PDA

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



Fire Haired14
14-09-15, 00:16
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 (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/09/ashg-2015-abstracts.html)

Angela
14-09-15, 00:54
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 (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/09/ashg-2015-abstracts.html)

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.

elghund
14-09-15, 01:21
I wonder what the mtDNA haplogroups will be. Is this the same group that settled Catal Huyuk and built Gobekli Tepe?

Fire Haired14
14-09-15, 01:35
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.

Finalise
14-09-15, 02:57
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.

Alan
14-09-15, 04:00
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.

Alan
14-09-15, 04:08
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.

Angela
14-09-15, 05:16
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.

Angela
14-09-15, 05:35
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.

LeBrok
14-09-15, 07:23
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.

Sile
14-09-15, 07:57
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

bicicleur
14-09-15, 08:23
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

bicicleur
14-09-15, 08:30
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?

bicicleur
14-09-15, 08:37
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.

Maciamo
14-09-15, 08:58
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 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest). 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 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25619-5000-years-of-migrations-from-the-Eurasian-steppes-to-Europe), 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).

Maciamo
14-09-15, 09:01
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.

Brennos
14-09-15, 09:46
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.

Fire Haired14
14-09-15, 11:15
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 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit#gid=479090567). 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.

Fire Haired14
14-09-15, 11:22
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.

Yetos
14-09-15, 12:29
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

Angela
14-09-15, 15:04
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?

Is that a rhetorical question? We know that not much G2a is left, but that's just y lines. How many times has the data shown us that y lineages are very poor indicators of total genomic structure? Given that, how can a change in y dna prove by itself that there was "replacement" after "replacement"?

The Early European Farmers were not just G2a. There was a lot of "F" (actually H2 and T) among them too. From the abstract, there was also minority y Dna in ancient Anatolia. Yet, in terms of autosomal structure they were very homogeneous. Look at R1b. We've seen R1b in a totally EEF person, in a totally EHG person, in "mixed" Yamnaya people, and we know it is found in SSAfricans.

Or, to use another example, let's assume for the moment that it's been proven beyond any doubt through ancient dna that all the R1a in India is from steppe dwellers. How much actual autosomal change did they bring to India, how much actual "replacement"? Osama Bin Ladin's father had 77 children. Some Saudi princes have hundreds. If the women were all from a different "X" population, how much "replacement" would we see after a thousand years?

As to Sopot, the paper that analyzed those samples didn't show a big difference between them and the early farmers of Central Europe. We don't even know if they'd been in the southern Balkans the whole time. Most of the J in the Balkans is J2b, present at least since Sopot, and as I said we don't know how long they'd been in the area south of the Sopot area. E-V13 was part of the early Neolithic, and just expanded in place. Huns left barely a ripple. I could go on, but there's no point in belaboring the issue. Oh, and I had no idea that we know that "proto" Hittites went to Anatolia.

Angela
14-09-15, 15:21
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.


Where is your evidence for any of this? This is what the abstract says: "Our analysis reveals a homogeneous population that is genetically a plausible source for the first farmers of Europe". The archaeology cinches the deal.

How do you get from that to a comment that implies that both the Early Farmers of the Near East and the Early Farmers of Europe are descended from some other source? You do know that the archaeology is crystal clear about where the grains and the animals and the technology was developed and where it spread once it left the Near East? The genetics was the only missing piece.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but how does the fact that the Near Eastern farmers are 1,000 years older than the farmers of Europe prove that they're NOT the source? The "parent" population is of course going to be older. Why wouldn't it take around 1000 years for that migration to occur? Whole papers have been done that calculate the movement of grains, animals, etc., and 1000 years is just about right.

Where was this preferred "parent" population located?

Why would you assume that the difference between Anatolians in 6300 BC and Anatolians of today is due to anything other than subsequent gene flows?

I have no idea where you're getting this stuff, Fire-Haired, but I think given how many fanciful internet posts have been proven to be abysmally wrong that we'd be better off sticking to the evidence presented in scientific papers.

Arame
14-09-15, 15:59
Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.

LeBrok
14-09-15, 16:59
Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.
Good points. About the last one. What is surprising that Neolithic Y was replaced by other Ys, but EEF admixture is still very high in modern Europeans. With your density scenario Y chromosome should be replaced, and also EEF should be replaced at the same time. At 50% of EEF admixture in population with should expect 50% of Neolithic Y hg left, but it is not the case. Something else is in play here. We should take under consideration that almost all people today belong to young subclades of many Y hg. That means that there is a constant replacement, growth, spreading of new successful subclades.

bicicleur
14-09-15, 17:32
Is that a rhetorical question? We know that not much G2a is left, but that's just y lines. How many times has the data shown us that y lineages are very poor indicators of total genomic structure? Given that, how can a change in y dna prove by itself that there was "replacement" after "replacement"?

The Early European Farmers were not just G2a. There was a lot of "F" (actually H2 and T) among them too. From the abstract, there was also minority y Dna in ancient Anatolia. Yet, in terms of autosomal structure they were very homogeneous. Look at R1b. We've seen R1b in a totally EEF person, in a totally EHG person, in "mixed" Yamnaya people, and we know it is found in SSAfricans.

Or, to use another example, let's assume for the moment that it's been proven beyond any doubt through ancient dna that all the R1a in India is from steppe dwellers. How much actual autosomal change did they bring to India, how much actual "replacement"? Osama Bin Ladin's father had 77 children. Some Saudi princes have hundreds. If the women were all from a different "X" population, how much "replacement" would we see after a thousand years?

As to Sopot, the paper that analyzed those samples didn't show a big difference between them and the early farmers of Central Europe. We don't even know if they'd been in the southern Balkans the whole time. Most of the J in the Balkans is J2b, present at least since Sopot, and as I said we don't know how long they'd been in the area south of the Sopot area. E-V13 was part of the early Neolithic, and just expanded in place. Huns left barely a ripple. I could go on, but there's no point in belaboring the issue. Oh, and I had no idea that we know that "proto" Hittites went to Anatolia.

correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?

and yes, sometimes the newcomers took local women
but that don't mean no new women arrived
just look at early neolithic and middle neolithic mtDNA
if you don't look at the subclades, you'll find the same components but not in the same proportion, there are clear shifts
in the early neolithic the main components are T and K
in the middle neolithic many of them are replaced by H
if you then look at the subclades, you'll notice even more differences

the first European farmers didn't have a monopoly on EEF
otherwise it would be impossible for R1b to become totally EEF

Aaron1981
14-09-15, 18:21
The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.

Aaron1981
14-09-15, 18:28
correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?



Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G-P303, I don't recall which branch, was found in a La Tene burial, as well as 2 R1b haplotypes. Something similar was found in medieval Austria with 2 Gs and 4 R1bs.

Fluffy
14-09-15, 18:39
[QUOTE=Aaron1981;466737]Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G


Like G2a L497?

Alan
14-09-15, 19:51
Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.


@Awood

"
Modern Middle Eastern people, including people from the Levant have the Teal component which is found in Yamnaya. If NW Anatolia = true farmer, or let's call it a Stuttgart on EEF steroids, then I suspect there will be no "Teal", unlike all ME populations today. "

The main shift that happened in the Levant is a "Southern/Southwestern Farmer" expansion which came via the Afro_Asiatic speakers. Modern Levantines don't really have that much ANE what shifts them more away from EEF is the significantly higher Red Sea Element which is most likely the result of Afro_Asiatic expansion evident from acient samples of Armenia where we see a constant increase of Red Sea element.

Teal or what I call the Eastern farmers were probably around the Iranian Plateau, Southeast Caucasus Mesopotamia and East Anatolia by mid-late neolithic. Mesopotamia, East Anatolia and Caucasus must have been the connection point of East and West farmers by late neolithic. And modern Jordan the meeting point of South and West farmers. South farmer expansions into northern Levant and East/South farmers expansions into Anatolia must have almost completely eradicated the Western farmers. This is also clearly evident by historic context. Assyrian, Aramaic and Arab expansion towards North, Iranic, Turkic and other Indo European expansion from the Iranian Plateau/East Anatolia/Transcaucasus into Central/West Anatolia and as far as Levant.


Coldmountains said
"So Y-DNA I among EEFs could originate from Anatolia in the end and not from assimilated WHGs? "

possibility is there but not necessary, because some Balkanian farmers had already additional (~5-20%) real WHG admixture, so I could have been catched up there. While ironically Central European farmers were mostly identical to Anatolian farmers.


I think the explanation for this is simple. Here we are dealing with a farming complex of Anatolian farmers and their descend the Balkanian farmers who probably absorbed real WHG admixture.

Now it's not like Central European farmers had to have arrived automatically from those Balkanian farmers after they earlier left from Anatolia. Think about it. What forces farmers to migrate?

Shortage of land. Now imagine first Anatolian farmers reaching Balkans. A second group from Anatolia starting it's journey but Balkans are already occupied by farmer groups. So the most logical thing is you migrate a step further into Central Europe. Now other waves of farmers leave the Balkans and Anatolia for new farmland. This is probably how some Iberian farmers end up being identical to Balkan farmers while other identical to Anatolian. This is not because they absorbed allot of additional WHG in Iberia but because they are descend of those Balkan farmers who already absorbed real WHG in the Balkans!

And about Haplogroup I, I think it was a Haplogroup spaning the region between Europe all the way into the Iranian Plateau and Levant.

Maciamo
14-09-15, 20:08
Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.

The situation of the Europeans reaching the Americas is completely different because the two groups had been genetically separated for over 15,000 years and they evolved in completely different natural environments during that time, exposed to different microbes. In Eurasia all populations constantly had some sort of contact with their immediate neighbours - if not every year, at least once in a generation for at least one individual in the group, which is enough for diseases to spread and for immunity to get roughly evened out at the continental level.

Novelties like alcohol could also spread faster among neighbouring populations than the speed of natural selection to modify the gene pool.

Anyway, if immunity played any role in "wiping out" Neolithic lineages, it should have affected both paternal and maternal lineages, which isn't the case at all. Nowadays over 60% of European mtDNA can be traced back to Neolithic farmers. I am not just referring to top level haplogroups like H or K, but very deep subclades that haven't changed at all since the Neolithic, such as H1e1a, H1e1a3, K1a3a3, K1a4a1, T2a1b1, T2c1d2, etc. And as I said above, autosomally it is clear that over half of European DNA was inherited from Neolithic farmers. That is definitely not a sign of massive population replacement. Only on the paternal side.

Maciamo
14-09-15, 20:22
Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G-P303, I don't recall which branch, was found in a La Tene burial, as well as 2 R1b haplotypes. Something similar was found in medieval Austria with 2 Gs and 4 R1bs.

That's exactly why I have maintained for the last 6 years that most G2a in Europe (L141.1, what I am used to call G2a3b, even if the nomenclature has changed since) is descended from Bronze Age Indo-Europeans like R1b1a2, and that this G2a-L141.1 originated in the Maykop culture alongside R1b lineages found in Europe today. We should soon know if that was correct (at least if they test enough Maykop samples to have something representative).

Angela
14-09-15, 20:32
I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.

Therefore, if we're going to be precise in our terminology and not confuse people once more, the Anatolian farmers did not have WHG.

So, it seems there were at least two groups of hunter-gatherers in the ancient Near East who combined to form the first farmers. There's this population ancestral to the WHG whom we could perhaps call the UHG, and some "Basal Eurasian" hunter-gatherers.

I certainly hope that the Reich Lab clarifies the issue, including the origin and nature of this "Basal Eurasian" hunter gatherer component, and its proportional presence in the first farmers of Anatolia.

If they can't do it maybe it's time that they let it go or modify it, like they modified their initial formulation that Europeans had an "Amerindian" component.

epoch
14-09-15, 20:35
Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.

A lot of the Mediterranean soils are very rich soils - terra rossa e.g. - whereas Central European fertile soils are restricted to loess and river clay. The latter is not easily worked. LBK settlement very roughly matches loess soils. I tend to think this led to enough space left in LBK areas - The areas had huge peat bogs, fenns and non-productive forests - for WHG to keep living alongside LBK, whereas in the Mediterranean contact was inevitable. We know later Middle European neolithics got admixed with WHG and Haak et al does state that immediately before the big Corder Ware turn over there was an *additional* surge of WHG. That must have been remaining WHG groups.

Davidski once said we Middle Europeans are roughly 1/4 EEF, 1/4 local WHG and 1/2 Steppe. That may not be the exact numbers but we do show enough affinity to Loschbourg and KO1 to warrant such an idea.


http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/soil_atlas/pages/87.html

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/LBK_culture.png

https://helemaalloss.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/european_loess_map_hires7613.jpg

epoch
14-09-15, 20:39
I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.


No, can't be. Lazardis derived the proportion of EEF versus WHG from Stuttgart and Loschbour, which would lump the Near Eastern WHG decent in EEF. Still, everybody in Europe came out with a proportion of WHG. Also, Haak had this table which clearly states something similar:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg

Sile
14-09-15, 21:23
No, can't be. Lazardis derived the proportion of EEF versus WHG from Stuttgart and Loschbour, which would lump the Near Eastern WHG decent in EEF. Still, everybody in Europe came out with a proportion of WHG. Also, Haak had this table which clearly states something similar:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-boprzJzw7VQ/VNxU8VTUphI/AAAAAAAAJ7g/2A_cJM6Hirk/s1600/3.jpg

As i stated in post#11 ...............there is no teal in LBKT_EN and this orange is in central Germany ..............the age difference between these new "troad" Anatolians of 6300BC to the orange of LBK_EN in germany is less than 800 years

you will find nearly zero of WHG in these troad people

Angela
14-09-15, 21:25
correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?

and yes, sometimes the newcomers took local women
but that don't mean no new women arrived
just look at early neolithic and middle neolithic mtDNA
if you don't look at the subclades, you'll find the same components but not in the same proportion, there are clear shifts
in the early neolithic the main components are T and K
in the middle neolithic many of them are replaced by H
if you then look at the subclades, you'll notice even more differences

the first European farmers didn't have a monopoly on EEF
otherwise it would be impossible for R1b to become totally EEF

This is the Brandt et al analysis of ancient mtDna. I know we now have more samples, but maybe this can serve just to get the discussion going.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t_KXpJ8f80w/Ulbx5NVzpmI/AAAAAAAAJLE/4ygZg4byqIc/s1600/timeline.jpg
The total lack of the "U" lineages in the early Neolithic goes along with the findings that there was virtually no H/G introgression in the early phases of the Neolithic in Europe. The uptick in the Middle Neolithic could correlate with the uptick in WHG ancestry in late Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans. Interestingly, that occurs before the changes to mtDna brought about by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, which, if you're using just those lineages labelled Early Bronze Age, aren't very large. (Some of those are obviously "EHG" type lineages.)

