Teasers: Anatolians of 6300 BC Y DNA G2a, ancestral to EEF

Fire Haired14

Banned
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
582
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b DF27*
mtDNA haplogroup
U5b2a2b1
Some new teasers on Neolithic Anatolian genomes. This time the authors are very clear. Neolithic Anatolians in 6300 BC were uniform, fit as the Near Eastern ancestor of Neolithic Europeans, were rich in Y DNA G2a, and Early European farmers had little local European ancestry and were almost entirely Neolithic Anatolian.

ASHG 2015 abstracts
 
Some new teasers on Neolithic Anatolian genomes. This time the authors are very clear. Neolithic Anatolians in 6300 BC were uniform, fit as the Near Eastern ancestor of Neolithic Europeans, were rich in Y DNA G2a, and Early European farmers had little local European ancestry and were almost entirely Neolithic Anatolian.

ASHG 2015 abstracts

Thanks Fire-Haired.

I think most of us expected this from all their hints. Still, nice to see such a clear statement in an abstract.

So much for EEF people being 20% WHG picked up in Europe. "And another one bites the dust". :)

It seems that indeed EEF = ENF.

Interesting that they're so homogenous though even this early. I think it relates to those papers I posted which pointed to thousands of years of exchange of grains, animals, techniques in the Neolithic in that part of the world before they ever made a move toward Europe.(I wonder if Barcin would show any changes, like a hint of ANE?_

Given that comment about big genetic change in the Near East since then, they must be signalling no ANE at that time. Which leaves open the question of when it arrived.

I'm also very interested to see what other minor yDna lineages were involved.

The only odd thing is the comment that there was genetic replacement to a "significant" degree in the Near East as well as in Europe. You'd think that with a Greek on their team they'd be more aware that Europe is not only northern or eastern Europe. Most southern Europeans are at least 70-80% EEF (although perhaps some of it is "farmer" from the Yamnaya?) and central and northwest Europeans are almost half. So, is there at least a 30 point difference for modern Near Easterners? Less? More?

Interesting stuff.
 
I wonder what the mtDNA haplogroups will be. Is this the same group that settled Catal Huyuk and built Gobekli Tepe?
 
The only odd thing is the comment that there was genetic replacement to a "significant" degree in the Near East as well as in Europe. You'd think that with a Greek on their team they'd be more aware that Europe is not only northern or eastern Europe.

Yes, there is obviously a lot of EEF but everyone today has significant amounts of non-EEF, which make us overall pretty differnt from the average Neolithic EEF person. They can't explain the fine detail of every region in a short abstract. So, generally speaking in "Europe" EEF heavily admixed with other people.

The most important thing to me is: Genetic diversity today is the result of very divergent Pre-Historic people who mixed, not by ethnic/region like one would probably assume. Before Ancient DNA, Mediterranean vs North European vs NorthWest Asian vs SouthWest Asian dominated studies on West Eurasian genetics. All are signals of Pre-historic pops not modern ethnic groups. Ethnic groups today have too much recent common ancestry to have evolved a large amount of distinct alleles and be considered divergent populations.

Differences between differnt populations today is more defined by differnt proportions of ancestry from divergent Pre-Historic people than ethnicity. If you went back just 325 generations everyone in Europe probably has the exact same ancestors just at differnt proportions.
 
If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.
 
Thanks Fire-Haired.

I think most of us expected this from all their hints. Still, nice to see such a clear statement in an abstract.

So much for EEF people being 20% WHG picked up in Europe. "And another one bites the dust". :)

It seems that indeed EEF = ENF.

Interesting that they're so homogenous though even this early. I think it relates to those papers I posted which pointed to thousands of years of exchange of grains, animals, techniques in the Neolithic in that part of the world before they ever made a move toward Europe.(I wonder if Barcin would show any changes, like a hint of ANE?_

Given that comment about big genetic change in the Near East since then, they must be signalling no ANE at that time. Which leaves open the question of when it arrived.

I'm also very interested to see what other minor yDna lineages were involved.

