Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Natufian culture" in English language version.
The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East... the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic)
Modern Saudi Arabian and Yemeni samples clustered tightly, overlapping with the three Natufian samples, and were close to the Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C (PPNB and PPNC) and Levant Bronze Age samples.
The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East... the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic)
The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East... the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic)
Modern Saudi Arabian and Yemeni samples clustered tightly, overlapping with the three Natufian samples, and were close to the Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C (PPNB and PPNC) and Levant Bronze Age samples.
The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East... the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic)
Modern Saudi Arabian and Yemeni samples clustered tightly, overlapping with the three Natufian samples, and were close to the Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C (PPNB and PPNC) and Levant Bronze Age samples.
Modern Saudi Arabian and Yemeni samples clustered tightly, overlapping with the three Natufian samples, and were close to the Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C (PPNB and PPNC) and Levant Bronze Age samples.
