Why did Indo-Europeans never colonize and migrate to north africa?!
they went so far to the geographic horizon, but ignored NA. any reason for this? Laziness?
Indo-european expansions
Why did Indo-Europeans never colonize and migrate to north africa?!
they went so far to the geographic horizon, but ignored NA. any reason for this? Laziness?
>France
>Spain
>the UK
>Italy
"Are we a joke to you?"
This isn't North Africa, sr
France held onto Algeria for more than a century. Spain occupied pockets of Morocco and Western Sahara for almost 2 centuries. The UK colonized Egypt and Sudan, giving both of them the English language as their co-official languages. Italy colonized Libya.
yes my dear friend, but I mean it in the pre-modern sense...
including pre-medieval.
In Indo-European migrations, for example, why didn't the bell beakers come down to the south of the Iberian peninsula?
What makes you think they didn't? There's a sizable population bearing the R1b haplogroup in Chad.
That's not R1b Europe friend, it's a pre-PIE sub-clear.
it could be EEF or even Hunter gatherers, probably the latter.
Maybe Mesolithic
subclade
>it could be EEF or even Hunter gatherers
So you’re just a babbling moron in other words. And almost certainly a brown natufian ape of some sort
Thread finished
Why are you so annoying on this forum? Why do you insult me?
I'm Italian and the subclade is literally non-European... jesus. check it out if you don't believe me
wft dude?!
they were terrible with boats.
Bell beakers reached morocco, google is your friend
certainly not your friend.
no samples bell beakers in morocco
no material culture
any kind of language, even borrowed words
had no impact
>no material culture
Plenty of bell beaker pottery and brassards, the definition of material culture, moron
>no dna
Wrong again, guanches and others western berbers had some steppe dna
It doesn't exist, you big moron.
the archaeological impact of material culture was negligible.
(Show me your sources)
Want to talk about DNA? It’s not worth haplocraps, ok?!
LOL
insignificant
and probably via trade
The bell chads did not conquer north africa dude.
Lol whart a moron what a shitty non sensical shitty inaccurate chart you got from a 3 seconds search on google images you low iq baboon
https://www.academia.edu/4962430/Bell_Beaker_culture_in_Morocco_and_the_question_of_Precampaniform_Chalcolithic_substrate
https://issr-journals.org/xplore/ijias/0008/002/IJIAS-14-220-14.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330729106_Turek_J_2012_Origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker_phenomenon_-_the_Moroccan_connection_In_Harry_Fokkens_-_Franco_Nicolis_Bell_beakers_in_Transition_Sidestone_Press_Leiden_pp_155-167_ISBN_9789088900846
>civilization
Eh.
let's draw the monkey;
1. there is no bell beaker civilization hahaha
2. bell beakers are not even an ethno-linguistic group, but a cultural one
3. Your sources know that these archaeological finds are not even an integral part of the culture. and this is not even genetically the case.
I even said that... I never said they never set foot there. just that its influence was very low.
a few vases prove my point.
and my DNA graph is not bad for disproving you.
North Africans have less European ancestry than Brazilians hah
these finds came from commerce, not from cultural groups.
reason why we find the reverse in southern iberia
the author for some funny reason says "bell beaker civilization"
again, you don't read your sources
here
"Bell Beaker decorative style and the “Beaker Package” spread not due to greater mobility of their bearers, but thanks to their symbolic meaning of decorated cups and prestige objects that could be linked to some type of ideology. It seems more appropriate talk about the diffusion of style and technology"
"This stylistic impulse has been adopted in the ongoing development of the Beaker concept. This hypothetical model has not yet been proven and tested and faces a number of problems, such as the lack of radiocarbon dates for Moroccan cups"
READ YOUR SOURCES YOU SUCKER.
as its author says;
We cannot even say something categorically, due to the lack of conclusive evidence and several problems involving the archaeological method, especially dating.
and also concludes that this, if proven correct, should be interpreted as a mere commercial/cultural intention with symbolic content.
Meaningless babble swine, their material culture was beaker
>Bell Beaker decorative style and the “Beaker Package” spread not due to greater mobility of their bearers
Good thing we now know this is bullshit
I mean in some places beaker expansion was associated with African merchants
Probably, but good luck distinguishing which in particular did or didn't involve migration.