The problematic lineage is "H", given those somewhat controversial Mesolithic "H" samples in Iberia, and the later high frequencies of "H" in Neolithic Portugal. It will be very informative to see what specific lineages of "H" were present in the Anatolian Neolithic. Most importantly, was there "basal" H1 and H3? When we have that information it will be much easier to figure out if, whether or not a few very basal "H" lineages made it to Iberia in the Mesolithic, the vast majority of it is Neolithic Near Eastern, and which sub-lineages went "west" to go with the EEF into Europe "early", and which "H" and other lineages (U3?) went east into the Caucasus, then the steppe and only then entered Europe from the east.

Angela
14-09-15, 21:50
Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.


To prove this scenario you'd actually need Balkan (and or Greek) farmer samples from before the date of LBK which show introgressed "actual" WHG, wouldn't you?

Maybe I've lost track. Do we even have contemporaneous, much less earlier farmer samples (as compared to LBK) from the Balkans which show more "WHG" even as defined by blogger calculators?

Or is the increase from mid to late Neolithic samples?

epoch
14-09-15, 22:13
The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.



No, the gist of it was that KO1, a Hungarian HG contemporary to neolithics, was more related to farmers than all other HGs and therefore they concluded admixture in the Balkans was the most probable scenario.

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2015_Olalde_Figure4.jpg


This also clearly shows the re-uptake of HG by later, local neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker. See Gok2's higher affiliation to Loschbour.

Alan
14-09-15, 22:28
I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.

Therefore, if we're going to be precise in our terminology and not confuse people once more, the Anatolian farmers did not have WHG.

So, it seems there were at least two groups of hunter-gatherers in the ancient Near East who combined to form the first farmers. There's this population ancestral to the WHG whom we could perhaps call the UHG, and some "Basal Eurasian" hunter-gatherers.

I certainly hope that the Reich Lab clarifies the issue, including the origin and nature of this "Basal Eurasian" hunter gatherer component, and its proportional presence in the first farmers of Anatolia.

If they can't do it maybe it's time that they let it go or modify it, like they modified their initial formulation that Europeans had an "Amerindian" component.


Absolutely agree.

Here one of my comments about that matter on Eurogenes comment section.


Alberto said

"I certainly didn't mean that there were WHGs as such (Loschbour types) in Syria or the Levant. Here we should probably notice that we're talking about the same kind of component and it's just a degree of it that changes."

Right, as I said in one of my earlier posts. we are dealing with a West Eurasian Hunther and Gatherers population ancestral to WHG too but pre WHG.

What is here showing up as "WHG" in EEF is not really WHG but a relative population of WHG which was in the Near East since the beginning and might even be (Probably) ancestral to WHG itself.

Just look at this graph it explains the relation of EEF and WHG well.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png

Alan
14-09-15, 22:35
To prove this scenario you'd actually need Balkan (and or Greek) farmer samples from before the date of LBK which show introgressed "actual" WHG, wouldn't you?

Maybe I've lost track. Do we even have contemporaneous, much less earlier farmer samples (as compared to LBK) from the Balkans which show more "WHG" even as defined by blogger calculators?

Or is the increase from mid to late Neolithic samples?

My thoughts were made because of the Vinca individual and that a recent paper appeared saying Iberian farmers are directly descend from Balkan farmers. It was merely a speculation but I still think that is the case and we have it to do with a farming complex along Anatolia and Balkans. In this scenario Balkans are a secondary homeland to the earliest fertile crescent farmers who reached the Balkans and mixed there probably with real WHG people and might have catched up yDNA I there (If not "I" was present in Western Asia already).

bicicleur
14-09-15, 23:03
This is the Brandt et al analysis of ancient mtDna. I know we now have more samples, but maybe this can serve just to get the discussion going.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t_KXpJ8f80w/Ulbx5NVzpmI/AAAAAAAAJLE/4ygZg4byqIc/s1600/timeline.jpg
The total lack of the "U" lineages in the early Neolithic goes along with the findings that there was virtually no H/G introgression in the early phases of the Neolithic in Europe. The uptick in the Middle Neolithic could correlate with the uptick in WHG ancestry in late Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans. Interestingly, that occurs before the changes to mtDna brought about by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, which, if you're using just those lineages labelled Early Bronze Age, aren't very large. (Some of those are obviously "EHG" type lineages.)

The problematic lineage is "H", given those somewhat controversial Mesolithic "H" samples in Iberia, and the later high frequencies of "H" in Neolithic Portugal. It will be very informative to see what specific lineages of "H" were present in the Anatolian Neolithic. Most importantly, was there "basal" H1 and H3? When we have that information it will be much easier to figure out if, whether or not a few very basal "H" lineages made it to Iberia in the Mesolithic, the vast majority of it is Neolithic Near Eastern, and which sub-lineages went "west" to go with the EEF into Europe "early", and which "H" and other lineages (U3?) went east into the Caucasus, then the steppe and only then entered Europe from the east.

it is strange, 5500-3500 BC 'early neolithic' and H are moving in opposite direction as if they were 2 competing groups
after 3500 BC U moves in again
and what about LN/EBA, they don't strike me as specific Yamnaya, Yamanya looks more like U + 'early neolithic' in terms of mtDNA

U was probably native to the steppe since LGM, so would some group crossing the Caucasus just prior to Yamnaya have brought the 'early neolithic' to the steppe ?

there is still to much guessing involved

furthermore since 2200 BC there is a comeback of H at the expense of all other mtDNA lines
how could that be explained?

Angela
14-09-15, 23:06
My thoughts were made because of the Vinca individual and that a recent paper appeared saying Iberian farmers are directly descend from Balkan farmers. It was merely a speculation but I still think that is the case and we have it to do with a farming complex along Anatolia and Balkans. In this scenario Balkans are a secondary homeland to the earliest fertile crescent farmers who reached the Balkans and mixed there probably with real WHG people and might have catched up yDNA I there (If not "I" was present in Western Asia already).

VINCA and LBK are roughly simultaneous cultures. I'd have to go back and check the date of Stuttgart and that Vinca sample to see the specific chronology.

Anyway, every paper we've seen so far, including the Olalde paper to which you're referring indicates that all the farmers were basically homogeneous until the Mid-to-Late Neolithic, which correlates with what Haak et al said, and when they seemed to pick up some minor WHG component in varying amounts. I'm not inclined to muddy the waters right now based on that one sample. It's important to remember, too, that there might be a few percent difference between the early European farmers and the earlier Anatolian ones.

Hopefully, the new Reich Lab paper will clarify a lot of these things. I'll wait for them before I formulate any firm conclusions about all of this. I think the speech is Thursday? Perhaps the paper will be online shortly after that.

Oh, sorry I didn't give points for some of your posts upthread. I was profligate with them and I'm all out!

Tomenable
14-09-15, 23:10
I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Angela look at present-day frequency distribution of WHG ancestry in Europe - does it look like immigration from the Near East? I don't think so. WHG in Europe is descended partially from local hunters absorbed by farmers, and partially from Proto-Indo-Europeans through EHG component (which was present among PIEs and which - as we know - consisted of WHG and ANE).

The same applies to ANE - it is partially descended from PIE, and partially from an earlier immigration of Siberian hunters. For instance, we know that some % of ANE was present already among SHGs, long before PIEs came to Scandinavia.

So higher percent of ANE among present-day groups such as Norwegians or Lithuanians can be the result not just of greater degree of population replacement by PIEs, but also of presence of some ANE already in local pre-IE substratum.

It has been proven time and again that Middle Neolithic and especially Late Neolithic farmers in places such as Scandinavia, North-Central Europe (LBK, Lengyel, TRB), North-Eastern Europe and Northern Iberia did assimilate local hunters. We observe increase of WHG ancestry already in those Middle-to-Late Neolithic samples.

The idea that expansion of farming was entirely through replacement of local hunters holds only for Early Neolithic times, and only for Southern and South-Central Europe.

So there is really no need to speculate about WHG ancestry coming from Anatolia. It was local, European, and increased over time from Early Neolithic to Late Neolithic. Had it come from Anatolia, it would have been present in large amounts already in Early Neolithic samples from Southern Europe or Hungary.

By the way - I would like to see some autosomal data for farmers from North-Eastern Europe, such as Zhizhitskaya Culture.

It does not seem likely that Zhizhitskaya farmers-and-fishermen had mostly Near Eastern ancestry.

Angela
14-09-15, 23:12
it is strange, 5500-3500 BC 'early neolithic' and H are moving in opposite direction as if they were 2 competing groups
after 3500 BC U moves in again
and what about LN/EBA, they don't strike me as specific Yamnaya, Yamanya looks more like U + 'early neolithic' in terms of mtDNA

U was probably native to the steppe since LGM, so would some group crossing the Caucasus just prior to Yamnaya have brought the 'early neolithic' to the steppe ?

there is still to much guessing involved

You're right, we need a lot more info on all of this. The problem with that Brandt et al analysis is that the "H' lineage isn't broken down into sub lineages. Maybe it was different ones entering from different directions. Maybe Fire-Haired will come back in and tell us what his compilation shows about subgroups of H by steppe vs western Europe and then regionally within western Europe itself.

Angela
14-09-15, 23:25
Angela look at present-day frequency distribution of WHG ancestry in Europe - does it look like immigration from the Near East? I don't think so. WHG in Europe is descended partially from local hunters absorbed by farmers, and partially from Proto-Indo-Europeans through EHG component (whcih was present among PIEs and which - as we know - consisted of WHG and ANE).

The same applies to ANE - it is partially descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans, and partially from an earlier migration wave of Siberian hunters.

For instance, we know that some % of ANE was present already among Swedish Hunter-Gatherers, long before Indo-Europeans came to Scandinavia.

So higher percent of ANE among present-day Northern Europeans (Norwegians or Lithuanians) can be the result not only of greater degree of population replacement by PIEs, but also of more significant presence of ANE in local pre-Indo-European substrate.

I actually don't totally disagree with you about the ANE in those areas. I've suggested this as a possibility before and been shut down. :) I've also suggested that even the replacement figures might be a little misleading, because we don't know whether that replacement figure is based on actual mixing with actual people from the steppe, or it's just that there were a lot of EHG like people already there and that this is inflating the admixture amount.

I also totally agree that there was some resurgence of WHG starting around the mid-Neolithic. No one seems to hear me when I say that. :)

(There could also have been some reservoir of WHG in some parts of areas adjacent to the steppe that got caught up with the "Indo-European" movements and went toward central and northern and to some extent southern Europe. Or perhaps it's just hard to tell EHG from WHG in certain analyses.)

I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about thousands of years earlier, before the LGM. I know you can't think that the WHG sprang from the soil of Europe . That would be a bit like my aged great aunt (97), when I asked her where she thought we came from, looking up at the hills that surround my valley and saying, "We've always been here." It's a comforting thought, but I'm afraid population genetics teaches us differently. :) Europe is a sink genetically, not a source.

Those WHG had to come from somewhere. Given some recent papers finding links between the Gravettian and the greater Near East, I don't think it's at all outlandish to suggest that this is the origin of the similarity between UHG and WHG.

However, that's just speculation. Let's wait a few days and see what the experts have to say.

Alan
14-09-15, 23:43
Angela look at present-day frequency distribution of WHG ancestry in Europe - does it look like immigration from the Near East? I don't think so. WHG in Europe is descended partially from local hunters absorbed by farmers, and partially from Proto-Indo-Europeans through EHG component (which was present among PIEs and which - as we know - consisted of WHG and ANE).


The same thing could be said about EEF itself. if we take a look at EEF someone might think it started all in Europe. I think the recent papers should have teached us otherwise. We have complete population replacements in all of West Eurasia.

I am very convinced that by mid-late neolithic the early neolithic farmers had diverged into three rather distinct groups. One mixing with ANE populations from the Iranian Plateau and further east creating the teal people. One absorbing some East African DNA and becoming proto Afro_Asiatic like people (Southern farmers) and the proto EEF (western) farmers. Looking at the remnants of WHG in North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia itself, there is a clear indiciation that this component was widespred in all these regions.

Tomenable
14-09-15, 23:51
I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about thousands of years earlier, before the LGM. I know you can't think that the WHG sprang from the soil of Europe . That would be a bit like my aged great aunt (97), when I asked her where she thought we came from, looking up at the hills that surround my valley and saying, "We've always been here." It's a comforting thought, but I'm afraid population genetics teaches us differently. :) Europe is a sink genetically, not a source.

Those WHG had to come from somewhere. Given some recent papers finding links between the Gravettian and the greater Near East, I don't think it's at all outlandish to suggest that this is the origin of the similarity between UHG and WHG.

However, that's just speculation. Let's wait a few days and see what the experts have to say.

Well, I agree that ancestors of WHG surely came from somewhere, considering that we all ultimately stem from Africa.

Ultimately all Non-Africans are descended from that "Out-of-Africa tribe", which had L3 mtDNA and CT Y-DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

However, modern Eurasians generally do not appear to be African autosomally, which means that if a population lives for a long time in relative isolation from other populations, then it developes its own discrete autosomal component.

And indeed WHG could be such a local development. Ancestors of WHG probably came from areas between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, crossing the Caucasus. But at that time they probably did not appear to be "WHG" autosomally.

What we call "autosomal WHG" could evolve in Europe over thousands of years.

It is possible that no significant amount of WHG will be found in ancient DNA samples from outside of Europe.

Tomenable
15-09-15, 00:00
The same thing could be said about EEF itself. if we take a look at EEF someone might think it started all in Europe.Not really.

At least not according to these maps posted by Anglecynn (http://www.anthrogenica.com/member.php?498-Anglecynn) (I don't know what's their ultimate source):

EEF (actually he calls it "Near Eastern"; shouldn't it be ~80% in Sardinia?):

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NearEastK8.png

WHG (looks correct in Estonia at ~51%, but exaggerated in some regions?):

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/WHGK8.png

ANE (this one rather seems correct everywhere; Sardinians have no ANE):

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/ANEK8.png

From: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3714-Post-Neolithic-impact-lesser-as-we-move-south-in-Europe-fair-comment&p=64896&viewfull=1#post64896

Not sure how accurate are these maps, though.

Tomenable
15-09-15, 00:18
This is probably where ancestors of WHG came from (Bicicleur was the one who suggested this):

In terms of Y-DNA they were descended from IJ - I crossed the Caucasus, while J stayed in the south:

But in my opinion they were not yet "WHG" autosomally back then. That evolved only later, in Europe:

http://s14.postimg.org/d19q2hje9/Proto_WHG.png

Edit:

Or maybe WHG did not evolve in Europe and actually came to Europe (as Angela has suggested) - but from North-Western Africa? Why is there so much WHG there today compared to the Middle East - between 12% and 16% ???