The only odd thing is the comment that there was genetic replacement to a "significant" degree in the Near East as well as in Europe. You'd think that with a Greek on their team they'd be more aware that Europe is not only northern or eastern Europe. Most southern Europeans are at least 70-80% EEF (although perhaps some of it is "farmer" from the Yamnaya?) and central and northwest Europeans are almost half. So, is there at least a 30 point difference for modern Near Easterners? Less? More?

Interesting stuff.

About ANE, well we have chalcolitic "Eastern Anatolien" samples and they seam to have strong signs of ANE. It seems the Northern Near East was by mid-late Neolithic divided into two major groups.

1. Western farmers(EEF) who lived in Anatolia , the Northern Levant.
2. Eastern farmers (teal) who lived on the Iranian Plateau and Southeast Caucasus.

by mid-late Neolithic Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia and South Caucasus would be the merging point of Eastern and Western farmers. While Northern Caucasus was probably something very teal/EHG like.

Taking the whole Near East into account, there was probably three farmer groups. Western, Eastern and South/Southwestern. Those Southern farmers were probably like EEF but with a Strong Red Sea component representing the early Afro_Asiatic speakers.
 
If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.

Cucuteni-tripolye is a farming culture.
 
If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.

That's a good question, but are you suggesting that the Yamnaya related people butchered all the Late Neolithic/Copper Age people who were living in the Balkans and Central Europe and Spain and Italy, at least (going by Remedello)? Are you saying you think they didn't contribute genetically to the people living in those areas now?

I think we have to wait and see how the author explains these results with regard to the table in the first Lazaridis paper. Is the table still accurate? Does "EEF" there mean not only the genetic legacy of the early farmers who came from Anatolia but also the "farmer" component in Yamnaya related populations? Is there any way to distinguish between the two?

I wonder if the authors will give an updated analysis of the amount of introgressive European hunter-gatherer in the Middle/Late Neolithic and Copper Age people of Europe or if they'll stick to analyzing the EEF component?

I would think that some of the statements I've seen to the effect that these people were majority WHG were at least premature, as I've been maintaining for quite some time.
 
About ANE, well we have chalcolitic "Eastern Anatolien" samples and they seam to have strong signs of ANE. It seems the Northern Near East was by mid-late Neolithic divided into two major groups.

1. Western farmers(EEF) who lived in Anatolia , the Northern Levant.
2. Eastern farmers (teal) who lived on the Iranian Plateau and Southeast Caucasus.

by mid-late Neolithic Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia and South Caucasus would be the merging point of Eastern and Western farmers. While Northern Caucasus was probably something very teal/EHG like.

Taking the whole Near East into account, there was probably three farmer groups. Western, Eastern and South/Southwestern. Those Southern farmers were probably like EEF but with a Strong Red Sea component representing the early Afro_Asiatic speakers.

I'll wait to see what they say. It's a long time from 6200 BC to the Chalcolithic. I saw a statement from Patterson that appears to imply that they think the "mixing" in the Near East was so ancient that they really can't divide up the ancestry into different kinds of hunter-gatherers. I'm sure there will be more clarity in the paper about that.

Given that there's no geographic barrier from the Levant to coastal Anatolia, and the papers I've read about the development of the Neolithic show thousands of years of contact between all parts of the region, I don't know how much substructure there could be. Right now my bet is that they were as homogeneous in the Near East as they were for a long time in Europe, but that's just speculation.

At some point that ended, because there's all that ANE to explain. I hope that they have a fix on that. Given that the same group is studying genomes from Maykop and the greater Caucasus area I'm sure they may have some preliminary findings, but I would doubt that they'd reveal too much of it, because it's clear that this group isn't going to want to jump to conclusions without extensive statistical analysis. We'll be back to reading tea leaves, I think. :)

Oh, and it will be interesting to see the amount of SSA compared to that in modern populations. It may have been stronger in more southerly regions, but it may also have arrived, or some of it may have arrived, somewhat later.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that there was some minority yDna other than G2a. I wonder what it was? "E" perhaps? Or will it be a shocker?

Given that there have been so many leaks of information from their Lab I'm surprised that hasn't leaked out too.
 