That's exactly what we're talking about
it was just a commercial thing
Not a real expansion
All you have to do is present evidence...
as the sources say;
We have no evidence of cultural migrations and the archaeological finds are few and not very clear about their origins and other problems, they do not follow a continuum and are probably due to purely commercial issues.
The evidence is Bell Beaker pottery in North Africa and R-M269+Steppe ancestry in the ancient canary islands.
here his bell beaker "ancestry".
steppe ancestry is lower than Brazilians
and again.... the archaeological issue has already been discussed here several times. just go up and see the comments
Believe me, I wanted them to invade NA and kill the worms, but that wasn't the case.
That's a substantial amount of ancestry to still be there 500-1000AD, which is the dating of those samples.
he's right, guanche had less than 10% of their admxiture being steppe and less than 10% of their ydna haplogroups being steppe, they actually had more sub saharan E1a(e-m33) than r1b
into european presence there was not significant, a few pots from commerce don't really mean much
They would have arrived there like 3000 years earlier and were replaced by at least one wave of Afro-Asiatics.
At some point, a substantial amount of beaker ancestry must have been in North Africa.
strange assumptions, more likely, their presence was never significant, even bronze age iberians were 20% steppe and bronze age sicilians 15%, so no one in north africa could have had more than that
There's nothing strange about that if you are familiar with the subject matter, and the fact that Spanish Beakers were relatively low steppe necessitates an even greater demographic impact to get the ~5% found in Guanches.
the steppe presence in north africa was always minimal
really simple stuff we're dealing with, assuming that there was some huge beaker presence that was diminished by some afro asiatic wave is something that you made up, there's no proof of it and no reason we should believe it
Target: CanaryIslands_Guanche.SG
Distance: 3.9168% / 0.03916753
43.4 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
42.4 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
7.4 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
5.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N
1.4 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Target: Spain_BA.SG
Distance: 4.6180% / 0.04618001
62.4 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
19.2 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
18.2 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
0.2 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
>some afro asiatic wave is something that you made up, there's no proof of it and no reason we should believe it
Guanches arrive in the Canary Islands 1000BC and spoke an afro-asiatic language.
For them to have 7% Steppe ancestry, this would imply that around 30% of their ancestry is Spanish Beaker or a related source. Not really that complicated.
>Guanches arrive in the Canary Islands 1000BC and spoke an afro-asiatic language.
earliest settlements were in 500 BCE
>For them to have 7% Steppe ancestry, this would imply that around 30% of their ancestry is Spanish Beaker or a related source. Not really that complicated.
it's more complicated than that, bronze age iberians have as much steppe as they have whg but canarians have almost no whg for example
they simply have tiny amounts of steppe
the presence of steppe in north africa was always abysmally low, probably due to tiny bell beaker people that quickly assimilated among the africans
* probably due to tiny bell beaker settlements
>it's more complicated than that, bronze age iberians have as much steppe as they have whg but canarians have almost no whg for example
This is an artifact of G25, as there is nothing with in the vicinity with that low of WHG to serve as a perfect source.
BBs still pass as a source in qpadm just fine.
>the presence of steppe in north africa was always abysmally low, probably due to tiny bell beaker people that quickly assimilated among the africans
The Beakers who arrived in Africa already were low steppe. OPs question is about indo-europeans - not steppe ancestry in any case.
>This is an artifact of G25
not true and cope, it's more likely that their tiny amounts of steppe are an artifact, probably it's even lower
>BBs still pass as a source in qpadm just fine
in very low amounts, the study gives them less than 10%, so pretty much btfos you
>The Beakers who arrived in Africa already were low steppe. OPs question is about indo-europeans - not steppe ancestry in any case.