========================================

East Asian admixture (I guess in North Africa it was spread by Turks from Anatolia?):

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EEAK8.png

Sub-Saharan African admixture (Basques seem to lack it, compared to other Iberians):

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SSAK8.png

Tomenable
15-09-15, 00:33
Alan,

Maciamo's map of EEF admixture is in agreement with that map posted by Anglecynn:

(except for Sardinia where Maciamo's map shows - correctly - 80% and the other map wrongly only 65%):

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Neolithic_farmer_admixture.png

Which sources say that EEF admixture is higher in Europe than in the Middle East ??? :thinking:

LeBrok
15-09-15, 00:34
The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.
I think you are right. I suspect WHG of Balkans staid in Anatolian refuge while WHG of Iberia had refuge in Iberia. They could have been split during LGM for 10 thousand years drifting genetically apart.

epoch
15-09-15, 07:18
Not really.

At least not according to these maps posted by Anglecynn (http://www.anthrogenica.com/member.php?498-Anglecynn) (I don't know what's their ultimate source):

From: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3714-Post-Neolithic-impact-lesser-as-we-move-south-in-Europe-fair-comment&p=64896&viewfull=1#post64896

Not sure how accurate are these maps, though.

He seems to add the WHG component of EEF to WHG. Lazardis did not. Lazardis did however add the WHG component of Yamnaya to WHG. On the basis of these maps you would conclude that either farmers got extra WHG admixture, or Anatolia's indigenous WHG admixture decreased.

bicicleur
15-09-15, 08:55
No, the gist of it was that KO1, a Hungarian HG contemporary to neolithics, was more related to farmers than all other HGs and therefore they concluded admixture in the Balkans was the most probable scenario.

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2015_Olalde_Figure4.jpg


This also clearly shows the re-uptake of HG by later, local neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker. See Gok2's higher affiliation to Loschbour.

afaik KO1 skeleton was found in a neolithic site



Korös
Hungary
Tiszaszölös-Domaha´za [KO1]
M
5780-5650 BC
I2a I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233
Genetiker 18+ 22- op 82
autosomal HG, no EEF
R3
Gamba 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Gamba2014)



according to Genetiker he is HG, not EEF which contradicts your D functions

Sile
15-09-15, 09:15
Well, I agree that ancestors of WHG surely came from somewhere, considering that we all ultimately stem from Africa.

Ultimately all Non-Africans are descended from that "Out-of-Africa tribe", which had L3 mtDNA and CT Y-DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

However, modern Eurasians generally do not appear to be African autosomally, which means that if a population lives for a long time in relative isolation from other populations, then it developes its own discrete autosomal component.

And indeed WHG could be such a local development. Ancestors of WHG probably came from areas between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, crossing the Caucasus. But at that time they probably did not appear to be "WHG" autosomally.

What we call "autosomal WHG" could evolve in Europe over thousands of years.

It is possible that no significant amount of WHG will be found in ancient DNA samples from outside of Europe.


this latest paper states mtdna L3 is 8000 years old


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626

Over the sands and far away: interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins.
Pardiñas AF1, Martínez JL, Roca A, García-Vazquez E, López B.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:

There is an ongoing effort to characterize the genetic links between Africa and Europe, mostly using lineages and haplotypes that are specific to one continent but had an ancient origin in the other. Mitochondrial DNA has been proven to be a very useful tool for this purpose since a high number of putatively European-specific variants of the African L* lineages have been defined over the years. Due to their geographic locations, Spain and Portugal seem to be ideal places for searching for these lineages.
METHODS:

Five members of a minor branch of haplogroup L3f were found in recent DNA samplings in the region of Asturias (Northern Spain), which is known for its historical isolation. The frequency of L3f in this population (≈1%) is unexpectedly high in comparison with other related lineages in Europe. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequencing of these L3f lineages, as well phylogenetic and phylogeographic comparative analyses have been performed.
RESULTS:

The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait.

bicicleur
15-09-15, 09:18
This is probably where ancestors of WHG came from (Bicicleur was the one who suggested this):

In terms of Y-DNA they were descended from IJ - I crossed the Caucasus, while J stayed in the south:

But in my opinion they were not yet "WHG" autosomally back then. That evolved only later, in Europe:

http://s14.postimg.org/d19q2hje9/Proto_WHG.png

Edit:

Or maybe WHG did not evolve in Europe and actually came to Europe (as Angela has suggested) - but from North-Western Africa? Why is there so much WHG there today compared to the Middle East - between 12% and 16% ???

========================================

East Asian admixture (I guess in North Africa it was spread by Turks from Anatolia?):





IMO the IJ split happened +/- 42 ka in Transcaucasia (findings in Ortvale Klde and Dzudzuana caves, Georgia)
I crossed the Caucasus and stayed in Mezmayskaya cave, from where it expanded into Europe 33 ka, they were the Gravettians
the crucial thing was at Mezmayskaya they had developped borers to drill eyes in bone needles
the Gravettians had better clothing and tents and so they outcompeted Aurignacians on the cold steppe which was all over Europe
Aurignacians even didn't know needles

J would have stayed in Transcaucasia till the onset of LGM and then have moved south to SW Asia (Kebaran industry in the Levant)

WHG would be Y-DNA I and mtDNA U
I don't know whether U was allready in Europe with Aurignacians or they came from Transcaucasia too

during neolithic revolution J was one of the main components in SW Asia, allthough they didn't bring the first farming to Europe

I and J being brothers would account for some similarities in DNA

bicicleur
15-09-15, 09:40
this latest paper states mtdna L3 is 8000 years old


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626

Over the sands and far away: interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins.
Pardiñas AF1, Martínez JL, Roca A, García-Vazquez E, López B.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:

There is an ongoing effort to characterize the genetic links between Africa and Europe, mostly using lineages and haplotypes that are specific to one continent but had an ancient origin in the other. Mitochondrial DNA has been proven to be a very useful tool for this purpose since a high number of putatively European-specific variants of the African L* lineages have been defined over the years. Due to their geographic locations, Spain and Portugal seem to be ideal places for searching for these lineages.
METHODS:

Five members of a minor branch of haplogroup L3f were found in recent DNA samplings in the region of Asturias (Northern Spain), which is known for its historical isolation. The frequency of L3f in this population (≈1%) is unexpectedly high in comparison with other related lineages in Europe. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequencing of these L3f lineages, as well phylogenetic and phylogeographic comparative analyses have been performed.
RESULTS:

The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait.

one could speculate L3f came from Africa along with R1b-V88 8000 years ago, and that R1b-V88 was detected at Els Trocs



Spain
Els Trocs [Troc3]
M
5178-5066 BC
R1b1c
M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+]
M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69- R1b1c(xR1b1c2, R1b1c3)
pre-T2c1d2
Haak 2015; personal comm Sergey Malyshev, review of Y-DNA raw data



on the other hand, wasn't there E-M81 in Asturias, which couldn't be Moorish
and TMRCA for E-M81 is just 2100 years

epoch
15-09-15, 09:59
afaik KO1 skeleton was found in a neolithic site



Korös
Hungary
Tiszaszölös-Domaha´za [KO1]
M
5780-5650 BC
I2a I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233
Genetiker 18+ 22- op 82
autosomal HG, no EEF
R3
Gamba 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Gamba2014)



according to Genetiker he is HG, not EEF which contradicts your D functions


No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.

epoch
15-09-15, 10:19
And if you take a look at this, Gokhem 4 is far more WHG admixted than Gok2.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hoBLZ0dZXto/U1luxCudqwI/AAAAAAAAJk4/J3X428YdPzo/s1600/PCA.png

Sile
15-09-15, 10:52
No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.

no....the goal is to check if the 6300BC anatolian farmers are compatible with the central european farmers belonging to LBK_EN

it has nothing to do with hunters or any markers that exceed thousands of years from these Anatolians

Sile
15-09-15, 10:53
IMO the IJ split happened +/- 42 ka in Transcaucasia (findings in Ortvale Klde and Dzudzuana caves, Georgia)
I crossed the Caucasus and stayed in Mezmayskaya cave, from where it expanded into Europe 33 ka, they were the Gravettians
the crucial thing was at Mezmayskaya they had developped borers to drill eyes in bone needles
the Gravettians had better clothing and tents and so they outcompeted Aurignacians on the cold steppe which was all over Europe
Aurignacians even didn't know needles

J would have stayed in Transcaucasia till the onset of LGM and then have moved south to SW Asia (Kebaran industry in the Levant)

WHG would be Y-DNA I and mtDNA U
I don't know whether U was allready in Europe with Aurignacians or they came from Transcaucasia too

during neolithic revolution J was one of the main components in SW Asia, allthough they didn't bring the first farming to Europe

I and J being brothers would account for some similarities in DNA

IMO, the IJ split occurred around trabazon

Sile
15-09-15, 10:55
one could speculate L3f came from Africa along with R1b-V88 8000 years ago, and that R1b-V88 was detected at Els Trocs



Spain
Els Trocs [Troc3]
M
5178-5066 BC
R1b1c
M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+]
M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69- R1b1c(xR1b1c2, R1b1c3)
pre-T2c1d2
Haak 2015; personal comm Sergey Malyshev, review of Y-DNA raw data



on the other hand, wasn't there E-M81 in Asturias, which couldn't be Moorish
and TMRCA for E-M81 is just 2100 years

maybe E-81

latest paper


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25677690

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2015 Jun;157(2):242-51. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22705. Epub 2015 Feb 11.
Paternal lineages in Libya inferred from Y-chromosome haplogroups.
Triki-Fendri S1, Sánchez-Diz P2, Rey-González D2, Ayadi I1, Carracedo Á2,3, Rebai A1.
Author information
Abstract

Many studies based on genetic diversity of North African populations have contributed to elucidate the modelling of the genetic landscape in this region. North Africa is considered as a distinct spatial-temporal entity on geographic, archaeological, and historical grounds, which has undergone the influence of different human migrations along its shaping. For instance, Libya, a North African country, was first inhabited by Berbers and then colonized by a variety of ethnic groups like Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and, in recent times, Italians. In this study, we contribute to clarify the genetic variation of Libya and consequently, of North African modern populations, by the study of Libyan male lineages. A total of 22 Y-chromosome-specific SNPs were genotyped in a sample of 175 Libyan males, allowing the characterization of 18 Y-chromosomal haplogroups. The obtained data revealed a predominant Northwest African component represented by haplogroup E-M81 (33.7%) followed by J(xJ1a,J2)-M304 (27.4%), which is postulated to have a Middle Eastern origin. The comparative study with other populations (∼5,400 individuals from North Africa, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe) revealed a general genetic homogeneity among North African populations (FST = 5.3 %; P-value < 0.0001). Overall, the Y-haplogroup diversity in Libya and in North Africa is characterized by two genetic components. The first signature is typical of Berber-speaking people (E-M81), the autochthonous inhabitants, whereas the second is (J(xJ1a,J2)-M304), originating from Arabic populations. This is in agreement with the hypothesis of an Arabic expansion from the Middle East, shaping the North African genetic landscape.

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Arame
15-09-15, 11:47
The situation of the Europeans reaching the Americas is completely different because the two groups had been genetically separated for over 15,000 years and they evolved in completely different natural environments during that time, exposed to different microbes. In Eurasia all populations constantly had some sort of contact with their immediate neighbours

Of course there was contacts in Eurasia, but that contacts are not sufficient to have the same level of immunity all across Eurasia. The best example is the Black Death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death) that decimated the half of medieval European population. There was other cases in Late antiquity in Near East.


Anyway, if immunity played any role in "wiping out" Neolithic lineages, it should have affected both paternal and maternal lineages, which isn't the case at all.

Exact. But when the epidemy ends women have better chances to transmit their genes than the males. They can become the concubine of new males etc etc. Modern Mexicans and Venezuelans large have number of native mtDNA. But they have high European Y DNA.

My point is that what happened in Europe was special and all that can't be explained by wars and killings.
For example we don't see such mass replacement of Y DNA among southern IEs ( Indians, Iranians, Armenians and Greeks ). So it is possible that the European neolithic population density also played a role.

And of course there is the question of autosomal genetics. I think there are some not well understood phenomens with autosoms that we don't take into account. The so called "native ancestry resurgence".
It's my opinion it could be wrong but I think in the long run the alleles that are adapted to a specific climatic and regional conditions are favoured, and the 'alien' genes or alleles that creates incompatibilities with the others genes functioning are removed. In the long run we get something like Basques with so high ANE related R1b but with native autosoms.

epoch
15-09-15, 11:50
no....the goal is to check if the 6300BC anatolian farmers are compatible with the central european farmers belonging to LBK_EN

it has nothing to do with hunters or any markers that exceed thousands of years from these Anatolians

Wait. I was referring to the CB13 paper. Not the El Portalon paper. Perhaps I am confused, but to my best knowledge that was the one that tried to find where EEF got its WHG admixture.

From the paper itself:



D-statistics
Using the 1000 Genomes reference dataset, we computed D-statistics (Durand et al. 2011) of the form D (Hunter-gatherer1, Hunter-gatherer2; Neolithic farmer; Outgroup) to test whether any Neolithic farmer, including CB13 Cardial sample, is closer to one of the two hunter-gatherers (Fig.4 and Table S10). Standard errors were computed using a weighted block jackknife approach (Busing et al. 1999) over 5 Mb blocks

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/02/molbev.msv181.full.pdf+html

bicicleur
15-09-15, 11:54
No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.

the D stats compare KO1 with Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana.

it could be KO1 is slightly less WHG then Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana but still WHG



Gökhem Västergötland [regional TRB]
Sweden
Gok4
M
4-5 ka
I2a1b1 L161.1 xS2639
Genetiker 1+ 0 – op 35 onzeker





Pitted Ware
Sweden
Ajvide [Ajv 52]
M
3000-2400 BC 4,75 ka
I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233
Genetiker 2+ 5- op 82 I, I2, I2a en I2a1 onzeker








Pitted Ware
Sweden
Ajvide [Ajv 58]
M
2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka
I2a1 I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233
Genetiker 18+ 36- op 82
M429+, P126+, P129+, L460+, P37.2+
U4d
Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2012)


Pitted Ware
Sweden
Ajvide [Ajv 59]
M
2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka
I-M170
Genetiker 1+ 0- op 149 onzeker


U
Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2012)


Pitted Ware
Sweden
Ajvide [Ajv 70]
M
2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka
I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233
Genetiker 1+ 11- op 82 onzeker


U4
Malmstrom 2009; Skoglund 2012; Brandt 2013;Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2014)


Pitted Ware
Sweden
Ire, Hangvar, Gotland [Ire 8]
M
2800-2000 BC 4,5 ka
I2a1b1a1-S2703 L1498+ S2703 = Y3749 xY3722
Genetiker Y3749 2+ 0- op 5 onzeker


U4d
Malmstrom 2009;Skoglund 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2012); Brandt 2013; Skoglund 2014; Malmstrom 2015






Sweden
Stora Förvar 11
M
7,5 ka
I1-M253
Genetiker 7+ 10 – op 301





all with low coverage
AJV58 has best coverage of them
don't know anything about Gök2

Arame
15-09-15, 12:04
War is not a one sided thing. With more or less equal technology the invading male has approximatively the same chances to be killed than to kill. All that history from antiquity to medieval time show that wars don't change much the Y DNA frequency. Of course it change but no so dramatically as in the case of Western European R1b.

