Talk:Natufian culture

Physical Characteristics?

The article mysteriously leaves out one subject: the people themselves.

What was their physical type -- height, skull shape, etc. -- and has DNA testing been carried out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.148.247 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be because they are anatomically modern humans? What are you, a phrenologist? Also, note: elsewhere in the article it describes the genetic testing done (see subsection "Archaeogenetics") Grant (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why /nəˌtjuːfiən/ and not /nəˌtuːfiən/? The word is derived from the Arabic /naˌtuːf/, isn't it? --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Map legend

An english version would be nice, not many Wikipedians read Hebrew. :)Viciouspiggy (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Advanced"

What exactly does "there does not seem to have been any similarly advanced culture at the time in the whole Near East." mean? They were economically similar to everyone around them, so the only possible way in which they could be "advanced" is by being semi-sedentary, which the article has made abundantly clear. Unless somebody has a solid objection, that line's deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Grant the Small (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anatolian Obsidian versus Ethiopian Obsidian

It strikes me odd that obsidian is Anatolian and not Ethiopian, i.e., originating from the Nile Valley just as the fish.  In light of that oddness, consider the following excerpt:

Abstract

Extrusion ages of archaeological obsidian, especially as determined by the 40Ar/39Ar method, can provide reliable maximum ages for tool manufacture. In at least one case in the Middle Awash of Ethiopia, freshly extruded obsidian was used for tool making, resulting in useful maximum ages for site occupation. Hydration resulting in mobility of K and/or Ar in glass, and recoil artifacts produced by neutron irradiation, fatally affect most glass shards from volcanic ashes. The much lower surface area to volume ratio of most archaeological obsidian, however, indicates that the affected areas can be manually removed prior to analysis and the recoil and hydration problems can be easily overcome. A more important issue in dating obsidian is that of possible mass-dependent kinetic isotope fractionation during or subsequent to quenching of volcanic glasses. This is evidenced in some cases by sub-atmospheric initial 40Ar/36Ar ratios, and more generally in sub-atmospheric 38Ar/36Ar. Resulting bias can be avoided through the use of isochron ages, which do not entail the assumption of an initial value of 40Ar/36Ar as is required for plateau ages. Since step heating of glasses often yields limited variability in 40Ar:39Ar:36Ar (and therefore little spread on isochrons), another approach is to use an average value for initial 40Ar/36Ar, with concomitantly larger uncertainty than is associated with atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar, when calculating a plateau age. The 38Ar/36Ar of an un-irradiated subset of our samples validates the inference of kinetic fractionation, and potentially provides a basis for determining initial 40Ar/36Ar in samples that fail to yield isochrons, but only in samples lacking magmatic excess 40Ar. These approaches allow us to reliably apply the 40Ar/39Ar method to volcanic glasses, which has resulted in maximum ages for archaeological sites that are not amenable to traditional geochronological methods. 40Ar/39Ar geochronology can also provide information on the geological provenance of the raw material used for tool making, especially when combined with geochemical data.

Keywords: Obsidian; 40Ar/39Ar geochronology; Provenance; Ethiopia; Mass fractionation; Atmospheric argon

Source:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B83WJ-4VH4DRT-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1753410370&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6d4c112e40c4e5ab57f1d3b3c4765db8&searchtype=a

24.96.19.202 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, By Paul T. Nicholson, Ian Shaw - Obsidian found in Egypt not Anatolian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vj7A9jJrZP0C&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=ethiopian+obsidian+%2B+israel&source=bl&ots=zsY1piAKGx&sig=dtMD4gx7fVGDyWr57axqaP9aqlQ&hl=en&ei=qhTRTeP_L8nogAeV9titDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ethiopian%20obsidian%20%2B%20israel&f=false

24.96.19.202 (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GEOCHEMICAL PROVENACE OF OBSIDIAN ARTEFACTS FROM THE MSA SITE OF PORC EPIC ETHIOPIA -

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tcQHvUofz0cJ:faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeology/Publications/Neolithic/GEOCHEMICAL%2520PROVENANCE%2520OF%2520OBSIDIAN%2520ARTEFACTS%2520FROM%2520THE%2520MSA%2520SITE%2520OF%2520PORC%2520EPIC,%2520ETHIOPIA.pdf+ethiopian+obsidian&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh_o_7JUHqsNS8ljv2aAQLuXSZmcAyUDSsA6HQzCrTxLUiTNUyZ0jq7zSW3lhtsCsbD0CBDi1FmsFMx2-q4XpIPjZANo6q4bYafwUaVWzd0R7jGYshply1wLgfRP_ktkGSBcs3Z&sig=AHIEtbRrJo7A6zyzv_dqQnl3zhpwvBGxSA&pli=1

24.96.19.202 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Epipaleolithic not Mesolithic

While the Mesolithic period label is theoretically correct in terms of date, the Natufian culture as it is exclusively found in the Levant is more correctly labelled Epipaleolithic - worth correcting for accuracy as Mesolithic is usually reserved for Europe. Zikaron (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates?

