PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming paper on medieval North African dna



Angela
09-06-16, 19:24
This is the preliminary abstract. I don't know when the full paper will be published.

http://smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au/days/2016-07-06/abstract/35210

"The trans-Saharan gold and salt trade as well as the trans-Saharan slave trade played an important role in population movements connecting sub-Saharan and Mediterranean economies during the Middle Ages. The slave trade alone is said to have transported more than 9 million slave soldiers and domestic servants along the trans-Saharan route. In this study, we present the genomic analysis of two human individuals from a cave site in the area of present-day Morocco which were directly dated to the Medieval period. The samples were processed in a designated ancient DNA lab and the genomic data obtained shows standard patterns of authentic ancient DNA with low levels of contamination. Both individuals – which represent the first ancient genome sequence data from North Africa – do not exhibit particular genetic affinities to modern North Africans or any other present-day population in published genotype data sets despite relatively extensive data has been produced from many areas of Africa. In fact, the most parsimonious way to model them genetically is as two-source admixture between Mediterranean Europeans and Southern Africans. The lack of archaeological context of the two individuals opens up various alternatives to explain their genomic pattern. Both individuals could represent a Medieval African population without population continuity to modern-day populations. Alternatively, both Mediterranean Europe and Southern Africa are known source regions in the Arab slave trade, thus they could potentially represent the offspring of slaves of different origin. The Arab slave trade extended over a longer period and may have involved more slaves than its transatlantic counterpart and our data might provide the first genetic insight into this historical process and the people who suffered in it. Our results highlight how archaeogenetic research can shed lights into historical events and long-distance population movements while opening new questions for the interpretation of the data."

Speaking of confusing....:)

What I find confusing is their statement that they can be modeled genetically as a two source admixture between Mediterranean Europeans and Southern Africans. Couldn't all North Africans be modeled as an admixture between Mediterraneans and SSA or perhaps East African? Isn't the only reason they plot so far from other Mediterraneans because SSA ancestry is so divergent that approximately 20% of it is enough to pull them away on PCAs?

Hauteville
09-06-16, 19:34
I hope not only for Y and mt but also for an autosomal analysis. At least we can know if Arabian, SSA, Turks and Europeans had significant impact among local North African gene-pool. Even if I think a pre-Phoenician Berber DNA would be better.

Angela
09-06-16, 20:19
I hope not only for Y and mt but also for an autosomal analysis. At least we can know if Arabian, SSA, Turks and Europeans had significant impact among local North African gene-pool. Even if I think a pre-Phoenician Berber DNA would be better.

Let's hope there's a lot more detail in the paper itself. What's confusing to me is that they're saying that these people are not all that related to modern North Africans. If they're really just a unique blend of slaves from different parts of the world it's not going to tell us much about the population genetics of modern North Africans.

Athiudisc
09-06-16, 20:38
Both individuals – which represent the first ancient genome sequence data from North Africa – do not exhibit particular genetic affinities to modern North Africans or any other present-day population in published genotype data sets despite relatively extensive data has been produced from many areas of Africa.

That's certainly interesting. The "medieval African population without continuity" would be far more intriguing than the "offspring of different slaves," IMO, even if the latter is more likely.

Hauteville
09-06-16, 21:13
Let's hope there's a lot more detail in the paper itself. What's confusing to me is that they're saying that these people are not all that related to modern North Africans. If they're really just a unique blend of slaves from different parts of the world it's not going to tell us much about the population genetics of modern North Africans.
It would be useless in this sense.

LeBrok
10-06-16, 03:36
Intriguing. Can't wait for more.

Greying Wanderer
10-06-16, 11:24
@Angela


What I find confusing is their statement that they can be modeled genetically as a two source admixture between Mediterranean Europeans and Southern Africans.

I was thinking they might mean Khoisan-like - which could potentially make this quite a thing.

If so it might mean Khoisan-like populations extended all the way to north Africa before the Bantu expansion and some survived in north Africa at least to the middle ages.

There's a tribe called 'worm eaters' (Dawada or Dawwada) in the Libyan desert which one source described as Khoisan-like.

Angela
10-06-16, 15:52
@Angela



I was thinking they might mean Khoisan-like - which could potentially make this quite a thing.

If so it might mean Khoisan-like populations extended all the way to north Africa before the Bantu expansion and some survived in north Africa at least to the middle ages.

There's a tribe called 'worm eaters' (Dawada or Dawwada) in the Libyan desert which one source described as Khoisan-like.

Interesting. That would still leave the "Mediterranean" part to be explained, though. Still, as I said above, the West Eurasian majority part of the ancestry of modern North Africans could be broadly labelled "Mediterranean", so perhaps it could be some isolated group instead of the mating of slaves from widely scattered parts of the globe.