It is possible to explain that by pacifist matriarchal societies but I don't think it will work. There are cases of violence and killings at Late Neolithic. The Neolithic Europe before IE was not the pacifist society that we imagine and certainly they did know what is the war.

epoch
15-09-15, 14:10
I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.

O dear. I think I misunderstood you, in that I assumed you were arguing the WHG *component* in current day Europe descended from EEF/ANE. But you seem to argue that mesolithic and UP HGs came from the near east. Sorry for that.

K14 is interesting in that respect. But IIRC Razib Kahn mentioned that WHG was more related to Asians than to EEF.

Angela
15-09-15, 17:50
O dear. I think I misunderstood you, in that I assumed you were arguing the WHG *component* in current day Europe descended from EEF/ANE. But you seem to argue that mesolithic and UP HGs came from the near east. Sorry for that.

K14 is interesting in that respect. But IIRC Razib Kahn mentioned that WHG was more related to Asians than to EEF.

No, no, I didn't mean that. Or, yes, yes, you misunderstood me. Let's just say we got our wires crossed. :)

What I was talking about is the fact that in the Lazaridis et al paper the authors said that their statistical analysis showed that EEF (Stuttgart) seemed to contain anywhere from a couple of percent to 40% WHG. They further said that this "WHG" component in the EEF was likely picked up on the way into Europe (the Balkans) or in Central Europe itself. However, they also said that they doubted either extreme, but that only an ancient farmer genome from the Near East would settle the matter, because their calculations were based on using the Bedouin as a proxy (as Allentoft did after them, along with a lot of bloggers.)

You can find all this starting on page 59 of the Lazaridis et al paper.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html

Now, I think I recall that somewhere else in their paper they settled for a "best guess" of around 20%, but don't hold me to that because I don't have the reference, and I don't have the time right now to read the almost 200 pages again. Certainly, however, a figure of around 25% is what the bloggers were using, and using to posit extremely high "WHG" figures in the European Neolithic farmers.

Now we have this abstract of the new Lazaridis paper from the Reich Lab seemingly saying that the Early European farmers are virtually identical to the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. So, what to make of this?

Clearly, there wasn't any picking up of any WHG in the Balkans or Central Europe. (That isn't to say some wasn't picked up from around the Middle Neolithic period, about which more later.)

So, what is the composition of these homogeneous Near Eastern Farmers? Do they still seemingly share a component with the WHG of Europe? How much is it? What was the direction of gene flow?

Did the WHG at some point migrate to parts of the Near East? I'm not aware of any such possible early movement, but I suppose it's possible. Europe is usually a sink for gene flow.

Or, was the gene flow going in the other direction? In considering that, with what movements could we connect it? Well, there are a couple of papers that suggest that the Gravettian, thousands of years before, moved from the greater Near East to Europe.(That's discussed on a thread here, with the relevant citations.) IF that were the case, then we might have a situation where the "WHG" in Europe are distantly removed and drifted descendants of hunter-gatherers from the Near East. That might explain the "WHG-LIKE" partial signal they were picking up in Stuttgart.

That's what I meant.

We'll have to wait for the paper to see how they explain it all.

Oh, and I'd like an update about "Basal Eurasian" please. :) Were there two groups (or more) of hunter gatherers in the Near East, one distantly related to the WHG of Europe, and one from the early "split" in the OOA population, i.le the "Basal Eurasian"hunter-gatherers?
Did one group of these hunter-gatherers invent agriculture and animal domestication and then merge with the other group, or did they merge and then invent agriculture?

It seems that some people would like there to be real, discernible substructure, with the Natufians being the Basal Eurasian group that invented agriculture, and the "other" hunter-gatherers, the ones "related" to WHG, being absorbed later. Maybe then it would show that EEF doesn't equal ENF, and that those ENF numbers might have some validity as representing the Natufians? I don't know. I don't see how it matters in the long run. The point is that we now know, I think, that the EEF number represents the percentage of total ancestry in modern Europeans that can be attributed to Near Eastern farmers who arrived in Europe after about 7000 BC.

I do remember seeing a statement from Patterson somewhere to the effect that the admixing had been going on for so many thousands of years that it was difficult to detect substructure, or something like that, but maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe they've changed their minds. We'll soon know.

Angela
15-09-15, 18:56
I just wanted to address this issue of the numbers for "EEF" "EN" in various charts, maps etc.

This is the original 3 Population Table from Lazaridis et al:

7417

This is the table of Early Neolithic (in Europe)/WHG/Yamnaya: (Same authors)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBo/ROwmMxVJFpI/s1600/Untitled3.png

It's very apparent that the "farmer" numbers, roughly speaking, have changed. Does that mean that the first chart is "wrong" now? I don't think that's necessarily so, although a little clarification from the authors would be nice. :)

Looking at the Haak table, can we interpret it as saying that the EN figure here (based on LBK) strictly represents not just those people who left for Europe from Anatolia/Northern Levant around 7000 BC (and continuing gene flow), but actually what remains of those people in modern Europeans after subsequent migrations?

It was said in Haak that Yamnaya could be modeled as half " MODERN Armenian like". I don't know how much WHG Modern Armenians have, but I doubt they have much. They have quite a bit of ANE, I would think. The rest, however, is "farmer" ancestry, is it not? (I think we're going to have to wait for the Reich Lab analysis of Near Easterners to get some real clarity.)

So, does the "EEF" number from Lazaridis et al represent the specifically LBK type ancestry remaining in Europeans PLUS the "eastern" farmer ancestry which went into the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya?

@Tomenable

If this new Lazaridis et al paper says what we think it will say, then any map with an "EEF" figure based on subtracting supposedly "WHG" ancestry from the Lazaridis et al EEF percentage is just flat out wrong. (which I said at the time, not that anyone listened. :))

If someone wants to make a map of EEF they should use the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. You can't use the blogger "estimates" which have now been proved wrong, or even some combination of the Lazaridis et al figures and the blogger figures, because they are measuring two different things.

Or, someone could make a trio of maps based on the Haak et al paper, with some sort of note that the EN number doesn't represent all the Near Eastern farmer ancestry in Europeans.

Ed. Another more minor problem is that the divide in Spain is in no way that far south. Spain North in Lazaridis et al's list of populations is Pais Vasco, so virtually all of Spain should get the population figures listed under "Spain".

Angela
15-09-15, 19:30
It used to be thought that the Gravettian grew out of the Aurignacian:
http://www.academia.edu/3164654/The_Human_Presence_in_Europe_during_the_Last_Glaci al_Period_I_Human_Migrations_and_the_Changing_Clim ate

More recent thinking (2007)sees it as a new flow of people, but what I have been able to find is papers that see it as an outgrowth of the Ahmarian culture of the eastern Mediterranean. Interestingly, the area on the maps corresponds to the Levant, southern Anatolia.
http://paleo.revues.org/607

If someone has a site for a paper positing an origin in the Caucasus and thus a migration flow from north of it and then west into Europe I'd love to see it.

epoch
15-09-15, 19:42
No, no, I didn't mean that. Or, yes, yes, you misunderstood me. Let's just say we got our wires crossed. :)

What I was talking about is the fact that in the Lazaridis et al paper the authors said that their statistical analysis showed that EEF (Stuttgart) seemed to contain anywhere from a couple of percent to 40% WHG. They further said that this "WHG" component in the EEF was likely picked up on the way into Europe (the Balkans) or in Central Europe itself. However, they also said that they doubted either extreme, but that only an ancient farmer genome from the Near East would settle the matter, because their calculations were based on using the Bedouin as a proxy (as Allentoft did after them, along with a lot of bloggers.)

You can find all this starting on page 59 of the Lazaridis et al paper.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html

Now, I think I recall that somewhere else in their paper they settled for a "best guess" of around 20%, but don't hold me to that because I don't have the reference, and I don't have the time right now to read the almost 200 pages again. Certainly, however, a figure of around 25% is what the bloggers were using, and using to posit extremely high "WHG" figures in the European Neolithic farmers.

Didn't they mention the more WHG they assume in EEF, the more Sub-Saharan admixture they had to assume in Bedouin? I don't really get this. Others have assumed African admixture in BE, on the basis that TreeMix sometimes comes up with that, if I may quote from memory. But I have seen TreeMix runs where admixture from EEF to Mbuti is assumed. That is seriously strange. I can understand backflow to Africa, but to Pygmee's? They are supposed to have forked ages ago from Bantu's.

What if Basal Eurasian is an far earlier human wave out of Africa than WHG/Part of EEF/East Asians? They could even be something like these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids

If you add Neanderthals to admixture runs without aloowing them to become a separate instance they look all African. That is because they share ancestral DNA with Africans that are derived or drifted in the OoA bunch.

O, look at some of K=20 admixture runs where Bedouin becomes a separate instance. All of a sudden WHG in EEF goes up, and oddly enough, Loschbour starts having a EEF component.



Now we have this abstract of the new Lazaridis paper from the Reich Lab seemingly saying that the Early European farmers are virtually identical to the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. So, what to make of this?

Clearly, there wasn't any picking up of any WHG in the Balkans or Central Europe. (That isn't to say some wasn't picked up from around the Middle Neolithic period, about which more later.)

So, what is the composition of these homogeneous Near Eastern Farmers? Do they still seemingly share a component with the WHG of Europe? How much is it? What was the direction of gene flow?

Did the WHG at some point migrate to parts of the Near East? I'm not aware of any such possible early movement, but I suppose it's possible. Europe is usually a sink for gene flow.

Or, was the gene flow going in the other direction? In considering that, with what movements could we connect it? Well, there are a couple of papers that suggest that the Gravettian, thousands of years before, moved from the greater Near East to Europe.(That's discussed on a thread here, with the relevant citations.) IF that were the case, then we might have a situation where the "WHG" in Europe are distantly removed and drifted descendants of hunter-gatherers from the Near East. That might explain the "WHG-LIKE" partial signal they were picking up in Stuttgart.

That's what I meant.

We'll have to wait for the paper to see how they explain it all.

Couldn't Kostenki 14's EEF component be interesting in this regard? Here is a man that already carries both components.


Oh, and I'd like an update about "Basal Eurasian" please. :) Were there two groups (or more) of hunter gatherers in the Near East, one distantly related to the WHG of Europe, and one from the early "split" in the OOA population, i.le the "Basal Eurasian"hunter-gatherers?
Did one group of these hunter-gatherers invent agriculture and animal domestication and then merge with the other group, or did they merge and then invent agriculture?

It seems that some people would like there to be real, discernible substructure, with the Natufians being the Basal Eurasian group that invented agriculture, and the "other" hunter-gatherers, the ones "related" to WHG, being absorbed later. Maybe then it would show that EEF doesn't equal ENF, and that those ENF numbers might have some validity as representing the Natufians? I don't know. I don't see how it matters in the long run. The point is that we now know, I think, that the EEF number represents the percentage of total ancestry in modern Europeans that can be attributed to Near Eastern farmers who arrived in Europe after about 7000 BC.

I do remember seeing a statement from Patterson somewhere to the effect that the admixing had been going on for so many thousands of years that it was difficult to detect substructure, or something like that, but maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe they've changed their minds. We'll soon know.

The Natufians are in the right place (Israel), doing the right thing (Harvesting wild cereals) at the right time.

epoch
15-09-15, 20:06
@Angela

The upper paleolithic samples we have seen are strange too. We have a few which have clear affinity with Europeans, to wit Mal'ta, K14 and Afontova Gora 2. All three of them carry components present in current day Europeans. And we have two that appear to have little clear affinity to Europeans: Ust Ishim and Oase 2. The latter are considered "dead ends" by a number of people, for whatever reason. K14 is considered an admixture that didn't have any influence in Europeans as we consider EEF to be of later date.

So only the most eastern two are considered somewhat ancestral to Europeans. That does seem rather odd.

EDIT: I think a number of upper paleolithic samples are to be investigated, under which the famous Red Lady of Paviland (despite his name a man). So we may find more interesting stuff.

Angela
15-09-15, 21:15
Epoch:
Didn't they mention the more WHG they assume in EEF, the more Sub-Saharan admixture they had to assume in Bedouin? I don't really get this. Others have assumed African admixture in BE, on the basis that TreeMix sometimes comes up with that, if I may quote from memory. But I have seen TreeMix runs where admixture from EEF to Mbuti is assumed. That is seriously strange. I can understand backflow to Africa, but to Pygmee's? They are supposed to have forked ages ago from Bantu's.


I'm not totally clear on it either, which is why I hope they clarify things in the paper. That's also my recollection of what they said, for what it's worth.

Are you referring to the paper that showed EEF in the San? I don't have the paper at my fingertips but from what I recall it's been demonstrated that there is evidence of more recent gene flow from East African "farmers" into them. It's sort of like the situation with some very isolated, presumed "pure" Amazonian Indians who wind up having some small amounts of "European". Didn't one paper also show some much more recent East Asian in one isolated tribe, and the researchers can't figure out how it got to them? There are absolutely no "pure" groups anymore.

Anyway, to the best of my recollection the paper posited a flow from the Near East into the populations of East Africa then many years later with another major migration trickling into the San. That was just talking about post Neolithic gene flow. Recent papers just dealing with yDna "E" clades show the same thing. Maybe gene flow north, but then a stay in the southern Levant for a while, then a flow back down to the Horn where new clades are born, then that moving south and southwest. That's without considering that perhaps it was DE that moved out of Africa, with a split out of Africa, and then E going back to Africa and then the back and forth described above starting.


What if Basal Eurasian is an far earlier human wave out of Africa than WHG/Part of EEF/East Asians? They could even be something like these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids

That might be what Lazaridis et al had in mind as a possible explanation.



O, look at some of K=20 admixture runs where Bedouin becomes a separate instance. All of a sudden WHG in EEF goes up, and oddly enough, Loschbour starts having a EEF component.

It just might turn out that whatever admixtures took place that far back in pre-history just can't be parsed out mathematically the way that somepeople had hoped. I'd be happy to get some clarity for events starting from the late Mesolithic.

One thing that's clear, however, is that the Bedouin weren't a good proxy.


Couldn't Kostenki 14's EEF component be interesting in this regard? Here is a man that already carries both components.

I think it might prove that when you have genomes that are that old, that far back in the tree, there are going to be correlations and similarities to all of us.


The Natufians are in the right place (Israel), doing the right thing (Harvesting wild cereals) at the right time.