There seems to be a contradiction between the dates given in the opening and the Dating section? The opening states that Natufian culture existed 'from 13,000 to 9,800 years ago', but the section that follows says 'from 12,500 to 9,500 BC' - which, by my reckoning, is about 14,500 to 11,500 years ago. This looks like it needs fixing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.151.49 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Research -- possibly useful if found in secondary sources

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820090905.htm -- "The Natufian culture, which flourished 15,000 years ago, is well known for its complex burial customs. A new study has discovered that these ceremonies included the use of giant boulder mortars whose pounding sound informed the community that a ceremony was being held." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice recent finding

Settles the Natufian issue once and for all:

"Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6). However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)."

So not SSA linked at all, like I expected.

So not Negroid at all as well:

«This view is be considered also in the case of the pro-Neolithic Natufian skull from the Levant. Aninu and Zalavar are the reasonable affiliations, which might be read as "generalized European."»

Howells

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5482178/1/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.252.28 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentrism And Outdated Sources

"Overall, these late Natufian specimens are Mediterranean in physical type, but possibly also have a minor Negroid element.[34] SOURCE: Coon, Carleton (1939). The Races of Europe (PDF). The Macmillan Company. pp. 61–62. Retrieved 12 July 2016."

Carleton Coon, The Races Of Europe from 1939. Doesn't anyone think that these sources are too old? Then, there is the displacement of haplogroup E and Afro-Asoatic outside of Africa. The fact is that most Afro-Asiatic languages cluster in East Africa (South-, East and Central Cushitic, Omotic, Beja), with excursions into Norhteast Africa (Ancient Egyptian), Northwest Africa (Berber) and West Africa (Hausa). Most AA languages therefore cluster and originate in East Africa. At the same time, that is also where there is the greatest diversity in E haplogroups, including the E1b1b of the Natufians. There should be no dispute nowadays that the E haplogroup is a Black African haplogroup. E1b1a is the haplogroup associated with the Bantu Expansion from West Africa 3000 years ago, yet it too comes from East Africa. MrSativa (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's gone. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

I will say the same thing I said in the main article of E1b1b, regarding some assertions made on the genetics section: Sub-Saharan Africa/ns it's a geographical term. Not an ethniticy term. Hence, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and the like are all "Sub-Saharan". So, it's better to specify with which africans they have no affinity. I deleted the "accused" part. Someone need to change the terminology, it's misleading. Thx for your time. Kleistinos (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I re-deleted the part I deleted on the 23 of march 2019. The funny thing is that the part where it states that there is no affinity with "sub-saharan africans" is inconsistent with what written 5-6 lines below. "Ancient DNA analysis has confirmed ancestral ties between the Natufian culture bearers and the makers of... the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic culture of East Africa ...". Kleistinos (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kleistinos: It might mean that the Natufians or Natufian-like peoples are thought to have contributed to some percent of the genetics of the Savanna pastoral complex (in the Horn of Africa region during the neolithic which is believed to have received migration from the Middle East around that time)

However A recent study (by Lazaridis et al. 2018) Found that the Natufians carried admixture from the Iberomaurusians of North Africa (who themselves had an approximately even mixture of Western Eurasian ancestry derived from the Caucasus and Near East and ancestry from a now-extinct and divergent African population indigenous to North Africa that predated the Eurasian back-migration there (termed "ANA" or "Ancestral North African"). (According to Lazaridis et al., the North African Iberomaurusians contributed ancestry to the Natufians rather than the other way around as had been suggested by Loosdrecht et al.) So the Natufians probably did have a kind of (partial) indigenous African ancestry. The authors suggest that Y-dna E haplogroups may have been brought to the Near East (to the ancestors of the Natufians) from North Africa by Iberomaurusian peoples. I added this to the article, but apparently the study has not yet been peer reviewed, so it was deleted. (Perhaps whenever it gets peer-reviewed It can be added again.).

