Natufian art
>two people fucking
Of course. Dumb fucking apes. And people jerk off to those ancient savages.

Attached: Lovers_9000BC_british_museum.jpg (974x1468, 531K)

Lmao you are that faggot who claimed to speak Berber but when you were confronted by actual North Africans you pussied out.

Bet you also make the Mali threads you insecure mulatto.

He does

Better than the pointed stones everyone else was making.

The new paper isn't open access but we know now that IAM=Iberomaurusian.
>>Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe
>At K=2, the ADMIXTURE analysis separates sub-Saharan African (red component) from Eurasian (green) populations, including North Africa. All aDNA samples possess mostly the green component, with IAM showing a higher red component, similar to Mozabites.
Algerians do have a relatively low distance to IAM in Fst(133) although not quite as low as Moroccans(117) so that means they have a stronger relationship to Anatolia_N but still have a relationship to Iberomaurusians. Maybe it has something to with the European slave trade over there.

Attached: f3iam.jpg (1110x539, 116K)

Yes but K=2 is way to low of a resolution to make any statements about the source of the ancestry. The modern SSA component in North Africa can inflate the negative scores for anatolia because anatolia didnt have any kind of SSA. It should be very easy to break the modern Algerian and Moroccan SSA into the outlier that split 20,000 years ago and the modern Yoruba-like.

It's also possible that they get elevated stats because they are local, and have the local ancestry that separated from the Natufians to travel to Morocco.

I simply will not believe it until I see breakdowns of modern North Africans saying how much of that component is that ancient outlier and how much is modern.

The guy is a mulatto/black American who LARPs as various African ethnicities and posts half a dozen of threads on the noble African kingdoms south of the Sahara. He has been called out numerous times on his bullshit and I believe he is a bit of a nutcase. Also he claims to speak Berber, yet never interacts with actual North Africans to back up his claim.

Man you have no idea about the number of blacks/arabs living the west that have some fucked up identity crisis and develop completely insane and fantastical narratives about their perceived ancestors
Its actually really interesting from a psychological/sociological point of view and should be studied more. I'd even say it warrants a book being written on the subject

Attached: 1449118837141.png (960x720, 474K)

The best thing about this study is that it was made by Johannes Krause. Now KANGZ have to either dismiss this as white supremacist propaganda or accept the Ancient Egyptian mummy study that proved Egyptians didnt have sub-Saharan ancestry.

So which is it, we wuz Iberomarusians or WE WUZ KANGZZZZZZZ?

Attached: ncomms15694-f4.jpg (926x821, 155K)

The ancient Egyptian study has been debunked. It didn't test actual Egyptians. It looked for a certain result.

en.lisapoyakama.org/the-egyptian-dna-case-truth-and-lies/

>they could find no precise genetic match with modern populations, meaning it’s possible that their heritage came from a population that no longer exists.
>possible

>Bouzouggar suspects that the ancient African population that mixed into the Iberomaurusians
>suspects

Cased closed guys, basically anyone who has even seen North Africa on a map is now blacker than the night.

Holy fuck why are you so triggered about some ancient human remains being part black?

>that link
WE

Why do you still link to that dogshit site as if it has any credibility whatsoever at this point?

WE
WUZ
BERBERS N SHIET

Attached: image.jpg (477x480, 67K)

I remember the title being different

>muh ancestry
...It's the Thing

Facts are, the Hyksos graves were very similar to those found in Israel and are not Egyptian. Do you think archeologists cant tell a Hyksos burial from an Egyptian? Just we wuzz somewhere else okay, egyptsearch is a good place for that for example.

Pic related is one of the tested mummies. I urge you to find anything like this from the Levant.

Attached: abusir mummy.png (1161x720, 970K)

I dont, Africa always been like that. That's why everyone else packed their bags and got the fuck outta Africa to populate rest of the world.

I'm triggered by shit like maybe, possibly, could be shit needs to get fags excited that about ancients hypothetically being .0000001% black from their pre-Neolithic ancestors.
Because that's a lot of what academia has turned into. WEWUZ sensationalism.

No you're triggered because you're an irrational asshole who cant even type out a coherent sentence.
Facts are facts, paleolithic Northern Africans were part black, suck a dick

So they looked like Aaliyah Hadid? Or some type of Fulani/Tuareg?

>this nigger
You do realize that even if Northern Africans did have sub-saharan ancestry it wouldn't be in your favor right?
The fact that some white American inventor was 1/16th negro is not a "point" for you.
Northern Africans surpassed SSA due to their non-negro admixture.
Bragging about the POSSIBILITY of some lost North African Heritage, or rather than you might share an ancestor with a North African is like bragging about all the Mulattos in South Africa or some in the Congo then going WE WUZ DUTCH WE WUZ BELGIYM

They had genes from a population that separated from sub-Saharans around 20,000 years ago. By the same logic, Native Americans had white ancestors since they are part Ancient North Eurasian like Europeans. Except European and Native American ANE split was probably around the same time or even more recent than SSA and Iberomarusian. But I guess you will claim anything at this point as yours.

The split with Africans is too far in prehistory, there is no way to tell what they looked like just by looking at modern populations.

No it's actually just as retarded as modern Euros going WE WUZ INDO EUROPEAN, WE WUZ ARYAN, considering all Euros are racemixed mutts anyways.
Stop being so fucking triggered by science and fuck off to

I always knew Emeagwali had to be white

Attached: 47FE94A1-55F7-4B4B-BC9F-E9BD3BD35036.jpg (220x293, 26K)

>Facts are, the Hyksos graves were very similar to those found in Israel

Again, proof da Egiptians were Black brothers since the real Israelites are Black people!

Attached: BHI.1.jpg (750x368, 59K)

Same for his wife.

Bump

somalis are ancient meds

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 15K)