tiny insignificant presence
the presence of west africans among them must have been even more important than the indo european presence
>Considering E-M33 is a lineage of sub-Saharan origin, the presence of E-M33 in the indigenous population of the Canary Islands confirms the impact of sub Saharan migrations into North Africa prior to ~2,000 years ago. This result is consistent with sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages such as L1 or L2 observed in the Canarian native people
this seems to be true, the guanche are genetically closer to sub saharans from the other side of africans than to even bronze age europeans
Distance to: CanaryIslands_Guanche.SG
0.21722495 Eritrean
0.21766496 Spain_BA.SG
0.22561591 Spain_EBA_Mallorca
0.22563191 Spain_Aritgues_LBA
0.22563191 Spain_Aritgues_LBA
0.22628015 Spain_EBA
0.23161727 France_EBA
0.23293802 France_GrandEst_EBA
0.23459195 Germany_Lech_EBA
0.23525377 France_GrandEst_LBA.SG
0.24533802 France_EBA_BellBeaker
0.24582470 France_GrandEst_EBA.SG
0.25595949 Germany_LBA_Halberstadt
0.26138204 Germany_EBA_Unetice
0.27106238 France_Alsace_Lingolsheim_EBA
they are literal africans
this combined with the haplogroups clearly shows the canarians being an african population more related to the people of africa than to the people of europe
checks out, guanche were brown people
>HIrisPlex-S
>Forum trash
Begone mongrel, the high quality relatively recent guanche samples are largely dark skinned, dark haired and eyed
repeating yourself wont make HIrisPlex-S any less flawed.
reposting outright fake trash from a forum won't stop hirisplex from being mostly accurate even if flowed
the guanche were brown skinned, eyed and haired
moronic southern european shitskin spamming this shit in any thread
the guanche have slc24a4 and slc45a2, they have it ancestral and therefore they're dark skinned
they also score brown eyes because they have oca2/herc2 ancestral for the most part
also not true intermediate skin is misclassified 75% of the time, straight up like, it's actually correctly classified more than 75%+ of the times and dark skin is correctly classified even more frequently at 95% of the times
>Average cross-validated prediction accuracies expressed as area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) ± standard deviation were 0.97 ± 0.02 for Light, 0.83 ± 0.11 for Dark, and 0.96 ± 0.03 for Dark-Black. When using a 5-category, this resulted in 0.74 ± 0.05 for Very Pale, 0.72 ± 0.03 for Pale, 0.73 ± 0.03 for Intermediate, 0.87±0.1 for Dark, and 0.97 ± 0.03 for Dark-Black
and as you can see at the bottom of the study when it mislcassifies pale it's because it's something close like very pale
never post this shit again stupid southern european half mena mongrel
>moronic southern european shitskin spamming this shit in any thread
>the guanche have slc24a4 and slc45a2, they have it ancestral and therefore they're dark skinned
thats not the point, the point is that its flawed due to several reasons
>dark skin is correctly classified even more frequently at 95% of the times
that entirely depends on what group you use it on.
>thats not the point, the point is that its flawed due to several reasons
the point is that i don't want to see you spamming that outright lie that is that chart
>that entirely depends on what group you use it on.
not true, it's extremely accurate for black skin even in the 5-category system
it's extremely accurate for blue eyes (95%+ accuracy)
>It achieved average prediction accuracies, expressed as Area Under the receiver-operating characteristic Curve (AUC), of 0.94 for blue, 0.95 brown, and 0.74 for intermediate
and the guanche don't score blue eyes for example
>in very low amounts, the study gives them less than 10%
The study says they score on average 13.4% German Beaker in qpadm. German Beakers themselves are 48% Steppe. Of course, nobody migrated directly from Germany to North Africa.
>tiny insignificant presence
If you think ~30% ancestry surviving in a region for ~3000 years is insignificant, you're moronic.
>If you think ~30% ancestry surviving in a region for ~3000 years is insignificant, you're moronic.
they don't have 30% ancestry tho, of they would be 8% whg, of course that is enough to not being an artifact, if you think that's an artifact we may as well consider their entire steppe admixture an artifact too
they have some 6% steppe ancestry because of some slight selection, that's it
berbers are clearly unrelated to indo europeans
The ancestry streams which are the most differentiated are more reliable in G25, because it is based off PCA data. So I doubt that the Steppe signal in Guanches is fake, especially considering that around the same amount is found in qpadm.
>they have some 6% steppe ancestry because of some slight selection, that's it
lmao
Please explain how a population selects for steppe autosomal ancestry.