Great. As some of us suspected WHG was present in Near East to mix with first farmers there. It might also mean that European WHG could have spread from Western Anatolia refuge after LGM period to repopulate Europe. Judging be Loschbour WHG sample being very alike WHG admixture in EEF, and mixing process happening in Near East more than in Europe.

There was always a chance that NEF is actually EEF from back migration, however the new Anatolian sample is from 6300 when EEF didn't exist yet in Balkans, or just started to enter it.

As Angela mentioned the initial mixing of WHG into farmers could have been happening for extended time period. Farmers came to their true assistance through 20kya a to 8kya before they started to spread wide. WHG were hiding through Anatolia since height of Last Glacial Maximum, since 20kya. A very long time close by, so even with minimal mingling they could with this 20% into farmers.

The other Y-hg will be I2a picked up from WHGs.

I'm getting more certainty that Natufians will turn G2a.
 
If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.

we need to take this logically ..............the anatolians are stated as 6300BC

haak has LBK-EN as ~5500BC in central germany

these LBK_EN are 95% to 100% EEF as per haak.

these LBK_EN are tested as haplotype - G2a , T1a, I2 and another marker.

the most likely scenario is that these LBK_EN are from northern Anatolia and fit with these 6300BC Anatolians

reason I state northern anatolian is because G2a and I2 plus T1a, which has a SNP which belongs to the L131 "northern branch of T ( ydna )" are all in majority more northern than southern.
The "southern branch ( L162) of T1a with its SNP of pages21 is in the Levant and Egypt", it does not appear in northern anatolia.


Explain why we think a ydna haplotype brought BB to central Europe..............why can it not be a mtDna
 
If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.

that's right
early farmers had EEF, but so did many others who arrived later in Europe
European EEF has multiple sources and arrived at multiple ocasions
 
That's a good question, but are you suggesting that the Yamnaya related people butchered all the Late Neolithic/Copper Age people who were living in the Balkans and Central Europe and Spain and Italy, at least (going by Remedello)? Are you saying you think they didn't contribute genetically to the people living in those areas now?

I think we have to wait and see how the author explains these results with regard to the table in the first Lazaridis paper. Is the table still accurate? Does "EEF" there mean not only the genetic legacy of the early farmers who came from Anatolia but also the "farmer" component in Yamnaya related populations? Is there any way to distinguish between the two?

I wonder if the authors will give an updated analysis of the amount of introgressive European hunter-gatherer in the Middle/Late Neolithic and Copper Age people of Europe or if they'll stick to analyzing the EEF component?

I would think that some of the statements I've seen to the effect that these people were majority WHG were at least premature, as I've been maintaining for quite some time.

there was replacement after replacement after replacement in the Balkans
we have G2a first farmers
we have J and C-V20 sopot farmers
we have 6 ka wave of proto hitites
we have 5 ka wave, Vucedol etc.
we have 4.3 ka E-V13 expansion
we have iron age J2 and N
we have Celts, Goths and Huns
how much of the 1st G2a do you think is left?
 
I'm very curious about the dates and locations of all 34 samples with their DNA.
But it is not sure that they were the 1st European farmers.
They just say they are genetically a plausible source for the first farmers of Europe.
 
I am glad interesting new papers are finally coming out after 6 months or relatively inactivity. No big surprise this time (contrarily to the 5500-year-old R1b-M269 in El Portalon).

If EEF component was brought primarily by G2a carrying tribes, then why is G2a so scarce (5% or lower) but EEF so prevalent (50% or more)? Something is not adding up here.I think the EEF in Western Europe for example, might not be from the very first farmers, but rather from Bell Beakers (just one example) who settled later and had 1/3rd EEF from Cucuteni or whatever. In other words, there is a very good chance the EEF component in most Europeans might have travelled with later non-farming people who had substantial EEF component from Cucuteni-Tripolye or whatever other non-directly Anatolian place.I personally think the R1b people, who were EEF + 'other' components, whether they were IE or not, Bell Beaker or not, are responsible for the spread of that component in Western Europe, rather than the seemingly first G2a farmers.