See: "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry" by Lazaridis et al.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf

—Skllagyook (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems you make up stuff. The whole study does not mention “Ancestral North Africans” nor does it mention a connection to sub-saharan africans. North Africans have their own genome distinct from sub-saharan africans (here mentioned as west african). Again “Ancestral North Africans” are not mentioned a single time nor a “diverging African population indigenous to North Africa” If this studt ever gets peer-reviewed, you must not include such wrong statements. Please keep to the study results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BC9:811:D968:70B1:7A03:5F1B:C4CE (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@2001:4BC9:811:D968:70B1:7A03:5F1B:C4CE: Nothing is being made up. The study (Lazaridis et al 2018) models the Iberomaurusians of Taforalt (who it proposes contributed dna to the Natufians) as a mixture of West Eurasians originating from West Asia and the Caucasus (55%) and a local/native North African population the paper calls "Ancestral North African"/ANA (45%) in the tree graph (in figure 2 of the study) which is also referred to as a "local North African component" (see excerpt below). In Figure 2 (after the main text) of the paper there is a tree graph showing population divergences and admixture proportions (for various groups discussed in the study, including "Ancestral North African"). The ANA/"Ancestral North African" population is not the same as modern North Africans (modern North Africans are mostly descended from several later waves of Eurasian back-migration into North Africa that occurred later from around the beginning of the Iberomaurusian era/late paleolithic as well as others afterward). (ANA is very different from modern North Africans, though modern North Africans apparently retain a small amount of ANA ancestry.). Ancestral North African/ANA is (or was) a population distinct both from Eurasians/non-Africans and from modern Sub-Saharan Africans. The Ancestral North African/ANA population is shown (see figure 2) to have diverged soon after the East African hunter gatherer population represented by the Mota specimen in Ethiopia (Mota) and before the divergence of the population known as "Basal Eurasian"/BE (Basal Eurasian is a, now extinct, population believed to have diverged in the Middle East soon after the migration of ancestral Eurasians out of Africa, and which is more divergent than any other non-African/Eurasian population). The ANA population would likely have diverged somewhere in North Africa soon/not long before the Out-of-Africa migration of the ancestors of modern Eurasians. Though the ANA population is apparently extinct except as an admixture component in other groups (like Basal Eurasian is), modern North Africans retain a small fraction of ANA ancestry through their partial Iberomaurusian ancestry (It was found, by Loosdrecht et al. 2018, that modern North Africans inherit a minority percent of their ancestry from the Iberomaurusians, as well as significant ancestry from later Eurasian migrations into North Africa.).

Here is a quote from the study (Lazaridis et al. 2018):

"Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa." "An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf

—Skllagyook (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Natufians are Bantu population not Nilotic Arica Thomas (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sub-Saharan Africa/ns it's a geographical term. Not an ethniticy term. Hence, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and the like are all "Sub-Saharan", wrong, the horn of Africa is not 'Sub-Saharan', ie, 'below the Sahara desert' anymore than Yemen is. It juts out to the East and most the Horn of Africa is below Yemen and Arabia, not the Sahara desert. Maybe Eritrea is a little below the Sahara but that is really just nitpicking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.82.125 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Natufians are Bantu population not Nilotic," See this article honestly skews towards Afro-Revisionism to a frightful degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.82.125 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian

Do modern Palestinians come from Natufians is it worth contacting a geneticist to make a study on this topic? It’s not far fetched I’ve seen many studies focus on one individual and their relation to ancient individuals Gengu&38378392 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

add Jordan to map caption

On the map provided Wadi Uweinid and Beidha are in Jordan, but Jordan is not included in the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAddison (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates, again

The article seems to be marred by conflicting dates. Its lede states "15,000 to 11,500", but then later it talks about "early Natufian (12,000-10,800)" and "Late Natufian (10,800-9,500)". That is a significant 2,000 years difference which makes them barely overlap. This is extremely confusing to readers. It seems sources do report conflicting dates, largely because of differences between carbon dating and archaeological dating. Radiocarbon dating, used since the 1950s, tends to systematically underestimate the date of objects in the Middle East by about 1,000 to 1,500 years, so archaeologists have turned to "calibrating" dates for their sites, even if individual artifacts are dated differently in labs. According to the table in Nesbit (2001), the Natufian period lasts 10,800-8,500 BCE (in uncalibrated radiocarbon dating) but adjusts it to 13,400-10,600 BCE (in calibrated calendar years). This seems to explain much of the difference between the lede dates and the later content dates. I have seen it commented that calibrations are not always very reliable before 6,000 BCE, so there is bound to be conflict even there. Could someone more knowledgeable on this topic improve the dating, and explain this difference in dates better? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. Just noticed the 15-11.5k dates in lede were before present rather than BCE. Still, it would be nice to get it a little more consistent dates. Walrasiad (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: Yeah we should stick to BP or BCE throughout, it's confusing otherwise. My preference would be for BP, since it's what's usually used in literature on the Epipalaeolithic. I think the current dates for the Natufian are around 14,600 to 11,700 BP (see [1][2]), but since that's liable to change every few years as new samples are dated, most specialists wouldn't fuss about rounding to the nearest millennia either way. Radiocarbon calibration is accurate as far back as 50,000 BP nowadays :) – Joe (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not add admixture results of ancient people that use modern mixed proxies.