Yes, they are and some scholars believe they were probably the first farmers as well:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdfbut not all scholars believe that they were necessarily the first to do so; some papers say that this was going on in the foothills of the Euphrates either contemporaneously or perhaps even earlier.

However, by 2010, the same author was having doubts that they actually were the first to domesticate grains. See Michael Balter: The Tangle Web of Agriculture:
https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Michael+Balter:+The+Tangled+Roots+of+Agricultu re

Plant cultivation, which is different from plant foraging, is also different from plant "domestication":
http://www.academia.edu/1529206/Evidence_for_the_Appearance_of_Plant_Cultivation_a nd_Domestication_in_the_Neolithic_Near_East

One of the sites where the earliest signs of tilling (plant cultivation) have been found is Tell Abu Hureyah in far northern Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Abu_Hureyra

There are signs in the Levant as well, but they're later.

I could go on, but you get the point. It's by no means clear that the Natufians were the first "farmers" or even that the first farmers are necessarily descended from the Natufians.

Sile
15-09-15, 21:19
I just wanted to address this issue of the numbers for "EEF" "EN" in various charts, maps etc.

This is the original 3 Population Table from Lazaridis et al:

7417

This is the table of Early Neolithic (in Europe)/WHG/Yamnaya: (Same authors)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBo/ROwmMxVJFpI/s1600/Untitled3.png

It's very apparent that the "farmer" numbers, roughly speaking, have changed. Does that mean that the first chart is "wrong" now? I don't think that's necessarily so, although a little clarification from the authors would be nice. :)

Looking at the Haak table, can we interpret it as saying that the EN figure here (based on LBK) strictly represents not just those people who left for Europe from Anatolia/Northern Levant around 7000 BC (and continuing gene flow), but actually what remains of those people in modern Europeans after subsequent migrations?

It was said in Haak that Yamnaya could be modeled as half " MODERN Armenian like". I don't know how much WHG Modern Armenians have, but I doubt they have much. They have quite a bit of ANE, I would think. The rest, however, is "farmer" ancestry, is it not? (I think we're going to have to wait for the Reich Lab analysis of Near Easterners to get some real clarity.)

So, does the "EEF" number from Lazaridis et al represent the specifically LBK type ancestry remaining in Europeans PLUS the "eastern" farmer ancestry which went into the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya?

@Tomenable

If this new Lazaridis et al paper says what we think it will say, then any map with an "EEF" figure based on subtracting supposedly "WHG" ancestry from the Lazaridis et al EEF percentage is just flat out wrong. (which I said at the time, not that anyone listened. :))

If someone wants to make a map of EEF they should use the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. You can't use the blogger "estimates" which have now been proved wrong, or even some combination of the Lazaridis et al figures and the blogger figures, because they are measuring two different things.

Or, someone could make a trio of maps based on the Haak et al paper, with some sort of note that the EN number doesn't represent all the Near Eastern farmer ancestry in Europeans.

http://open-genomes.org/images/P5A%20with%20migrations.png

the armenians began in the map as AMUQ B lands.....basically where modern turkey meets syria on the meditteraen

you can read other information on these ancient "armenian" archeology in AMUQ ( Cicilia )

the logical answer is that htese 6300BC NW Anatolians farmed from this anatolian lands to central german lands and the the later hungarian samples was due to hunters arriving into hungarian lands via the steppe
(http://open-genomes.org/images/P5A%20with%20migrations.png)

Angela
15-09-15, 21:25
There is another interesting paper that will be presented at the ASHG conference:

Ancient European haplotype enrichment in modern Eurasian populations. Authors:
D. Harris1 ; T. O’Connor2


Institutes
1) Graduate Program in Molecular Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; 2) Institute for Genome Sciences, Program in Personalized and Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
"Abstract:
The diversification of modern European populations is a fascinating puzzle that has recently advanced due to the sequencing of ancient European genomes. We analyzed 732 modern West Eurasian individuals using three ancient samples coming from the Lazardis et al. Human Origins Array dataset. Specifically, we determined ancient European haplotype enrichment by calculating pairwise differences (PWD) between each ancient European individual and modern Western Eurasian individuals in 50 SNP blocks. Modern Western Eurasians had the fewest PWD across all population groups with the farming Stuttgart individual and had the most PWD with the Loschbour and Motala12 hunter-gatherer individuals confirming Lazardis et al. observation that modern Europeans are more similarly related to ancient individuals coming from a farming community. We selected SNP blocks, for gene ontology enrichment analysis through the use of GORILLA, based on 1) the 10% of regions with greatest differences of PWD between groups, and 2) the 10% of those regions from the first criterion that most closely correlated with the geography of those groups. Most SNP blocks positively correlated to PC1 (latitude) and PC2 (longitude), therefore we focused on outliers that negatively correlated to biogeography. For SNP blocks that negatively correlated to PC1; “regulation of chondrocyte development”, “androsterone dehydrogenase activity”, and “antigen processing and presentation of endogenous peptide antigen” had the highest enrichment score in the comparison of the Stuttgart, Loschbour, and Motala12 individuals, respectively. Interestingly, the “alpha-beta T cell receptor complex” and “interleukin-17 receptor activity” (including CD3D,E,G and IL17RC,E) were enriched in the Loschbour and Motala12 comparisons of SNP blocks that were positively correlated to PC2. In addition, the Stuttgart individual had the lowest PWD disparity between all modern populations for the SNP blocks that contain the IL17R and CD3 genes, which potentially indicates selection acting on these immune system haplotypes from the Stuttgart individual consistent with the Stuttgart farmer and modern Europeans’ continual close interaction with animals and zoonotic disease exposure. In conclusion, our approach of calculating PWD in small SNP blocks supported prior conclusions made by Lazardis et al. and illuminated small genomic haplotypes that are of importance to the evolution of modern West Eurasian populations."

It looks like selection for genes found in Stuttgart to me.

epoch
15-09-15, 21:56
It looks like selection for genes found in Stuttgart to me.

Yes. No matter what our descent is made off, we live in the environment more similar to Stuttgart (http://www.germany.info/contentblob/2392314/Galeriebild_gross/490134/Baeckerei.jpg) rather than Loschbour.

epoch
15-09-15, 22:28
Are you referring to the paper that showed EEF in the San? I don't have the paper at my fingertips but from what I recall it's been demonstrated that there is evidence of more recent gene flow from East African "farmers" into them. It's sort of like the situation with some very isolated, presumed "pure" Amazonian Indians who wind up having some small amounts of "European". Didn't one paper also show some much more recent East Asian in one isolated tribe, and the researchers can't figure out how it got to them? There are absolutely no "pure" groups anymore.

Anyway, to the best of my recollection the paper posited a flow from the Near East into the populations of East Africa then many years later with another major migration trickling into the San. That was just talking about post Neolithic gene flow. Recent papers just dealing with yDna "E" clades show the same thing. Maybe gene flow north, but then a stay in the southern Levant for a while, then a flow back down to the Horn where new clades are born, then that moving south and southwest. That's without considering that perhaps it was DE that moved out of Africa, with a split out of Africa, and then E going back to Africa and then the back and forth described above starting.

I was referring to something different, can't exactly remember where I saw it, but your paper may be this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.8014
Discussed at Dienekes: http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/07/west-eurasian-admixture-in-khoe-san-via.html

bicicleur
16-09-15, 00:23
It used to be thought that the Gravettian grew out of the Aurignacian:
http://www.academia.edu/3164654/The_Human_Presence_in_Europe_during_the_Last_Glaci al_Period_I_Human_Migrations_and_the_Changing_Clim ate

More recent thinking (2007)sees it as a new flow of people, but what I have been able to find is papers that see it as an outgrowth of the Ahmarian culture of the eastern Mediterranean. Interestingly, the area on the maps corresponds to the Levant, southern Anatolia.
http://paleo.revues.org/607

If someone has a site for a paper positing an origin in the Caucasus and thus a migration flow from north of it and then west into Europe I'd love to see it.

Hoffecker & Holliday see an origin in Transcaucasia (Georgia) , and further devellopement in Mezmayskaya cave.
Sungir near Moscow would be one of the first gravettian sites in Europe (35 ka). This location is much more north than were Aurignacians went.

https://instaar.colorado.edu/uploads/people/155/hoffecker-holliday-2013-landscape-archaeology-eastern-europe.pdf

They see a link with Ahmarian, but they on that subject they were refuted by Bar-Yosef who says 'there was no Ahmarian or link with it outside the Levant'.
(I don't find the link to Bar-Yosef)

In the paper Hoffecker & Holliday claim that while Aurignacian has left archeological traces in caves and prime locations, Gravettians were much more mobile and roaming the plains where there are no landmarks and it is much more dificult to find the archeological traces left by the Gravettians.

Little is known about Ahmarian.

http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/07/early-upper-paleolithic-at-kebara-cave-israel-2/

Tomenable
16-09-15, 20:06
The problematic lineage is "H", given those somewhat controversial Mesolithic "H" samples in Iberia
What is controversial about them?

They were there at low frequency, and those were probably different subclades than those expanding later in Neolithic.


I crossed the Caucasus and stayed in Mezmayskaya cave, from where it expanded into Europe 33 ka, they were the Gravettians
the crucial thing was at Mezmayskaya they had developped borers to drill eyes in bone needles
the Gravettians had better clothing and tents and so they outcompeted Aurignacians on the cold steppe which was all over Europe
Aurignacians even didn't know needles
Are you sure? I have googled "Aurignacian needles" and found some results:





"Stone tools from the Aurignacian culture are known as Mode 4, characterised by blades (rather than flakes, typical of mode 2 Acheulean and mode 3 Mousterian) from prepared cores. Also seen throughout the upper paleolithic is a greater degree of tool standardisation and the use of bone and antler for tools such as needles and harpoons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian#Tools





"In the Czech Republic the archaeological site od Dolni Věstonice, nearly 30,000 years old (...) at the same site delicate bone needles with eyes were found that announce the advent of tailored clothing. A less elegant but still functional needle found in Slovenia dates from the very beginning of the Aurignacian, maybe 10,000 years earlier."

https://books.google.pl/books?id=ZeJbH7Reh98C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=aurignacian+needle&source=bl&ots=Ff2FnvnULd&sig=tizI9O9GktPap3EK09L40Y766Z4&hl=pl&ei=ahRrSszOA9zMjAf_zdCrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=aurignacian%20needle&f=false





"A coarse form of eyed needle was found at Sergeac in deposits of Middle Aurignacian date by M.Didon"

https://books.google.pl/books?id=4Lr4h-J5lJ8C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=aurignacian+needle&source=bl&ots=uuDqLnCRvU&sig=DuH7MTGQtPRiYjNWXIsAPIwgBoY&hl=pl&ei=1RVrSteLC9efjAf_z5yVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

epoch
16-09-15, 21:12
It used to be thought that the Gravettian grew out of the Aurignacian:
http://www.academia.edu/3164654/The_Human_Presence_in_Europe_during_the_Last_Glaci al_Period_I_Human_Migrations_and_the_Changing_Clim ate

More recent thinking (2007)sees it as a new flow of people, but what I have been able to find is papers that see it as an outgrowth of the Ahmarian culture of the eastern Mediterranean. Interestingly, the area on the maps corresponds to the Levant, southern Anatolia.
http://paleo.revues.org/607

If someone has a site for a paper positing an origin in the Caucasus and thus a migration flow from north of it and then west into Europe I'd love to see it.


I am just looking at the D-stats of the Oase 1 paper. Firstly, it clearly looks like Oase 1 (one of the first European AMHs) didn't leave anything noticeable in the European population. It is equally distant to Loschbour and East-Asians, for that matter. It seems only very slightly leaning towards MA1 and American Indians. Z value lower than 2. That equidistance to old Europeans and East-Asians seems similar to Ust'ishim. But Ust'Ishims D-stat show it be far more related to about anything other than Oase 1, which points IMO to Oase 1 being an isolate, a dead end.

But look at the affinity of Kostenki 14 to Loschbour! Also, to a lesser extent but still substantial, to MA1.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/images/nature14558-st1.jpg

"We compute D(Non-African1, Non-African2; Early Modern Human, African), to test whether an early modern human (Oase 1, Ust’-Ishim or Kostenki 14) shares more alleles with Non-African1 (in which case the statistic is positive) or Non-African2 (negative)."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/fig_tab/nature14558_ST1.html

bicicleur
16-09-15, 21:48
Are you sure? I have googled "Aurignacian needles" and found some results:





"Stone tools from the Aurignacian culture are known as Mode 4, characterised by blades (rather than flakes, typical of mode 2 Acheulean and mode 3 Mousterian) from prepared cores. Also seen throughout the upper paleolithic is a greater degree of tool standardisation and the use of bone and antler for tools such as needles and harpoons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian#Tools





"In the Czech Republic the archaeological site od Dolni Věstonice, nearly 30,000 years old (...) at the same site delicate bone needles with eyes were found that announce the advent of tailored clothing. A less elegant but still functional needle found in Slovenia dates from the very beginning of the Aurignacian, maybe 10,000 years earlier."

https://books.google.pl/books?id=ZeJbH7Reh98C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=aurignacian+needle&source=bl&ots=Ff2FnvnULd&sig=tizI9O9GktPap3EK09L40Y766Z4&hl=pl&ei=ahRrSszOA9zMjAf_zdCrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=aurignacian%20needle&f=false





"A coarse form of eyed needle was found at Sergeac in deposits of Middle Aurignacian date by M.Didon"

https://books.google.pl/books?id=4Lr4h-J5lJ8C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=aurignacian+needle&source=bl&ots=uuDqLnCRvU&sig=DuH7MTGQtPRiYjNWXIsAPIwgBoY&hl=pl&ei=1RVrSteLC9efjAf_z5yVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3



















I must admit I'm a bit surprised.
Aurgnacians had bone tools and flutes indeed, but needles?
If Aurignacians had needles at all, then certainly much less than Gravettian.
I'm not sure the Dolni Vestonice is Aurignacian, it might be Gravettian
And otherwise they talk about 'a coarse form'
There were many needles with Gravettian, and in paleolithic Siberia too, but not in Aurignacian
At first the eyes in the needles were polished, which required a lot of work.
+/- 36 ka in Mezmayskaya Cave the first eyes were drilled in the needles.

the 13000 drilled beads of the Sungir man demonstrates the drilling skills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir

bicicleur
16-09-15, 21:54
I am just looking at the D-stats of the Oase 1 paper. Firstly, it clearly looks like Oase 1 (one of the first European AMHs) didn't leave anything noticeable in the European population. It is equally distant to Loschbour and East-Asians, for that matter. It seems only very slightly leaning towards MA1 and American Indians. Z value lower than 2. That equidistance to old Europeans and East-Asians seems similar to Ust'ishim. But Ust'Ishims D-stat show it be far more related to about anything other than Oase 1, which points IMO to Oase 1 being an isolate, a dead end.