Maternal lineages have not changed much in most of Europe since the Neolithic. Only paternal ones have, and the result is that only a bit over half of the European gene pool is EEF (from about 30-40% in northern Europe to 70-90% in southern Europe). This simply confirms what most anthropologists had long suspected about prehistoric human behaviour, namely that when two groups of humans come into contact with one another and war ensues, the men on one side will either kill or enslave men of the opposing group and take their women.

Back in 2009 I explained how R1b came to replace most of the older lineages in Western Europe. The same is likely to have happened in the Middle East and Southeast Europe with J2 during the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age (e.g. Kura-Araxes culture, Minoan civilization), although R1a and R1b mitigated J2's success with their own migrations during the Bronze Age.

Considering that Southeast and to a lower extent also Central Europe have sustained continuous waves of migrations for over 5000 years, it isn't surprising that so few of the original Neolithic lineages survive. In fact it may well be that most G2a and I2 in the region were post-Neolithic re-imports from other regions (mostly from Ukraine and Russia). That is why Balkanic I2 so overwhelmingly belongs to the same fairly recent I2a1b-L621 subclade and not a wide variety of Mesolithic or Early Neolithic I2 lineages. That is also why many lineages present in the Balkans during the Neolithic, such as C1a2, F and H2 are virtually extinct today. Even the G2a-PF3146 of the LBK farmers and Ötzi is rare outside Sardinia today.

When you think about it, it was somewhat inevitable for G2a to get replaced by other lineages, as early farming communities were poorly defended and had a lot of food and material goods (like pottery and jewels), a combination that would have acted as a magnet on nomadic tribes, especially if they were better armed (with metal weapons).
 
About ANE, well we have chalcolitic "Eastern Anatolien" samples and they seam to have strong signs of ANE. It seems the Northern Near East was by mid-late Neolithic divided into two major groups.

1. Western farmers(EEF) who lived in Anatolia , the Northern Levant.
2. Eastern farmers (teal) who lived on the Iranian Plateau and Southeast Caucasus.

by mid-late Neolithic Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia and South Caucasus would be the merging point of Eastern and Western farmers. While Northern Caucasus was probably something very teal/EHG like.

Taking the whole Near East into account, there was probably three farmer groups. Western, Eastern and South/Southwestern. Those Southern farmers were probably like EEF but with a Strong Red Sea component representing the early Afro_Asiatic speakers.

That's also how I see it.
 
That's also how I see it.

I read on Eurogenesblog of Davidski that also Maykop culture Y-DNA will be revealed... so it could show the apportion of EHG, EEF and the Teal admixture in other similar cultures. But also, it could be the revelation of R1b and R1a history.
 
I'm also intrigued by the fact that there was some minority yDna other than G2a. I wonder what it was? "E" perhaps? Or will it be a shocker?

I have all Ancient West Eurasian Y DNA here. G2a is about 50% in Early Neolithic farmers. The rest mostly have F*(either H2 or T1a). I, J2, R1b1, E1b-M78, and C1a2 are the small minorities. I'd say H2 was probably the main counterpart of G2a.
 
These Anatolians are brothers not parents to Early Neolithic Europeans. They're less than 1,000 years older than the oldest Neolithic Euro genomes. We can't assume 2,000 of 4,000 years earlier people many miles away in the Levant were just like EEF. How do we explain Bedouin today? There are differences outside of ANE between Anatolian of 6300 BC and modern West Asians. There were other people in West Asia at that time than EEF.
 
there was replacement after replacement after replacement in the Balkans
we have G2a first farmers
we have J and C-V20 sopot farmers
we have 6 ka wave of proto hitites
we have 5 ka wave, Vucedol etc.
we have 4.3 ka E-V13 expansion
we have iron age J2 and N
we have Celts, Goths and Huns
how much of the 1st G2a do you think is left?

by what I know and read the first in Balkans were Y I1 mt H and PC1
that is what was said at the late neolithic exbitions and symposium at AUTH
 

This thread has been viewed 53356 times.

Back
Top