>The ancestry streams which are the most differentiated are more reliable in G25
arbitrary word salad and cope
also whg is more differentiated than steppe therefore it should be more reliable according to this
> because it is based off PCA data. So I doubt that the Steppe signal in Guanches is fake, especially considering that around the same amount is found in qpadm.
in qpadm they're 5%, the study literally does not agree with you
in qpadm they also don't have whg ancestry
they lack the whg required to be part bronze age iberian or even sicilian
>Please explain how a population selects for steppe autosomal ancestry.
>have population with 3% steppe on average, guy with 5% steppe reproduces more
you lost, berbers are not related to indo europeans
>also whg is more differentiated than steppe therefore it should be more reliable according to this
The ANE in Steppe is more distinguishable from any of the other source offerings. WHG and ANF share common west eurasian ancestry.
>in qpadm they're 5%, the study literally does not agree with you
in qpadm they also don't have whg ancestry
The study says 13.4 German Bell Beaker, which would imply 6.5% Steppe and a few drops of WHG.
>they lack the whg required to be part bronze age iberian or even sicilian
Now that you've mentioned it, if something similar to Sicily EBA, which is sufficiently low WHG, is the proper source, you'd be looking at closer to ~40% european ancestry surviving in Guanches.
Target: Italy_Sicily_EBA
Distance: 2.4609% / 0.02460910
82.4 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
13.0 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
4.6 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
>berbers are not related to indo europeans
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. You and I both agree anything steppe related were replaced.
>>have population with 3% steppe on average, guy with 5% steppe reproduces more
I don't think you are appreciating how unlikely it is this would make a noticeable difference within the same population.
>The ANE in Steppe is more distinguishable from any of the other source offerings. WHG and ANF share common west eurasian ancestry.
whg is more distinguished than steppe(and even more distinguished than ANE), ane was not analyzed
you are literally making shit up as you go
>The study says 13.4 German Bell Beaker, which would imply 6.5% Steppe and a few drops of WHG.
therefore can't
>Now that you've mentioned it, if something similar to Sicily EBA, which is sufficiently low WHG, is the proper source
it's not since sicilians have almost the same amount of steppe, they would need to be mostly siclian EBA genetically and they clearly aren't
in addition we can see from the late neolithic study that 3 sources of admixture came to north africa, one from the middle east, one local and one with higher whg and anf probably from spain
>you'd be looking at closer to ~40% european ancestry surviving in Guanches.
which is absurd and siclians almost all sicliains didn't carry r1b
again making shit up as you go
>I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. You and I both agree anything steppe related were replaced.
no, you think it was replaced, i think it was always insignificant, and i won and demonstrated it, you failed to do so
>I don't think you are appreciating how unlikely it is this would make a noticeable difference within the same population.
it explains everything much better than massive bell beaker presence and some non existent replacement from "afro asiatics"
Guanche were probably half or more saharawi-mauritanian, with a lot of e1a
>whg is more distinguished than steppe(and even more distinguished than ANE), ane was not analyzed
WHG and ANF share common ancestry. This is fairly elementary.
If anything the closest source to the ANE in Steppe would be Iran_N or WHG, neither of which are close to significant enough to change the discussion.
Again, the result is corroborated by other methods.
>therefore can't
1.4% WHG shows up in G25. I'm not sure why this isn't possible.
>which is absurd and siclians almost all sicliains didn't carry r1b
And neither did Guanches. We have no clue how much R1b was brought into North Africa by their source of steppe ancestry.
>it explains everything much better than massive bell beaker presence and some non existent replacement from "afro asiatics"
If you genuinely think that Steppe ancestry in North Africa doubled due to selection then it's not worth anyone trying to engage with you.
>WHG and ANF share common ancestry. This is fairly elementary.
no, unless you mean extremely ancient ancestry also shared by ANE
this argument is absolutely moronic, not worth engaging
whg is MORE divergent than steppe, end of the argument, ane was not analyzed
>Again, the result is corroborated by other methods.
the results of your mental illness surely, all sources like both the studies about guanche say that the steppe admixture was minimal in the guanche and always was
you are literally just making shit up
>And neither did Guanches. We have no clue how much R1b was brought into North Africa by their source of steppe ancestry.
steppe ancestry, including bell beaker ancestry was extremely low in north africa
>If you genuinely think that Steppe ancestry in North Africa doubled due to selection then it's not worth anyone trying to engage with you.
if by doubled you mean went from extremely low to extremely low but 2% more it's realistic actually
on the other hand you are literally making ship up as you comment, conjecture after conjecture
>the results of your mental illness surely, all sources like both the studies about guanche say that the steppe admixture was minimal in the guanche and always was
Every analysis shows roughly the same amount of steppe ancestry. I'm not sure why you are hung up about this.