But look at the affinity of Kostenki 14 to Loschbour! Also, to a lesser extent but still substantial, to MA1.




please note : Loschbourg, Kostenki 14, MA1, all three had mtDNA U

MOESAN
17-09-15, 12:36
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.


I' ve not killed a hane to scrutinize its guts but I think what you say here is senseful: a part of our today "EEF" and "WHG" in Western Europe is not only the remnant of old foragers and old farmers already settled there but also a proportion of the auDNA apported to Europe from East at metals ages, augmented by EHG (?) and ANE (!).
It could explain the spreading of I-Ean languages as not everytime the result of an elite domination. Just a thought at this stage of knowledge.

MOESAN
17-09-15, 12:50
This is the Brandt et al analysis of ancient mtDna. I know we now have more samples, but maybe this can serve just to get the discussion going.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t_KXpJ8f80w/Ulbx5NVzpmI/AAAAAAAAJLE/4ygZg4byqIc/s1600/timeline.jpg
The total lack of the "U" lineages in the early Neolithic goes along with the findings that there was virtually no H/G introgression in the early phases of the Neolithic in Europe. The uptick in the Middle Neolithic could correlate with the uptick in WHG ancestry in late Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans. Interestingly, that occurs before the changes to mtDna brought about by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, which, if you're using just those lineages labelled Early Bronze Age, aren't very large. (Some of those are obviously "EHG" type lineages.)

The problematic lineage is "H", given those somewhat controversial Mesolithic "H" samples in Iberia, and the later high frequencies of "H" in Neolithic Portugal. It will be very informative to see what specific lineages of "H" were present in the Anatolian Neolithic. Most importantly, was there "basal" H1 and H3? When we have that information it will be much easier to figure out if, whether or not a few very basal "H" lineages made it to Iberia in the Mesolithic, the vast majority of it is Neolithic Near Eastern, and which sub-lineages went "west" to go with the EEF into Europe "early", and which "H" and other lineages (U3?) went east into the Caucasus, then the steppe and only then entered Europe from the east.

Thanks Angela, I was forgetting these data, whatever the corrections we could get now about them; that said, all that is based upon findings of human sepultures; I suspect we didn't search the more remote parts of Europe for DNA and also the HGs culture allowed less sepultures findings in proportion to their number? (not sure, it's true) - By the way, what about Neolithical cultures remnants as the S.O.M. ones and the Eiffel region in Western Rheinland? I'm curious to see what kind of DNA was among these people, classified 'neolithical' but with a strong influence of "primitive" morphologic features??? (Loschbour was of these regions, but not 'neolithical'.

MOESAN
17-09-15, 12:53
I complete my #83: this hairs splitting doesn't change my today opinion that some WHG and EEF DNA came from East at Metals Ages, as said Angela and others, with some reasons I think.

MOESAN
17-09-15, 13:02
He seems to add the WHG component of EEF to WHG. Lazardis did not. Lazardis did however add the WHG component of Yamnaya to WHG. On the basis of these maps you would conclude that either farmers got extra WHG admixture, or Anatolia's indigenous WHG admixture decreased.

I regreat these manipulations of data making the different works not comparable and obliging us to do brain gymnastik all the time. It shows too the relativeness of all these works about auDNA, I think, even if we can extract some stuff from these ones.

Alan
17-09-15, 13:05
Since many people seem to equate Teal with Caucaso_Gedrosia. Here is a comment I made already explaining the small difference between both.


"Teal" from the early Yamna paper is very similar to Caucaso_Gedrosian but not exactly the same. Teal contains some "North Euro" type ancestry too which probably comes mostly in connection with the ANE package.

Caucaso_Gedrosian in Yamna is around ~40% however Teal (K19) from the Yamna paper makes up 50-60% of the Yamna genome

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf


So how can we imagine those teal people? Well they must have been similar to the Bronze Age Armenian sample the EEF component excluded of course. They had 25% Caucasus, 25% Gedrosia, 20% North Euro and 25% Atl-Med.

I think this Bronze Age Armenian sample fits as perfect example for my theory that Mesopotamia, East Anatolia and Trans Caucasus was the merging point of Eastern Teal- and Western EEF farmers by mid-late neolithic.

I could imagine that the proto teal farmers/herders from Southeast Caucasus, Iranian Plateau and South_Central Asia were similar to that with significantly less Atl_Med and slightly less Caucasus and more Gedrosia in comparison. Something in that range 50% Gedrosia, 10% Atl_Med, 15% Caucasus and 20% North Euro.

So Teal similar but not the same as Caucaso_Gedrosia

MOESAN
17-09-15, 16:04
Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.

I agree for the most concerning the arrival of the "teal" element you see as a "East-Farmers" group - by the way I see in it some little central Asian component too picked easternmost an northernmost - speaking about the Y-DNA of Semites compared to their mt and auDNA could be intresting but it's not the question here -
just concerning the Iberian farmers I don't completely agree: the Middle Neolithic folks had more 'WHG' than the Early neolithic folks in Iberia; I do think they picked new 'WHG' DNA in West, whta doesn' t exclude a part taken in the Balkans (the Y-I2a1a so common in South could have been picked in Western Balkans Dalmatia by "maritime" farmers, along to add to the previous basic Y-G2a population. in other parts of Iberia, Portugal, anthropology seems showing LOCAL crossings; already, in Neolithic, skeletons of Ticuso and Solana, both in Castile, showed some differences I put on the account of crossings with HGs (my personal reading of measures and features, not Bible)

MOESAN
17-09-15, 16:07
Since many people seem to equate Teal with Caucaso_Gedrosia. Here is a comment I made already explaining the small difference between both.


OK: I wrote my precedent post without having red your present post: Agree! this "teal" today equivalent would culminate among Tadjiks, perhaps???

Alan
17-09-15, 20:29
I agree for the most concerning the arrival of the "teal" element you see as a "East-Farmers" group - by the way I see in it some little central Asian component too picked easternmost an northernmost

True, thats the ~ 5% I missed out purposely. It's something South Eurasian like.




OK: I wrote my precedent post without having red your present post: Agree! this "teal" today equivalent would culminate among Tadjiks, perhaps???

Lezgians with slightly more Gedrosia or Tajiks excluding the East Eurasian admixture with slightly less South Eurasian admxture and a bit of Atl_Med, Exactly. But take in mind thats a coincidence. I doubt any modern population is 100% representative for any ancient component. Since all of them have absorbed additional admixture in the thousand of years.

Just look at this.

Flesh-coloured/Orange = EEF/West Farmers
Pink/Rose=Southern farmers
Teal= East Farmers

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

Take in mind there is intersection between those components. For example the Proto South or East Farmers had some of the flesh-colored EEF too. Thats simply cause those components overlap with at least ~60% of their ancestry. at the end of the day they have ultimately the same origin for most. Only difference between Western and Southern farmers seems to be an East African shift through a Red Sea type component.
And the main difference between East and West farmers is that East farmers have very strong ANE component.

Taking into account the Bronze and early Iron Age Armenian samples and how they almost lacked or had noise percentage of any Red Sea component, this is clearly an evidence that all modern Northern Middle Eastern population as well many South European (no matter they like it or not) have some Afro-Asiatic admixture. In the Northern Middle East among non Semites it is around ~10-15%. Among Semites such as Assyrians it is ~25% and modern Levantines such as Lebanese ~40%! The rest of their aDNA is probably pre Afro_Asiatic Levantine.

Take in mind Afro_Asiatic does not equal Southern Farmer. Afro_Asiatic speakers must have been the main source of Southern farmer admixture but Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers themselves must have been a mixture of the rose/Southern (70%) and EEF/Western(30%) admixture. This is why I estimate the Semite admixture higher than just the rose component is showing.


As example Iranians have ~10% of the rose component. thats roughly ~14.5% of Semite admixture.

Sile
17-09-15, 21:09
True, thats the ~ 5% I missed out purposely. It's something South Eurasian like.



Lezgians with slightly more Gedrosia or Tajiks excluding the East Eurasian admixture with slightly less South Eurasian admxture and a bit of Atl_Med, Exactly. But take in mind thats a coincidence. I doubt any modern population is 100% representative for any ancient component. Since all of them have absorbed additional admixture in the thousand of years.

It's quite astonishing how the components of the Lazaridis 2013 fit well the Teal/Eastern, EEF/Western and Southern farmers.

Just look at this.

Flesh-coloured/Orange = EEF/West Farmers
Pink/Rose~Southern farmers
Teal= East Farmers

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

Take in mind there is intersection between those components. For example the Proto South or East Farmers had some of the flesh-colored EEF too. Thats simply cause those components overlap with at least ~60% of their ancestry. at the end of the day they have ultimately the same origin for most. Only difference between Western and Southern farmers seems to be an East African shift through a Red Sea type component.
And the main difference between East and West farmers is that East farmers have very strong ANE component.

Taking into account the Bronze and early Iron Age Armenian samples and how they almost lacked or had nose percentage of any Red Sea component, this is clearly an evidence that all modern Northern Middle Eastern population as well many South European (no matter they like it or not) have Afro-Asiatic admixture.

Didn't these "teal" farmers arrive nearly 2000 years after the "orange" farmers had already established themselves between germany and anatolia ( including the corridor in between) ?

Alan
17-09-15, 21:33
Didn't these "teal" farmers arrive nearly 2000 years after the "orange" farmers had already established themselves between germany and anatolia ( including the corridor in between) ?


Yes. But they existed all around Eastern West Asia, South_Central Asia and the Steppes by mid-late Neolithic already.

Teal farmers/herders are simply a mid-late neolithic phenomenon of EEF farmers meeting ANE people on the IranianPlateau/Southeast Caucasus and South_Central Asia. So before they became teal they must have been very EEF like. The same the case with Southern Farmers before they absorbed a bit of East African admixture (so was the Red Sea component born 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA) and so was born the Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers in/around Egypt.

MOESAN
17-09-15, 23:22
True, thats the ~ 5% I missed out purposely. It's something South Eurasian like.



Lezgians with slightly more Gedrosia or Tajiks excluding the East Eurasian admixture with slightly less South Eurasian admxture and a bit of Atl_Med, Exactly. But take in mind thats a coincidence. I doubt any modern population is 100% representative for any ancient component. Since all of them have absorbed additional admixture in the thousand of years.

Just look at this.

Flesh-coloured/Orange = EEF/West Farmers
Pink/Rose=Southern farmers
Teal= East Farmers

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

Take in mind there is intersection between those components. For example the Proto South or East Farmers had some of the flesh-colored EEF too. Thats simply cause those components overlap with at least ~60% of their ancestry. at the end of the day they have ultimately the same origin for most. Only difference between Western and Southern farmers seems to be an East African shift through a Red Sea type component.
And the main difference between East and West farmers is that East farmers have very strong ANE component.

Taking into account the Bronze and early Iron Age Armenian samples and how they almost lacked or had noise percentage of any Red Sea component, this is clearly an evidence that all modern Northern Middle Eastern population as well many South European (no matter they like it or not) have some Afro-Asiatic admixture. In the Northern Middle East among non Semites it is around ~10-15%. Among Semites such as Assyrians it is ~25% and modern Levantines such as Lebanese ~40%! The rest of their aDNA is probably pre Afro_Asiatic Levantine.

Take in mind Afro_Asiatic does not equal Southern Farmer. Afro_Asiatic speakers must have been the main source of Southern farmer admixture but Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers themselves must have been a mixture of the rose/Southern (70%) and EEF/Western(30%) admixture. This is why I estimate the Semite admixture higher than just the rose component is showing.


As example Iranians have ~10% of the rose component. thats roughly ~14.5% of Semite admixture.


Thanks for answer; I did not succeed in loading the link you provide me - what you said seems nevertheless intuitively correct; juste the same question: what is the true "nucleus" basic component in admixtures: they seem only approaches; is 'east-african' an admixture of supposed genuine 'bedawin' component with diverse SSAfricans, or is 'red-sea' an admixture, as you say, of 'east-african' and classical 'near-eastern' or basic 'EEF'??? uneasy to answer with my data; I shall try to download your link with more success; &: beside: it would be interesting having the admixture of Yemenite Jews in the pooling with 'red-sea': 'll see that.
nos vad nos da

Angela
18-09-15, 01:11
Alan:Taking into account the Bronze and early Iron Age Armenian samples and how they almost lacked or had noise percentage of any Red Sea component, this is clearly an evidence that all modern Northern Middle Eastern population as well many South European (no matter they like it or not) have some Afro-Asiatic admixture. In the Northern Middle East among non Semites it is around ~10-15%. Among Semites such as Assyrians it is ~25% and modern Levantines such as Lebanese ~40%! The rest of their aDNA is probably pre Afro_Asiatic Levantine.

What is your source for these percentages for the Red Sea component? There are calculators and then there are calculators.


The same the case with Southern Farmers before they absorbed a bit of East African admixture (so was the Red Sea component born 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA) and so was born the Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers in/around Egypt.

Why would you assume that at least some part of it wasn't always in the "farmer" genome, through the Natufians, for example? It would then have spread everywhere the farmers went. It may have been cut slightly in the northern Near East when those peoples absorbed a lot of ANE.

Have Oetzi or Stuttgart or NE or any of the ancient farmers been run through calculators that have that component? I know, for example, that Otzi had a S.W.Asian Component, which Dienekes said was related to the "Red Sea" component. (7.6%, comparing, for example, to 7.1% for Tuscans, 5.6 for Northern Italians, and 12.5% for Southern Italians/Sicilians.)

7419

Also, could you explain your reasoning that Red Sea is 1/4 SSA?

As to scientific evidence that people don't want to accept because of their prejudices or "ethnic" myths, I try very hard to point it out when I see it, even when it is certain Italians who are doing it. (It's also important to realize that population genetics aficionados from any country are not always representative of most citizens in that country.) Unfortunately, it sometimes seems like a many headed hydra, one in each part of the world, including the Middle East, as I'm sure you know. Northern Middle Easterners do not, in my experience, want to be associated with Arabs, for example, perhaps because of the SSA admixture.

arvistro
18-09-15, 11:02
Yes. But they existed all around Eastern West Asia, South_Central Asia and the Steppes by mid-late Neolithic already.

Teal farmers/herders are simply a mid-late neolithic phenomenon of EEF farmers meeting ANE people on the IranianPlateau/Southeast Caucasus and South_Central Asia. So before they became teal they must have been very EEF like. The same the case with Southern Farmers before they absorbed a bit of East African admixture (so was the Red Sea component born 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA) and so was born the Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers in/around Egypt.
Was there something happening mid-late Neo around the globe that made early farmers to open up for other genes?

In Europe they expanded as pretty homogenous over large territories (so, I assume same thing East). But then in Mid-late they received portion of WHG in Europe and apparently around same time portion of ANE in East.
Some climate challenge?

Alan
18-09-15, 13:18
What is your source for these percentages for the Red Sea component? There are calculators and then there are calculators.

