PDA

View Full Version : New study about Central Anatolian farmers



Alan
15-02-16, 03:47
Central Anatolian farmers are similar to European farmers and close to identical to West Anatolian farmers.

Well, this seemed to be the most logical and I expected that but some people had this theory that West Anatolian farmers represent "a fusion" of early Near Eastern farmers and Fishers/H&G from the Aegean.
This theory is dead now.

There seems however to be very little difference in aDNA among Central Anatolian and West Anatolian farmers which can be logically be explained by geographic transitions. Just like there is little difference between West Anatolian farmers and Early European farmers.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session40/somel-2016-archaeogenomic-analysis-of-ancient-anatolians-first-genetic-indication-for-neolithic-cultural-diffusion-in-the-near-east.html

Fire Haired14
15-02-16, 07:12
These samples are 1,000-2,000 years older than the Anatolian_Neolithic ones, added with being from much further east, is a big deal. I'm sort of suprised. I was expecting EEF to be a Western Anatolian thing. There's no way to know whether EEF picked up WHG-like genes in the Aegean or already had then deep in Anatolia.

Hauteville
15-02-16, 11:34
I'd like to know their haplogroups as well.

Alan
15-02-16, 11:54
These samples are 1,000-2,000 years older than the Anatolian_Neolithic ones, added with being from much further east, is a big deal. I'm sort of suprised. I was expecting EEF to be a Western Anatolian thing. There's no way to know whether EEF picked up WHG-like genes in the Aegean or already had then deep in Anatolia.
Actually it was quite obvious just among some people (not saying that you are one of them) the agenda blindfolded them to see the obvious.
If the idea that mesolithic H&G reached Europe via the Caucasus or Anatolia is true (most likely) and we know that Haplogroup IJ originated somewhere around Iran than we surely can assume that there was always allot of WHG like ancestry in West Asia. And we have quite some more indications for this.

I said previous times we have significant percentage of WHG like admixture in the Levant and North Africa. And this despite it being most probably already deluded by other kind of admixtures. How did it reach that region? What does connect North Africa and the Levant? I can only think of farmers, so if EEF was a West Anatolian instead of general farmer phenomenon, we would need to assume that West Anatolian farmers expanded into North Africa and the Levant.

And yes I saw some people even arguing this way. The evidences spoke clearly for WHG like admixture in the earliest farmers. At least in the earliest farmers of Anatolia, if not (more likely) in the earliest farmers in general.

bicicleur
15-02-16, 13:45
http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session40/somel-2016-archaeogenomic-analysis-of-ancient-anatolians-first-genetic-indication-for-neolithic-cultural-diffusion-in-the-near-east.html

Is this all there is right now?
Is there going to be published more?

Angela
15-02-16, 16:04
I think we'd better wait for the paper on this one as the abstract is very poorly worded.

This is what they actually say:

" Our results indicate that Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals genetically resembled the first migrant Neolithic populations found in Europe, rather than modern-day Anatolians. At the same time, Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals appear to cluster together, to the exclusion of other Neolithic populations. Using simulations, we evaluate demographic models that could explain these patterns. Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis. We discuss our results in the context of material cultural exchange patterns of the Neolithic period."

Isn't the plain sense meaning of this that there is a difference, even if a very slight one, between this group and the other Neolithic populations? Now, I would want to see not only Admixture but formal stats to support that, of course. Even then, who says that the difference would be varying levels of "WHG like" admixture? That slight difference might be slightly more CHG for all we know.

As to their statements about the demographic source of the flow into Europe all that might mean is that as Paschou et al proposed, the jumping off point for Europe was southeastern Anatolia/northern Levant, and that the flow was not, as has been long suggested, directly from northwestern Anatolia.

Their last comment about all of this being "in line with the cultural diffusion process" makes no sense to me. Unless we find that the people living in southern Greece, the Aegean, and perhaps other parts of far southern Europe were already EEF like long before the first discoveries of agriculture, then I don't see how agriculture could have only culturally diffused into Europe. Even if that proves to be true, that there were repeated Neolithic flows is also pretty clear, given the J2 and E-V13 that only shows up later.

bicicleur
15-02-16, 16:47
and where is central Anatolia? is it Catal Hoyuk and the Konya plain or is it somewhere else, because this area is not the origin of agriculture?
there is a date, 16 april 2016, is this when results will be presented?

Alan
15-02-16, 16:51
I think we'd better wait for the paper on this one as the abstract is very poorly worded.

This is what they actually say:

" Our results indicate that Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals genetically resembled the first migrant Neolithic populations found in Europe, rather than modern-day Anatolians. At the same time, Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals appear to cluster together, to the exclusion of other Neolithic populations. Using simulations, we evaluate demographic models that could explain these patterns. Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis. We discuss our results in the context of material cultural exchange patterns of the Neolithic period."