>steppe ancestry, including bell beaker ancestry was extremely low in north africa
A significant amount of Bell Beaker ancestry must have survived in the region, because, obviously, Bell Beakers from Germany didn't directly migrate into Africa. They must already have been mutted.
>if by doubled you mean went from extremely low to extremely low but 2% more it's realistic actually
This would be a ~40% increase in steppe ancestry if it went from 4.5 to 6.5%.
Genius stuff.
>Every analysis shows roughly the same amount of steppe ancestry. I'm not sure why you are hung up about this.
and every analysis also shows that they have little actual bell beaker ancestry too, i don't know why you bring up the studies as if they agreed with you
>A significant amount of Bell Beaker ancestry must have survived in the region, because, obviously, Bell Beakers from Germany didn't directly migrate into Africa. They must already have been mutted.
fantasies, the bell beaker ancestry was also tiny
>This would be a ~40% increase in steppe ancestry if it went from 4.5 to 6.5%.
mental moronation, simple selection can change results of a few points of percentages
why are you so hung up about this
i simply repeat facts while you just speculate and make conjectures with no bases in reality, there's clearly something at stake here for you
>and every analysis also shows that they have little actual bell beaker ancestry too, i don't know why you bring up the studies as if they agreed with you
Even if it was 13%, that'd be a decent amount to survive ~3000 years.
Realistically it was more, for the reasons repeated ad nauseam. If you want to believe that Germans migrated to North Africa without any additional admixture, when we know what the people in Southern Europe looked like at the time, then go ahead.
>simple selection can change results of a few points of percentages
How does simple selection result in a component increasing by 40 fricking percent?
>Even if it was 13%, that'd be a decent amount to survive ~3000 years.
it's extremely low
>Realistically it was more, for the reasons repeated ad nauseam. If you want to believe that Germans migrated to North Africa without any additional admixture, when we know what the people in Southern Europe looked like at the time, then go ahead.
it was just a little bit lower at best, there was also a lot of heterogeniety in bell beaker era southern europe with northern bell beaker profiles living with neolithic farmers and mixed profiles all together
>How does simple selection result in a component increasing by 40 fricking percent?
2% not 40%, stop mentioning your fantasies
they were 3% on average and someone with slightly higher steppe(1% more) migrated to the canary islands
and this is a good point
add another 1% due to contamination and inbreeding, and you have the gunanche
Let's see what the paper has to say about contamination:
>As published before for most of the individuals of these dataset, contamination rates are low
>2% not 40%, stop mentioning your fantasies
Increasing from 4.5 to 6.5% is a roughly 40% increase.
Please explain how this happened.
>As published before for most of the individuals of these dataset, contamination rates are low
so present, enough to explain a 1% difference
>Increasing from 4.5 to 6.5% is a roughly 40% increase.
no its not, you are mentally ill
4.5 to 5.5% means an increase in 2% bell beaker, add 1% due to contamination and all is explained
they were inbred cavemen, this probably shows in their autosomal admixture to a certain extent
this is also something to consider
the steppe admixture in those samples is very low, little things can easily change steppe percentages by 1 or 2 points, and since the initial steppe admixture is low to begin with even a 2% increase can look like it doubled
this is a copying berber
you have nothing to do with indo european
you have extremely low indo european admixture
you have extremely low indo european haplogroup percentages
you don't speak an indo european language
you are an irrelevant african population
right, their steppe admixture is so little to be insignificant, maybe a few slightly more steppe rich than average north africans migrated to the guanche islands
we should talk about their more significant presence of west african E1a among the guanche
they clearly had contacts with west africans, of course it's unlikely that they met pure west africans, they probably met someone that was only partially west african therefore the guanche being 15% e1a means in reality that they're something like 40% mauritanian-like mulatto
Guanches didnt arrive there in 1000 BC, read the 2023 up to date study on their settlement, they arrivef around 0 BC or later
????