Dodecad K10a the first and most used source for Red Sea percentages as far as I know.



Why would you assume that at least some part of it wasn't always in the "farmer" genome, through the Natufians, for example? It would then have spread everywhere the farmers went. It may have been cut slightly in the northern Near East when those peoples absorbed a lot of ANE.


I did assume that some very noisy percentage of it was always part of it at least among some EEF farmers. It is possible that some Red Sea was already present among the earliest farmers but Red Sea is not automatically Red Sea most of the Red Sea showing up in EEF is actually the EEF portion of Red Sea itself. But than there is some SSA (1-3%) among EEF farmers but the point is that a Red Sea (1/4 SSA) component rised exponentially in Northern West Asia and as well probably in Europe. The oldest Bronze Age Armenian samples have 0-2% Red Sea this rises with every century the samples get younger, by few percentage ending by modern Populations with 5%(non Semite NWA) -17%(Semite Levantines) Red Sea. I imagine that Proto Semites had 1/3 of their aDNA as Red Sea while the rest was rather Mediterranean as I explained above why I think that way.

So Iranians have ~5% Red Sea. 5%* 3= ~15%. The reason why I take the full 5% instead of decreasing it by 1-2% as I did it above, is because among Iranians we are probably dealing with Teal Farmers and I suspect that Teal farmers had close to non Red Sea. So almost all Red Sea in Iranians is probably real Semitic.


Have Oetzi or Stuttgart or NE or any of the ancient farmers been run through calculators that have that component? I know, for example, that Otzi had a S.W.Asian Component, which Dienekes said was related to the "Red Sea" component. (7.6%, comparing, for example, to 7.1% for Tuscans, 5.6 for Northern Italians, and 12.5% for Southern Italians/Sicilians.)


Southwest Asian is related but not the same as Red Sea.

2 points

1. Ötzi is a late Neolithic sample, by this time some more Red Sea definitely reached already the farmers slowly. It's not like Red Sea came by one big migration it was a slow process as we see on the Armenian samples.

2. The portion that shows up as Southwest Asian is the EEF portion of Southwest Asian itself. The Southwest Asian component itself contains like ~50% Red Sea if you compare K10a to World9 calculator this get's obvious. Since Red Sea itself can be decribed as 3/4 Caucasian and 1/4 SSA as by Dienekes himself, than Southwest Asian itself only contains 1/8 SSA. So Southern Italians having 12,5% Southwest Asian means they have like ~6.25% Red Sea. What seems pretty much correct if you take a look at the Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0


According to that they have 6.1% Red Sea. And I honestly doubt that all of it in South Europe is Neolithic European but majority of it probably Semite. That also makes historically sense. If we expect that max 2% of it is EEF Neolithic. Than 4% is Afro_Asiatic related, that makes a total of 12% (Semite) influx into Sicily for example. Thats significantly less than Lebanon with 40% but it's there.

On the other hand Spaniards have like 1.6% Red Sea. Half of it probably Neolithic and other half Semite related. Thats a total of 2.4% Semite admixture, but than despite Red Sea component eating up all SSA in Italians( which is a strong indiciation that SSA in Italy came via Semites) there still remains 1.5% SSA in Spaniards. Thats a strong indiciation that this SSA in Spaniards has a different source. Post Neolithic source, since majority of Neolithic SSA gets eaten up by Red Sea already. So let's say 1.25% is post Neolithic (just my estimation) and Morrocans are like 1/5 SSA, thats like 6.25% North African admixture. A total of 8.75% Afro_Asiatic admixture for Spaniards I assume. I know I will get some hate for these estimations but it's just my theory so calm down.


7419

Also, could you explain your reasoning that Red Sea is 1/4 SSA?

I remember K10a Red Sea description as a even mix of Southwest Asian and East African. And according to a comment of Dienekes East African is like even mix of SSA and Caucasian(most likely EEF). So Red Sea 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA fits.


As to scientific evidence that people don't want to accept because of their prejudices or "ethnic" myths, I try very hard to point it out when I see it, even when it is certain Italians who are doing it. (It's also important to realize that population genetics aficionados from any country are not always representative of most citizens in that country.) Unfortunately, it sometimes seems like a many headed hydra, one in each part of the world, including the Middle East, as I'm sure you know. Northern Middle Easterners do not, in my experience, want to be associated with Arabs, for example, perhaps because of the SSA admixture.

Yep that might be one reason for allot who are into genetics but not exactly the main reason: The main reason is a geopolitical. Let me give you a hint. Biggest sponsors of ISIS in Syria are Qatar beside Turkey, and Al Qaida in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria(AL Nusra) and around the world, Saudi Arabia.

And expect Saudi Arabia (which did take allot of refugees it seems, though they are also fault for the miserey) non of the Arab Gulf states such as qatar, UAE took a single refugee.

Thats just one example why even Arabic speaking Levantines themselves! do not want to be associated with them.

Alan
18-09-15, 13:49
Was there something happening mid-late Neo around the globe that made early farmers to open up for other genes?

In Europe they expanded as pretty homogenous over large territories (so, I assume same thing East). But then in Mid-late they received portion of WHG in Europe and apparently around same time portion of ANE in East.
Some climate challenge?

East farmers always had some WHG related admixture and the main difference to West farmers is that they mixed strongly with ANE(~40%) groups and this already in Southeast Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau. This merging with ANE groups deluted their EEF down to 60%. This is why the pseudo "WHG" in the East of West Asia is half as much as in the West (Levant and Anatolia).

arvistro
18-09-15, 14:46
East farmers always had some WHG and the main difference to West farmers is that they mixed strongly with ANE(~40%) groups and this already in Southeast Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau. This merging with ANE groups deluted their EEF. This is why the pseudo "WHG" in the East of West Asia is half as much as in the West (Levant and Anatolia).
I know they had some WHG, it was there since beginning and part of EEF. They spread miles and did not change autosomally in Europe until Mid-late Neolithics, when extra WHG was absorbed.
However in East they met ANE and mixed with it. Why?
Did ANE folk farmed? If ANE were hunters like WHG then why in the West no WHG was absorbed but in East ANE was absorbed?

Or they both got absorbed around late Neolithic when something climatical happened.

Alan
18-09-15, 15:35
I know they had some WHG, it was there since beginning and part of EEF. They spread miles and did not change autosomally in Europe until Mid-late Neolithics, when extra WHG was absorbed.
However in East they met ANE and mixed with it. Why?
Did ANE folk farmed? If ANE were hunters like WHG then why in the West no WHG was absorbed but in East ANE was absorbed?

Or they both got absorbed around late Neolithic when something climatical happened.

Why do I like brighter colors to wear? No one knows :laughing:

The same with ANE. They definitely existed in the region between Southeast Caucasus and South_Central Asia. And when the EEF farmers met them they merged and became Teal farmers(herders). Maybe the ANE H&G had something to offer the EEF farmers in the East what the WHG didn't had to offer in the West? At the end of the day WHG did also mix with EEF farmers just in lesser amount. Also take in mind EEF itself is a mixture of UHG(WHG related) and Basal Eurasian two older populations. So there was indeeed mixing going on for long time.

The reason why I estimate 60% EEF and 40% ANE for Teal farmers is because the Caucaso_Gedrosia component itself is like ~30% ANE. Teal should have more ANE.

arvistro
18-09-15, 15:45
WHG did not mix with EEF until very late. The EEF was born with portion of WHG/uhg genes.

So, good question what ANE had to offer.
Alternative farming? Buckwheat (read on wiki history, started allegedly in SE Asia ca 6000 bce, documented in Finland ca 5300 bce)? Herding?

Alan
18-09-15, 15:47
So, good question what ANE had to offer.
Alternative farming? Buckwheat (read on wiki history, started allegedly in SE Asia ca 6000 bce, documented in Finland ca 5300 bce)? Herding?

Maybe better Horses??? suited for the mountainous regions and steppe lands to herd the animals? Who knows, it doesn't always needs to have a reason. Just like it doesn't have a logical reason why I like some colors more than other.

arvistro
18-09-15, 15:56
Maybe better Horses??? suited for the mountainous regions and steppe lands to herd the animals? Who knows, it doesn't always needs to have a reason. Just like it doesn't have a logical reason why I like some colors more than other.
No, it does need reason. History is sequence of cause and effect. Maybe it is not interesting to you to find what was the reason, but it is interesting to me.

Better horses? So, did they domisticate horse before mixing with EEF?

Edit: there is another option - of adventurous group(s) of EEF going out of their Eco niche and cooperating/ mixing with locals to survive outside. Then these teal folk would be mix of early pioneers and ANE hunters.
Something similar might have happened in North Europe before CW.

Then model would go:
Fertile lands - homogenous EEF people
Non fertile lands - mixing with natives

Alan
18-09-15, 16:11
No, it does need reason. History is sequence of cause and effect. Maybe it is not interesting to you to find what was the reason, but it is interesting to me.

Better horses? So, did they domisticate horse before mixing with EEF?

I red somewhere that there are signs of horse breeding somewhere in South_ Central Asia as far back as 10000 BC don't know if it is true.
And no not everything needs a cause and effect or for us logical reason. Or can you tell me what was the cause for the Big Bang. This is one of the many reasons why I personally believe in God :)

The history of horse breeding goes back millennia. Though the precise date is in dispute, humans could have domesticated the horse as far back as approximately 4500 BCE. However, evidence of planned breeding has a more blurry history.

One of the earliest people known to document the breedings of their horses were the Bedouin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin) of the Middle East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East), the breeders of the Arabian horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse). While it is difficult to determine how far back the Bedouin passed on pedigree information via an oral tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition), there were written pedigrees of Arabian horses by CE 1330.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_breeding#cite_note-Pyramid_Society-16) The Akhal-Teke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhal-Teke) of West-Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia) is another breed with roots in ancient times that was also bred specifically for war and racing. The nomads of the Mongolian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia) steppes bred horses for several thousand years as well.


4500 BC should be late Neolithic. It isn't clear and was also just an not so serious Idea with the horses.

arvistro
18-09-15, 16:30
As to this matter - I edited previous post meanwhile:
"There is another option - of adventurous group(s) of EEF going out of their Eco niche and cooperating/ mixing with locals to survive outside. Then these teal folk would be mix of early pioneers and ANE hunters.
Something similar might have happened in North Europe before CW.

Then model would go:
Fertile lands - homogenous EEF people
Non fertile lands - mixing with natives".

So, there are some options. Anyway I think it is a good question.

_________________
I might as well reply - " it does not need a cause because we dont know what caused the big bang" to why IEs languages spread accross Eurasia; why EEF genes were so successful in Europe; why CW had r1a but Yamna R1b mostly.

If scientists took your approach, we would have no science..

Angela
18-09-15, 17:07
I know they had some WHG, it was there since beginning and part of EEF. They spread miles and did not change autosomally in Europe until Mid-late Neolithics, when extra WHG was absorbed.
However in East they met ANE and mixed with it. Why?
Did ANE folk farmed? If ANE were hunters like WHG then why in the West no WHG was absorbed but in East ANE was absorbed?

Or they both got absorbed around late Neolithic when something climatical happened.

That would be my guess. Climate change, resulting in failure of some crops, but also putting stress on hunter-gatherers too.

Look at the fall of the Roman Empire: climate change, Germanic tribes moving because of famine etc. (In 113 BC, for example, the Cimbri showed up in Noricum asking for food and land for farming.) The Huns, whose grasslands had failed, were also pushing them from the East.

I hate to be nitpicking all the time, but terms are important; clarity of language leads to clarity of thought as well as vice versa. :) All we know so far is that the ENF of the Near East may have had a "WHG like" component. Let's wait for the paper to see how close that component was to the European hunter-gatherers. If there was a period of thousands of years after the split they might not have been all that similar any longer.

Angela
18-09-15, 17:10
As to this matter - I edited previous post meanwhile:
"There is another option - of adventurous group(s) of EEF going out of their Eco niche and cooperating/ mixing with locals to survive outside. Then these teal folk would be mix of early pioneers and ANE hunters.
Something similar might have happened in North Europe before CW.

Then model would go:
Fertile lands - homogenous EEF people
Non fertile lands - mixing with natives".

So, there are some options. Anyway I think it is a good question.

_________________
I might as well reply - " it does not need a cause because we dont know what caused the big bang" to why IEs languages spread accross Eurasia; why EEF genes were so successful in Europe; why CW had r1a but Yamna R1b mostly.

If scientists took your approach, we would have no science..

We cross posted. :) Yes, this is another option. Perhaps also if the climate worsened then farmers might be more willing to adopt some hunter-gatherer strategies, resulting in some admixture?

Tomenable
19-09-15, 15:18
Look at the fall of the Roman Empire: climate change, Germanic tribes moving because of famine etc. (In 113 BC, for example, the Cimbri showed up in Noricum asking for food and land for farming.) The Huns, whose grasslands had failed, were also pushing them from the East.

Generally speaking - it was the Roman Migrant Crisis. :)

Angela
19-09-15, 19:18
Generally speaking - it was the Roman Migrant Crisis. :)

I'm not going to touch that even with a ten foot pole.:laughing:

Angela
19-09-15, 19:26
Sorry, just saw this post:


Alan;467048]Dodecad K10a the first and most used source for Red Sea percentages as far as I know.

Ah, now I see the source of my confusion. I'm familiar with the Dodecad 10a percentages for "Red Sea", and your numbers seemed way off.


Alan:Taking into account the Bronze and early Iron Age Armenian samples and how they almost lacked or had noise percentage of any Red Sea component, this is clearly an evidence that all modern Northern Middle Eastern population as well many South European (no matter they like it or not) have some Afro-Asiatic admixture. In the Northern Middle East among non Semites it is around ~10-15%. Among Semites such as Assyrians it is ~25% and modern Levantines such as Lebanese ~40%! The rest of their aDNA is probably pre Afro_Asiatic Levantine.

I didn't read it carefully enough. So, now that I'm clear that the numbers refer to "Afro-Asiatic", my question becomes where do you get your figures for "Afro-Asiatic"? I'm aware of the existence of "Afro-Asiatic" languages, but not of an "Afro-Asiatic" component.


I did assume that some very noisy percentage of it was always part of it at least among some EEF farmers. It is possible that some Red Sea was already present among the earliest farmers but Red Sea is not automatically Red Sea most of the Red Sea showing up in EEF is actually the EEF portion of Red Sea itself.

Actually there's quite a bit of Red Sea in the early farmers of Europe:

Stuttgart: 4.45
Hungarian Early Neolithic: 5.49

Even in Copper Age Hungary it was still at 4.59.

Unfortunately, I can't find a 10A run on Otzi or Remedello. (If someone has a link that would be great.) It would be particularly interesting to compare them to the "Red Sea" level for North Italians (.8), Tuscans (2.3), Sicilians (5.6).