Isn't the plain sense meaning of this that there is a difference, even if a very slight one, between this group and the other Neolithic populations? Now, I would want to see not only Admixture but formal stats to support that, of course. Even then, who says that the difference would be varying levels of "WHG like" admixture? That slight difference might be slightly more CHG for all we know.

As to their statements about the demographic source of the flow into Europe all that might mean is that as Paschou et al proposed, the jumping off point for Europe was southeastern Anatolia/northern Levant, and that the flow was not, as has been long suggested, directly from northwestern Anatolia.

Their last comment about all of this being "in line with the cultural diffusion process" makes no sense to me. Unless we find that the people living in southern Greece, the Aegean, and perhaps other parts of far southern Europe were already EEF like long before the first discoveries of agriculture, then I don't see how agriculture could have only culturally diffused into Europe. Even if that proves to be true, that there were repeated Neolithic flows is also pretty clear, given the J2 and E-V13 that only shows up later.

Yes the wording is kinda weird/wrong but what I understand from this is, the Central Anatolian farmers are very akine to European farmers with minimal differences that makes Central or West Anatolia as unlikely source for European Neolithic. However they seem to base this minimal difference on cultural differences rather than genetic it seems. So they say that a different Near Eastern farmer group is the source and I believe they mean the Levant.

Alan
15-02-16, 16:54
and where is central Anatolia? is it Catal Hoyuk and the Konya plain or is it somewhere else, because this area is not the origin of agriculture?
there is a date, 16 april 2016, is this when results will be presented?

Catal Hoyuk and Boncuklu were among them.

holderlin
15-02-16, 17:36
Yeah I don't think this paper quite knows what it's saying. At least according to the abstract.

Alan
15-02-16, 17:56
Yeah I don't think this paper quite knows what it's saying. At least according to the abstract.

True but what thing from the aper is obvious and crystal clear the Central Anatolian farmers were very similar to European farmers. But since they say the Central_Anatolian farmers build their own cluster just like the West Anatolian farmers.

I assume that they are trying to say that just like West Anatolian farmers the Central Anatolian farmers differ slightly from European farmers in having some (5-10%) WHG admixture.

And I assume the way they mention that these C-Anatolian farmers build their own cluster means that what differentiates them fom European farmers might be slightly different from what differentiates W_Anatolian farmers.

It could be that Central Anatolian farmers are more like the West Anatolian Kum6 sample which was special in that way it showed signs of CHG admixture in comparison to the other samples. So Kum6 could possibly be a Central Anatolian farmer by origin himself.

LeBrok
15-02-16, 19:12
Their last comment about all of this being "in line with the cultural diffusion process" makes no sense to me. Unless we find that the people living in southern Greece, the Aegean, and perhaps other parts of far southern Europe were already EEF like long before the first discoveries of agriculture, then I don't see how agriculture could have only culturally diffused into Europe. Even if that proves to be true, that there were repeated Neolithic flows is also pretty clear, given the J2 and E-V13 that only shows up later.
I made big eyes to this statement too.

LeBrok
15-02-16, 19:25
I assume that they are trying to say that just like West Anatolian farmers the Central Anatolian farmers differ slightly from European farmers in having some (5-10%) WHG admixture.
Exactly how I imagine it. ENF had no WHG, once they expanded to Anatolia they met WHG who were pushed there during LGM, or were "created" there in Anatolia and expanded into Europe after LGM becoming European hunter gatherers. It wasn't difficult as the continents were connected before Black Sea deluge. Anyway, when farmers expended in WHG territory they started mixing. The farther they went, the more they mixed. In this case we can expect 5% WHG admixture in farmers in Central Anatolia, 10% in Western, and 20% and over in Europe.
Perhaps in the future name WHG can change into Anatolian Hunter Gatherer?



It could be that Central Anatolian farmers are more like the West Anatolian Kum6 sample which was special in that way it showed signs of CHG admixture in comparison to the other samples. So Kum6 could possibly be a Central Anatolian farmer by origin himself.Unlike WHG, the CHG seems to live secluded lifestyle in a valley of Caucasian mountains, till ENF found them, mixed and later expanded in late neolithic.