Schizo
cope
thank you.
he is stubborn
were not influential in the cultural or archaeological sense, much less genetically
Brazilians have more steppe ancestry than them.
Materna steppe dna
Meaning they got btfo and raped by berbers
There are beaker pots in a Africa, but looking at Y-DNA they weren't very successful there. Still North Africans and Guanches carry some of their ancestry.
It's pre-PIE, but from Europe.
>Mesolithic
It's probably Neolithic.
Why then did they fail?
In any case, we must define the difference between colonizing and being present in the general sense of the word.
It certainly wasn't a colonization like they did, probably a few insignificant pockets, which were quickly absorbed... probably within years.
Guanches and North Africans (mainly Westerners) are Quadroons, the closest general sample to Europeans they have is less than 20% and probably EEF.
They aren’t shitholes thoughbeit. North Africa is
Well, because Indo-European ""colonization"" had already put an end to the so-called "bell beakers", who were not even an ethnic group, but a cultural one.
Furthermore, they would lose if they hypothetically tried to conquer Egypt at that time
>Furthermore, they would lose if they hypothetically tried to conquer Egypt at that time
Wdym? They literally did conquer Egypt...
We don't have any kind of evidence of bell beakers in Egypt.
whether through invasion or cultural interaction.... perhaps commercial, but if it existed, it was insignificant.
Whether in the genetic or archaeological sense, bell beakers were never in Egypt
We have uniparental markers from Egypt and Nubia that are definitely of European origin.
OP said IE not Bell beakers.
The sea peoples were almost certainluly IE, even then you have many later EIA IE who conquered the region. Persia (also IE don't forget), then Greece etc.
I think it's possible they actually contributed to the collapse of Old Kingdom. Published Egyptian samples often carry European mtDNA and even Y-DNA (R1b in 18th dynasty, apparently G2a and H2 in some other elites).
Source??
These R haplogroups are not European, and are very rare.
even among the supposed European elites in Egypt
and again, if they could have contributed to the fall of Egypt, where is the evidence? the Egyptians were copies of those ugly people we see today
Everything point to these haplogroups to be R1b-U152, which is basically a Beaker haplogroup.
It doesn't matter, though, because their mtDNA is definitely and officially European.
>U5b2b5
Is European and it was found in Djehutynakht, a nobleman from 11th dynasty.
Even based on this premise, it is so insignificant that it is more like a genetic pocket.
and about the pharaoh you mentioned being a bell beaker, could you give me a more specific source? see well;
I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm curious about that.
Unfortunately, the examples cited of white people in the former are mostly false and misunderstood. whether in the supposed white appearance of the mummies or some haplogroups that are not European...
(the R in tut wasn't even European)
Ancient Europeans in Ancient Egypt?
Le /misc/ cope
two words= geography and founder effect
first we have to define what type of Aryans we are dealing with, due to geographical proximity, the bell beakers would be a better competitor, and since they are in this schizophrenic theory, they were already absorbed among the EEF, so it would not be an "Aryan" expansion, and mainly the Iberian bell beakers.
and the geography itself, very different terrain.
>Hellenic colonies
>Rome
>Vandal kingdoms
>France
>USA
Etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance
They did. Bell Beakers ended up replaced in the parts of North Africa they went to.
Even if the Bell Beaker Culture in North Africa didn't leave a lasting impact there, the region was completely overhwelmed by the EEF Cardial culture during the Neolithic in the coast. Later the Berber speakers came and mixed with the local Iberomaurusian derived Neolithic of the highlands to create modern Berbers.
Actually, the Proto Indo Europeans conquered and founded civilization in every corner of Afro-Eurasia. For proof of Africa, see the attached pic of the R1B1 genetic map. It is likely the PIE tribes, either Hittites or some tribe from before even the tribes condensed into firm ethnic federations, followed the coastline from Hittite lands, down the Nile, and into the Sahel - although this theory has flaws it seems most logical as to how R1B1 came to that region. As for China, the other end of the Eurasian landmass, the first mythical king of China was a red-haired pale-faced barbarian who conquered the central Chinese region through the use of a "northward pointing chariot", which is an expressive way to say, "they pwned us in battle".