---->"Re adding Shriner(which recent ip edits completely removed even the brief mention of w/o explanation).It seems relevant to mention that the study found evidence of an East African contribution rather than merely that the Natufians showed some affinity to Omotic peoples(which doesn't explain why they did so)"

Omotic people have literally Natufian related ancestry and not the other way around. They did have 12% African admix in Natufians but the paper he mentioned has nothing to do with the proof and can be very misleading since Omotic people are mixed. The same author who made the mistake of estimating Natufians as being 50% Basal Eurasian and 0% African corrected it in a later paper that showed 12% African admix in Natufians but the "problem" is that the paper is not peer reviewed yet. When you cite a peer reviewed paper by an author that is debunked later by the same author, even if not peer reviewed it should NOT be removed. Does wikipedia not have a rule about this? If not then it makes no sense. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the latter part of your post. The Shriner study is peer-reviewed. Did Shriner write another paper debunking or contradicting his earlier estimate of minor African admixture in Natufians? (Or are you referring to another author and another study?) Whatever our personal opinions of the material, I see no reason to exclude a source that is peer-reviewed and legitimately published. It is what the reliable sources (WP:RS) say that matter per Wikipedia policy not our personal opinions or analyses. Skllagyook (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to Lazaridis writing another paper debunking his previous estimates. Also Omotic people have around 40-50% Natufian related admix which is a fact and not my personal opinion.

The Natufian wikipedia claims "Natufians carried a small amount of Eastern African ancestry (~6.8%) associated with the modern Omotic-speaking groups of southern Ethiopia". The average reader is going to be mislead by thinking this means actual ancestry from Omotic like people when in reality Omotic people just have a lot of admix from Natufian related people, Natufians got 12% admix African admix in a time that the Omotic genetic profile hasn't even formed yet.

There is a difference between using proxies to check the shifts and using proxies to estimate actual ancestry from specific populations. That paper uses modern mixed people as proxies to estimate the shifts of Mesolithic people compared to modern people, kinda like a PCA. Modern people are only used as proxies when we lack ancient samples and those modern people are relatively unmixed or to simply check the shifts because why not. You shouldn't write it on wiki like that means literal ancestry because the average reader that is clueless about population genetics is going to be mislead Itisme3248 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Lazaridis' later study did find evidence of African admixture in Natufians from a hitherto unknown and now-extinct population indigenous to north Africa (the ANA/Ancestral North Africans) who were distinct both from modern sub-Saharan Africans and from Eurasians/modern North Africans. But that study is not peer-reviewed. Regarding Omotic-people, are you sure it was Omotic-speaking people specifically that were estimated as 40-50% Natufian (source?) and not Ethiopians of one of the more common Semitic or Cushitic ethnic groups (like the Amhara or Oromo) who are more commonly estimated as being around 40-50% west Eurasian. Omotic peoples (such as the Aari or Hamar people) are generally significantly less Eurasian-admixed than other Ethiopians (though they do have some admixture). Anyway, though I understand your concerns. deciding to exclude a study because of another one says could be interpreted as casting doubt on it seems possibly a bit WP:OR. Shriner is nonetheless a reliable source or Wikipedia policy, (though it likely would have been preferable if Shriner had used an unadmixed or less admixed Horn of Africa group - like Mota perhaps, or a Mesolithic one had one been available). And you will notice that the Shriner section already states that the study used modern populations as references, which I think does help in avoiding being misleading. Skllagyook (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Itisme3248: You should not hastily consider the lastest research the most correct one that automatically "debunks" earlier research (regardless of whether the former is a preprint of peer-reviewed article). Things are not that easy. In the case of Laziridis et al.'s modeling of Taforalt and Naturfian genomes, we luckily have a secondary peer-reviewed source that elevates the preprint to citeable status. But: the secondary source (a 2022 book chapter "Paleogenomics of the Neolithic Transition in North Africa" by R. Fregel) does not state that the Laziridis model is the final word on the matter. Here's a relevant excerpt from p.221: "When Taforalt people were compared to previously published ancient and modern DNA data, Upper Paleolithic North Africans can be modeled as a mixture of Natufians [...] and West Africans, without the contribution of Paleolithic Europe (van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018). [...] However, a preprint from Lazaridis et al. (2018) has contested this conclusion [...] Taforalt can be better modeled as a mixture of a Dzudzuana component and a sub-Saharan African component. They also argue that it is the Taforalt people who contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians and not the other way around. The author summarizes: "More evidence will be needed to determine the specific origin of the North African Upper Paleolithic populations...". This is actually the perfect template for us how to present the latest research about the genetic connections between these to ancient populations without giving undue weight to a particular view. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Interesting. Thank you for your comment and link. Since Lazaridis 2018 is now citeable. Would you agree that (as it would seem to me) it would no be appropriate to add mention of it to this and other relevant articles, e.g. Iberomaurusians, (in a WP:DUE manner of course)? Skllagyook (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Since its "citeability" IMHO hinges on whether certain aspects of its content are discussed in peer-reviewed academic sources, we should always cite from it in a package with the latter (which automatically become secondary sources for it). So e.g. if none of the citing sources mentions the actual figures for the proportions of the modeled admixture events, we cannot mention them either. Note however that some figures are mentioned in one article in the 2022 Lazaridis trilogy, viz. in the Supplementary Materials of "A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia" (Section S1, p. 9). And of course, this also applies to Iberomaurusians. –Austronesier (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Another big problem is that the admix models for the Natufians cant be repeated or be verified because the Dzudzuana samples from Caucasus are not public. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem for us at all. Because we build content on published sources. The available literature is as it is, not as we wish it to be. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked but are there any papers that cite the Dzudzuana models? At leas the ones not "debunked"/improved by Lazaridis in the trilogy papers. Itisme3248 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the relevant search in Google Scholar:[3]. Only three of them are published. And please don't say "debunked". I have mentioned this before: this is not how scientific consensus builds up. –Austronesier (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I see. So it would only be appropriate to mention/add material mentioning those aspects of the study that are also mentioned in the secondary source. That makes sense. Skllagyook (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So can we add it on the Natufian wiki?