“I remember K10a Red Sea description as a even mix of Southwest Asian and East African. And according to a comment of Dienekes East African is like even mix of SSA and Caucasian(most likely EEF). So Red Sea 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA fits.”


I don’t doubt that there might be some SSA in “Red Sea”; however, I’m not sure that ¼ is the right proportion.


Let’s look at it this way. These are the proportions of Red Sea in some northeast European and East European populations:
Finns 2.0
Lithuanians 1.9
Russians 1.6
Poles 1.2
I don’t recall ever seeing that Finns are .5 SSA. Their only extra-West Eurasian ancestry is Siberian, so far as I know.




“The Southwest Asian component itself contains like ~50% Red Sea if you compare K10a to World9 calculator this get's obvious.”


To be precise, it depends on the population. Southwest Asian in Tuscans on K12b is 7.3. Red Sea is 2.3. That’s much less than 50%. In other groups like the Finns, it’s a lot more than 50%. Southwest Asian in them is 2.2, and Red Sea is 2.0.




“According to that they have 6.1% Red Sea. And I honestly doubt that all of it in South Europe is Neolithic European but majority of it probably Semite. That also makes historically sense. If we expect that max 2% of it is EEF Neolithic. Than 4% is Afro_Asiatic related, that makes a total of 12% (Semite) influx into Sicily for example. Thats significantly less than Lebanon with 40% but it's there.”


I don’t see how you can be so secure in your conclusions based on the evidence in our possession. We know that a Copper Age Hungarian had 4.59 “Red Sea”. I wish I had a figure for Remedello, but I don’t think it would be far off to assume that they had about the same amount given all the analyses we’ve seen. Now, we don’t have any samples from further south in Italy for either the Copper Age or the Bronze Age. So, we don’t know if that approximately 4.6 “Red Sea” was cut by the Yamnaya invasions, and the later Celtic ones. That might be a permissible conclusion given the 2.3 number for Toscana, and the .8 for northern Italians. Now, turning to the southern Italians/Sicilians, we don’t know, as I said, what “Red Sea” number they had before the Yamnaya invasions. What we do know is that they weren’t as affected by the Yamnaya invasions, and the Yamnaya invasions which did affect them might have been rather different than the ones that impacted central and Northern Europe.

So, absent some ancient dna how could we possible know that “the majority of it is probably Semite”? What if 3% or 4% was there since the Neolithic ? Then, I don’t know what “Semite” means in this context. Again, that’s a linguistic term. If by that you mean 12% of the ancestry of southern Italians/Sicilians comes from a few Phoenician emporia I think that’s highly unlikely. If we’ve learned anything, it should be that significant changes in the genome come from significant migrations.

If, on the other hand, you’re saying there was some impact from Red Sea heavy populations during the Muslim occupation of Sicily and briefly of mainland southern Italy, that is much more likely. That would have come from a heavily Berber group. Berbers have nothing to do with Semites other than a shift In most cases to a Semitic language (Arabic). (Berbers, from what I can make out, are predominantly EEF people with perhaps some archaic North African forager and a big chunk of mostly recent SSA, i.e. post Arabic slave trade.) Obviously, some Levant derived people might have formed part of the invading forces.

If we’re going to speculate about the impact of this invasion and occupation (not a Semite percentage), I think ydna studies are a pretty good guide. Numerous scholars have attributed about 6% of the yDna of Sicily, in particular, to those invasions. Very little mtDna can be attributed specifically to them. So, if I were going to speculate, I’d say the autosomal impact might be around that or a little less.

The only other possibility would be some input from slavery in the Roman era. Again, as I've said before, I don' know why any slaves from the Levant would have such a disproportionate effect compared to slaves from northern and western and eastern Europe.

Bottom line, I'm no longer doing all that much speculating. That was much more fun when it seemed we’d never get ancient dna and we couldn’t be proven wrong. :) Seriously, I’ll wait for samples from these periods to see what changes different migrations brought.




“The oldest Bronze Age Armenian samples have 0-2% Red Sea this rises with every century the samples get younger, by few percentage ending by modern Populations with 5%(non Semite NWA) -17%(Semite Levantines) Red Sea”."


I have the same skepticism about these conclusions. We don’t have any Neolithic samples from this area. What if it was at 4-5% levels as it was in Neolithic Europe. Then, these low levels of “Red Sea” might just be the result of admixture from the steppe. After all, these kinds of burials are those of the new “elite”. What was the “Red Sea” level in those who survived? Perhaps, after some good amount of time, there was a resurgence, as there was in Europe, through some admixture.

I’m not saying it all didn’t happen in the way that you’re speculating. I’m just saying there are alternate possibilities, and we won’t know until we have the relevant ancient dna.

Sile
19-09-15, 19:45
OK: I wrote my precedent post without having red your present post: Agree! this "teal" today equivalent would culminate among Tadjiks, perhaps???

more likely proto-bactrians or proto-sogdians .................Tajiks seem too modern

Greying Wanderer
20-09-15, 00:12
arvistro

Fertile lands - homogenous EEF people
Non fertile lands - mixing with natives".

Especially if non-fertile = more pastoralist and HGs found it easier to adopt to pastoralism than crop farming.

Climate change is plausible too or even both i.e. climate change -> fertile crop farming regions becoming more pastoralist -> more mixing with local HGs.

arvistro
20-09-15, 08:24
And now we need some maps on land fertility zones for early/mid/late Neolithics :))

Brennos
20-09-15, 14:32
I never see the full paper... hasn't it been published yet?

epoch
20-09-15, 15:27
And now we need some maps on land fertility zones for early/mid/late Neolithics :))

Check Loess grounds in Europe.

Alan
20-09-15, 17:08
Ah, now I see the source of my confusion. I'm familiar with the Dodecad 10a percentages for "Red Sea", and your numbers seemed way off.

? Which of my Red Sea estimations were way off? I said Sicilian Red Sea should be ~6.25 % vs 6.1% per Dodecad K10a



I didn't read it carefully enough. So, now that I'm clear that the numbers refer to "Afro-Asiatic", my question becomes where do you get your figures for "Afro-Asiatic"? I'm aware of the existence of "Afro-Asiatic" languages, but not of an "Afro-Asiatic" component.

Actually there's quite a bit of Red Sea in the early farmers of Europe:

Stuttgart: 4.45
Hungarian Early Neolithic: 5.49

Even in Copper Age Hungary it was still at 4.59.

Unfortunately, I can't find a 10A run on Otzi or Remedello. (If someone has a link that would be great.) It would be particularly interesting to compare them to the "Red Sea" level for North Italians (.8), Tuscans (2.3), Sicilians (5.6).




Afro_Asiatic = genes spred by Afro_Asiatic speakers that doesn't necessary mean there is an "Afro_Asiatic" component (surely there was once). I collect all genes spred by Afro_Asiatic speakers (Semites, North Africans etc), under this term.

One Big reason why all this Red Sea/SSA can't be pre Bronze Age is simply cause at least by Bronze Age when the first Indo Europeans arrived the frequency of every component would have been deluted various times. So just because Neolithic or pre Neolithic H&G or EEF samples had few percentage pf SSA or Red Sea as example, that doesn't necessary mean exactly the same percentage of SSA or Red Sea is Pre Bronze Age derived. Thats simply impossible. That is why modern Red Sea frequency =/= EEF Red Sea frequency

"Even in Copper Age Hungary it was still at 4.59."
The younger the EEF samples the higher actually the Red Sea component should get simply because it was a slow process how this component from the Southwest of the Near East spred into EEF. By mid-late Neolithic of the Near East already the first waves of South and Eastern farmers expanded but as I said "Red Sea " should have been always there just that the earliest Red Sea apearing here is actually the EEF portion of Red Sea and not vica versa. Simply just like Mal'ta is not Amerindian admixed but Amerindians are partly ANE.


Let’s look at it this way. These are the proportions of Red Sea in some northeast European and East European populations:
Finns 2.0
Lithuanians 1.9
Russians 1.6
Poles 1.2
I don’t recall ever seeing that Finns are .5 SSA. Their only extra-West Eurasian ancestry is Siberian, so far as I know.


Of course you are right this doesn't work everywhere and in populations where there is almost non SSA, you will still see some noisy results, thats unfortunate part of every calculator. One main reason, as I wrote above, this is the EEF (unmixed) portion of Red Sea showing up there. But this works actually for South Europe and the Near East where we know there are few percentages of SSA. I know what Dienekes said Red Sea being halfway Southwest Asian and East African like and from the fst tables I know that the East African component was almost halfway Caucasian/SSA.

Also I took different calculators into consideration for my theory of Red Sea being ~1/4 (or maybe 1/5 since it only appears in the higher Ks and doesn't really seem like a 100% stable component) because it almost always eats up 1/4 to 1/5 of the SSA component. The point is that Red Sea eats up significant percentage of SSA when it's there and if not, simply some EEF portion of it shows of as "Red Sea".

Since we used South Italian/Sicilian samples already let's do it here again. In globe13 they have ~1.2% SSA. In K10a they have 0% but 6.1% Red Sea, the only component I see which could be responsible for the disappearance of the SSA is the Red Sea component. I might have been wrong with my estimation of ~1/4 though, It could be less (more like 1/5) you are right there.


To be precise, it depends on the population. Southwest Asian in Tuscans on K12b is 7.3. Red Sea is 2.3. That’s much less than 50%. In other groups like the Finns, it’s a lot more than 50%. Southwest Asian in them is 2.2, and Red Sea is 2.0.

Right my mistake, just like above it is not possible to give an exact percentage of that. But it works roughly in that way I think.

Sorry but I am a bit lazy to answer the rest of your comment because of other work to do now.

Angela
20-09-15, 18:15
@Alan,
I quoted the paragraph in your original post which I said confused me. I said that it was my error. Yes, your "Red Sea" figures were correct. Is it clear now?

The bottom line question is, did the Indo-European invasions totally change, or at least drastically change, the genetic landscape in Italy after around 2000 BC? ( I use that date because we have the Remedello sample, which still looks very EEF.) IF it did, wiping out all or most of the "Red Sea", among other things, then there must have been another large change afterwards to bring it back up.

We lack the ancient DNA to clarify the issue. That's all I'm saying. I'm no longer in the business of speculating from modern dna. I'm also not invested in one particular result versus another. Unfortunately, other than scientists and academics, many of the people (not all) who are posting on this topic on the internet seem to be racists, including most of the Italians. You may have encountered them. However, that's not how I roll.

No need to respond, I think we're straight now. :)

Angela
20-09-15, 18:27
I never see the full paper... hasn't it been published yet?

I just checked again, and the paper is to be presented on Friday, October 9th.

https://ep70.eventpilotadmin.com/web/page.php?page=Session&project=ASHG15&id=161004

It will probably be online around that time if the Reich Lab follows its usual pattern. I think, as we always do, that we're doing a bit of speculating, the results of which may or may not be supported by the actual paper.

Fire Haired14
20-09-15, 21:59
@Alan,
I quoted the paragraph in your original post which I said confused me. I said that it was my error. Yes, your "Red Sea" figures were correct. Is it clear now?

The bottom line question is, did the Indo-European invasions totally change, or at least drastically change, the genetic landscape in Italy after around 2000 BC? ( I use that date because we have the Remedello sample, which still looks very EEF.) IF it did, wiping out all or most of the "Red Sea", among other things, then there must have been another large change afterwards to bring it back up.

We lack the ancient DNA to clarify the issue. That's all I'm saying. I'm no longer in the business of speculating from modern dna.

I'm going to ask Daviski to do analysis with Remedello(esp. 2000 BC one) and Italians. I haven't payed attention to his work lately, but you're right it seems in 2000 BC they were still basically EEF. Remedello must represent a large part of the EEF-side of at least North Italians. Since, Italian regional genetic variation might go back very far in time, maybe Remedello is only an ancestor of North Italians.

Davidski should get an idea what's differnt with Remedello and people in that region today and who caused the difference.

Angela
21-09-15, 03:29
I'm going to ask Daviski to do analysis with Remedello(esp. 2000 BC one) and Italians. I haven't payed attention to his work lately, but you're right it seems in 2000 BC they were still basically EEF. Remedello must represent a large part of the EEF-side of at least North Italians. Since, Italian regional genetic variation might go back very far in time, maybe Remedello is only an ancestor of North Italians.

Davidski should get an idea what's differnt with Remedello and people in that region today and who caused the difference.

Thanks for your interest, Fire-Haired, but there is no way anyone can elucidate this without ancient dna from a whole variety of areas and time periods in Italy, ancient dna which is not currently available.

For example, we need samples from 2000 BC from further south in Italy to see if they are like Remedello. (Remedello also has to be compared to ancient dna from areas of the steppe further west than Yamnaya. I've been saying for months, really for years, that it may be that the steppe groups who moved into Europe might not have all been exactly the same, or even if they were all basically the same at the origin point, they might have been, by way of admixtures along the way and over the years, different by the time that they reached Italy. Given the Remedello genome, either many of the "cultural" hallmarks attributed to the steppe groups could and were adopted by Mid-Neolithic Copper Age groups without cultural exchange, or some of the steppe groups brought very little genetic change with them.)

Then we need samples from, say, 1800 BC to 800 BC from all over Italy to see if there was a later genetic change that shows more influence from "Indo-European" groups, and then some from Magna Graecia and northern Italy for the period from then to the days of the Roman Empire, to see what changes were brought by the Greeks and the Celts to their specific areas, and then from the medieval period to see if there was one more change and its signficance.

We might get some clues if the paper on ancient Etruscan dna ever comes online.

I find it interesting, in light of all of this and the recent Hellenthal group (Busby et al) paper on admixture in the last 1500 years that the prior paper on an El Portalon genome (dated to 2000 BC ) said that it plotted with modern Tuscans in a PCA.

See: Daskalaki et al 2014
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Discussed here at:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29796.html

Is the 2000 BC genome analyzed in the Daskalaki et al paper the same as ATP 20 dated to the same time period?

If it is, why does Daskalaki et al have a PCA that looks like this:
7427

Versus a PCA from Guenther et al that looks like this:
7428

Am I not looking at them properly?

I'm aware that ATP 20 is low coverage, yes? So, that sample isn't plotted on the Greunther et al PCA. However, would he have been far from the other Chalcolithic samples?

Also, where is this specifically "steppe" pull in this PCA? It just looks like more hunter gatherer, doesn't it, of the Central European Mesolithic and Scandinavian Mesolithic and SHG variety. The only EHG might come in through EHG?

Brennos
21-09-15, 09:41
I just checked again, and the paper is to be presented on Friday, October 9th.

https://ep70.eventpilotadmin.com/web/page.php?page=Session&project=ASHG15&id=161004

It will probably be online around that time if the Reich Lab follows its usual pattern. I think, as we always do, that we're doing a bit of speculating, the results of which may or may not be supported by the actual paper.

Many thanks, Angela!