>Why did Indo-Europeans never colonize and migrate to north africa?!
better question is why do you think they didn't?
There's some white european look mummies
It's really strange that they went to fricking China, but in North Africa their influence was practically low.
Maybe the bell beakers became useless at mating with the damned EEF bastards, and when the bell beakers assimilated into Neolithic cultures, they became sissies who lost desire and subjugations and conquest.
I imagine that a bell beaker colonization would be like the Indo-Aryans invading the IVC slums, and taking control of Egypt and migrating there some time later.
Nah
Egyptians would
Europe showed interest in mining for mineral fertilizer but Haber and Bosch made such endeavors unprofitable.
Otherwise it's mostly a bunch of sand until the next ice age kicks in and make the area suitable for mangroves etc. Until then, enjoy what you can
well, I could argue that this is a cop-out excuse like Afrocentrists use, that a government hides archaeological evidence for some national-political reason, etc.
Maybe I'm right about this type of argument, but when I went to China in 2018, we visited some archaeological sites and actually certain places were prohibited for some reason.
I asked a colleague why this was the case, and they told me they didn't know lol.
Well, i dont know
The MN samples from Skhirat-Rouazi show some Bell Beaker ancestry
Target: Morocco_MN:skh001
Distance: 2.4583% / 0.02458346
47.6 Israel_PPNB
24.6 Israel_Natufian_d
20.0 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
7.8 Germany_BellBeaker
Target: Morocco_MN:skh002
Distance: 3.3677% / 0.03367730
43.0 Israel_PPNB
27.0 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
26.2 Israel_Natufian_d
3.8 Germany_BellBeaker
Target: Morocco_MN:skh003
Distance: 4.8174% / 0.04817409
30.8 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
28.0 Israel_Natufian_d
24.4 Israel_PPNB
16.8 Germany_BellBeaker
Although this shouldn't really make sense considering that Bell Beaker Culture didn't make it to the region until a thousand years later. May be some slight contamination or other affinities toward European Farmer ancestry found in Bell Beakers
What we'd need is genomes from the Bell Beaker period in North Africa but we don't have those yet. We do have some Numidian samples but again those are so late that they're bound to have received other sources namely Levantine, Greek and Iberian.
Do they not want any additional CHG or Iran_N? That may explain it.
>What we'd need is genomes from the Bell Beaker period in North Africa but we don't have those yet
we have these 2 from spain and sicily, both are more or less from 2000 BCE(the sardinian one is called neolithic because the neolithic in sardinia lasted more)
Target: Spain_BellBeaker_oAfrica
Distance: 3.0195% / 0.03019506
52.6 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
27.8 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
9.2 Israel_Natufian
6.2 Dinka
3.6 Yoruba
0.6 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Target: Italy_Sardinia_N_oAfrica
Distance: 3.4444% / 0.03444433
43.8 Morocco_Iberomaurusian
41.0 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
7.4 Israel_Natufian
4.6 Dinka
3.2 Yoruba
in short indo european admixture was always insignificant in northwest africa
even the pottery presence is very low
the typical bronze age northwest african probably had 3-4% steppe admixture
can you post the coordinates from that study, davidski still didn't put them in the spreadsheet
>bell beaker admixture
as someone already proposed in the thread, the little percentages of steppe admixture in guanche are probably overestimated due to contamination
the guanche were also extremely imbred
imbreeding for generations and generations can alter a bit how your autosomal ancestry shows up
they probably are 3-4% steppe, sample contamination and imbreeding made them look slightly higher, at around 5-6%
They got btfo by berber bulls who fricked their women
While IEs did manage to conquer NA using military power several times, they lost against Semites in the ensuing demographic warfare due to being part-Neanderthal and thus nearly infertile like other mixed-race animals.
It is simply impossible for (part) non-humans such as IEs to compete against pure humans such as Natufians because they are less fertile, less healthy and overall less fit than them by several orders of magnitude. At best, IEs can trick Natufian men into rawdogging their women in order to create a fitter sub-race of IEs like they did with E-V13, but even then they cannot truly bridge the gap between a pure human and a lowly hybrid.
ftfm
Pretty sure they did. During the Roman era, the North African shores were populated with people who were pretty much ethnically identical to romans.
It was only later that Arabs conquered it