This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natufian culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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)
Why /nəˌtjuːfiən/ and not /nəˌtuːfiən/? The word is derived from the Arabic /naˌtuːf/, isn't it? -- Cbdorsett ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An english version would be nice, not many Wikipedians read Hebrew. :) Viciouspiggy ( talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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:
24.96.19.202 ( talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
GEOCHEMICAL PROVENACE OF OBSIDIAN ARTEFACTS FROM THE MSA SITE OF PORC EPIC ETHIOPIA -
24.96.19.202 ( talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
---->"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)
"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)
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)
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)
“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)
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 linked 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natufian culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Why /nəˌtjuːfiən/ and not /nəˌtuːfiən/? The word is derived from the Arabic /naˌtuːf/, isn't it? -- Cbdorsett ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An english version would be nice, not many Wikipedians read Hebrew. :) Viciouspiggy ( talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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:
24.96.19.202 ( talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
GEOCHEMICAL PROVENACE OF OBSIDIAN ARTEFACTS FROM THE MSA SITE OF PORC EPIC ETHIOPIA -
24.96.19.202 ( talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
---->"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)
"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)
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)
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)
“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)
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 linked 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)