MOESAN
15-02-16, 19:53
I'm sorry, hups! Too much french wine and british beer to help me (dopping) to try to break down the coded language used by this abstract (short, by chance for my health). Seriously, I'm confused. I don't see a word in it which could signify the difference between W- and C- Anatolian is cultural; I understood: genetic clustering.
the speak of culturaldiffusion hypothesis and at the same time don't exclude a demic diffusion, BUT from more southern Near East!
As they speak we could deduce C-Anatolians don't overlap with W-Anatolians: possible? Perhpas they ment : distinct enough centroid?
at metrics in other surveys, Catal Höyük people by instance seemed close enough to European first neolithikers of Greece and surroundings, and as a whole a bit different from other Neolithic people of E-Anatolia and Near-East, taken in account there were all of them a bit heterogenous if not too much, and they overlapped; I know metric is not the whole thing...
concerning WHG or CHG I see nothing in this short abstract which could help us. So I wait.
&: which WHG by the way? and all Neolithikers were descendants of previously HG people, if not WHG or EHG or CHG; some common genes are not always the result of recent crossings and can be the result of ancient common basis at some stage; it depends on the way they are grouped in genome. Genetic said us recently there had been some moves in Europe after LGM and we are still exposed to surprises.

Fire Haired14
15-02-16, 22:29
Exactly how I imagine it. ENF had no WHG

It depends how you define WHG. Middle Easterners are closer to WHG than to EHG, MA1, and Kostienki. They have something fairly similar to WHG. They might be mostly WHG-like. There is definitly Euro-specific WHG, with Y DNA I2 and mtDNA U5. That would be the best definition of WHG. I don't know exactly how it is differnt though from the WHG-like ancestors of Middle Easterners. So, what I'm trying to say is there's Euro-specfic WHG which very well could have been native to Anatolia like you say but there's also ancestry similar to WHG that's native to the Middle East which ENF has.

LeBrok
16-02-16, 01:28
It depends how you define WHG. Middle Easterners are closer to WHG than to EHG, MA1, and Kostienki. They have something fairly similar to WHG. They might be mostly WHG-like. There is definitly Euro-specific WHG, with Y DNA I2 and mtDNA U5. That would be the best definition of WHG. I don't know exactly how it is differnt though from the WHG-like ancestors of Middle Easterners. So, what I'm trying to say is there's Euro-specfic WHG which very well could have been native to Anatolia like you say but there's also ancestry similar to WHG that's native to the Middle East which ENF has.I meant the ancient ENF farmer which sample we don't have. Truly, it would need to be 12 kya ENF sample from fertile crescent, not from Anatolia. Definitely, closer to Natufian homeland the better. I suspect it won't have any WHG in it.

holderlin
18-02-16, 08:15
True but what thing from the aper is obvious and crystal clear the Central Anatolian farmers were very similar to European farmers. But since they say the Central_Anatolian farmers build their own cluster just like the West Anatolian farmers.

I assume that they are trying to say that just like West Anatolian farmers the Central Anatolian farmers differ slightly from European farmers in having some (5-10%) WHG admixture.

And I assume the way they mention that these C-Anatolian farmers build their own cluster means that what differentiates them fom European farmers might be slightly different from what differentiates W_Anatolian farmers.

It could be that Central Anatolian farmers are more like the West Anatolian Kum6 sample which was special in that way it showed signs of CHG admixture in comparison to the other samples. So Kum6 could possibly be a Central Anatolian farmer by origin himself.

Yes I think in some comparisons Kum6 shows ANE so I buy it. Was kum6 also a J2? Need to review Krefter's spreadsheet.

I think these are a lot older than Kum6 though.

holderlin
18-02-16, 08:25
I meant the ancient ENF farmer which sample we don't have. Truly, it would need to be 12 kya ENF sample from fertile crescent, not from Anatolia. Definitely, closer to Natufian homeland the better. I suspect it won't have any WHG in it.

Gobekli Tepe is just about 12kya. A temple for HG's where from the PPN seemed to radiate out of, which is where I'd peg the origin of the Anatolian farming cultures at the very least if not those of the entire middle east. And I think what the paper's results suggest, when I learn the actual results, is that we're going to find a continuum of related HG's embedded into all of neolithic west asia.

holderlin
18-02-16, 08:30
Actually I think Mesopotamian legends even describe the origins of farming as coming from a place that precisely matches the description of Gobekli Tepe. Can't put too much in that, but it's still amazing to think about, that people may have been well aware of this new way of living from far away lands. A technological breakthrough just like computers or cars.

bicicleur
18-02-16, 09:48
Gobekli Tepe is just about 12kya. A temple for HG's where from the PPN seemed to radiate out of, which is where I'd peg the origin of the Anatolian farming cultures at the very least if not those of the entire middle east. And I think what the paper's results suggest, when I learn the actual results, is that we're going to find a continuum of related HG's embedded into all of neolithic west asia.

Some Natufians from the Levant founded Abu Huryera 13 ka and moved 50 km further north to Mureybet at the onset of the youngest dryas. There they were joined by more Natufians (with khiam points) from the Levant.
After youngest dryas these farmers expanded to the Levant, southern Anatolia and Louristan.
Mureybet is along the Euphrates, west of Göbekli Tepe. Maybe these populations mixed?