"When these samples are considered in the analysis, Taforalt can be better modeled as a mixture of a Dzudzuana component and a sub-Saharan African component. They also argue that it is the Taforalt people who contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians and not the other way around" Itisme3248 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that (as long as the language is not so close to the source as to constitute a copyright violation). Skllagyook (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For due weight, we should have at least the same amount of visible content for Loosdrecht et al. 2018. It's the most cited among the three papers

discussed here. Shriner's paper is methodologically the weakest among them, virtually uncited and yet gets an entire paragraph. I suggest to remove Shriner, add Fregel (2022) as framework, and source the details of the conflicting proposals to Loosdrecht and Lazaridis, respectively. –Austronesier (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

So cite both Loosedrecht and Lazaridis (2018) with similar emphasis/weight. That is also what I was thinking. Which one is Fregel? Skllagyook (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the secondary source (book chapter) linked further up in this thread[4]. –Austronesier (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Outdated source and no further info, re development of agriculture

The source listed, as to the controversiality within the scientific community of agriculture and settlement being a result of the younger dryas, is from 2010, and more info is needed anyway. I'm not an expert so I shouldn't be editing it, if someone knows something help out please Acetoe (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ultimate Natufian genetic source found in Morroco & West Africa (Not "fertile crescent"

“Consistently, by using the qpGraph package (21), we find that a mixture of Natufian and Yoruba reasonably fits the Taforalt gene pool (|z| ≤ 3.7; fig. S19 and table S10). Adding gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans does not improve the model fit and provides an ancestry contribution estimate of 0% (fig. S19). We thus find no evidence of gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Taforalt within the resolution of our data.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380 47.230.130.143 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Ultimate"? Did they spring from the earth there? – Joe (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Archaeogenetic Section is Disorganized and Missing References

I was just trying to organize studies in these sections and ensuring appropriate references are included with accurate citations, those without were cleared. Additionally paragraphs were created and sections/citations split for easier readability.

Moreover, the paper by Shriner, Daniel (2018) actually says: "The Natufian sample consisted of 61.2% Arabian, 21.2% Northern African, 10.9% Western Asian, and 6.8% Omotic ancestry." & "Ancestry shared by Omotic-speaking peoples is found predominantly in present-day southern Ethiopia and is associated with haplogroup E, thus revealing a plausible source." > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062619/

I also moved the Vallini et al. (2024) about 15% Basal Eurasian further up to where Basal Eurasians is first mentioned, as it is not relevant to the last section about Natufian affinities to modern Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis and Bedouins as stated by all the names studies: Das, Ranajit et al. (2017), Ferreira et al. (2021), Almarri et al. (2021) & Sirak et al. (2024). 41.222.178.23 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)