Supporting that is the fact that while obviously the slaves who were brought north might have contained some part of southern African ancestry, I find it hard to believe that the Arab slave traders got very many slaves who could be totally described as "southern" African.

Fire Haired14
10-06-16, 16:20
Don't tell me they were EEF+African. I'm getting tired of all the Sardinian-like ancient DNA papers. The EEf race was really kicked around and beaten all over the place. They used to rule all the land from Turkey to Ireland, and North Africa?

LeBrok
10-06-16, 16:53
Don't tell me they were EEF+African. I'm getting tired of all the Sardinian-like ancient DNA papers. The EEf race was really kicked around and beaten all over the place. They used to rule all the land from Turkey to Ireland, and North Africa? Don't forget that they came and ruled all the Europe too. A very successful race, wouldn't you say?

Eochaidh
10-06-16, 17:28
Don't forget that they came and ruled all the Europe too. A very successful race, wouldn't you say?
I am trying to keep up with all of the new developments, but often with limited success.

Does EEF mean Early European Farmer?
Is this group the people who are labeled Old Europe on Maciamo's maps?
Is this group synonymous with Neolithic Greeks who have recently shown to be the same as Neolithic Anatolians, and who may be called Aegean?

Thanks.

Angela
10-06-16, 18:24
Don't tell me they were EEF+African. I'm getting tired of all the Sardinian-like ancient DNA papers. The EEf race was really kicked around and beaten all over the place. They used to rule all the land from Turkey to Ireland, and North Africa?

Well, of course they did, in the sense that roughly similar people spread to all those areas, and all over Europe too as LeBrok pointed out, and not just Turkey but the whole Middle East, and they went south into Africa to create people like the Ethiopians and the Horners, and spread down into India too, to some extent, although perhaps mixed with a slightly different Near Eastern "farmer" group . Where have you been? The same thing happened in East Asia with their Neolithic migrations. Hunter-gatherers just can't compete with farmers.

I'm sorry to say that the fact that you're "tired" of seeing all the papers that prove this is irrelevant. Researchers should not reveal the facts about this aspect of ancient history and what percentage these ancient people contribute to modern people because they're not your "favorite" group? That's interesting in itself, by the way, given that you're probably at least 50% EEF.

Oh, and the steppe "Indo-Europeans" who came later and formed an elite in many countries had some specifically EEF ancestry by the time they reached central Europe, and the East, and in addition had a chunk of the Basal Eurasian that was also a part of EEF ancestry through their roughly 50% CHG. Not to mention that in my opinion everything other than the domestication of the horse they learned from heavily or at least significantly EEF like people.

Lest we forget, too, many Europeans can be modeled as 70-80% EEF, and the majority, if you weight results like this for all the European countries by population numbers, are at least 40-50% EEF.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h2ktbF4-z7o/VZNUAIL72iI/AAAAAAAAC48/CWB4aR8R57Q/s1600/Untitled3.png

You might also want to remember that many of the ancient, great civilizations of the Near East to whom we owe so much in terms of metallurgy, urbanization, literacy, and on and on, including religion since you're religiously minded, were all developed by populations with significant EEF ancestry. We can add the Greek and Roman civilizations to that.

So, yes, I'd say they were a highly successful "race".

Angela
10-06-16, 22:20
Apropos of all our discussions on the topic of the spread of the Neolithic through the movement of actual farmers, Razib Khan has a thread up on the subject called "It All Began At Eden".

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/it-all-began-at-eden/

He echoes things we've said repeatedly on this site. He also makes the obvious point that Dienekes predicted much of this long ago, in 2011, with his concept of "The Womb of Nations", and all without any of this ancient dna.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html

Unlike Razib Khan I always thought he was right, although Khan was always civil about his disagreement, in so far as I can remember, but oh, the irony of seeing people who excoriated him and the idea now acting as if they knew it all along. :)

bicicleur
10-06-16, 22:40
Well, of course they did, in the sense that roughly similar people spread to all those areas, and all over Europe too as LeBrok pointed out, and not just Turkey but the whole Middle East, and they went south into Africa to create people like the Ethiopians and the Horners, and spread down into India too, to some extent, although perhaps mixed with a slightly different Near Eastern "farmer" group . Where have you been? The same thing happened in East Asia with their Neolithic migrations. Hunter-gatherers just can't compete with farmers.


we show that the eastern part of the Ancient Near East was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe

we only know that the farmers who came to Europe were EEF, we don't know anything about the others

Angela
11-06-16, 02:16
we show that the eastern part of the Ancient Near East was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe

we only know that the farmers who came to Europe were EEF, we don't know anything about the others

I'll wait to see what more ancient dna turns up, of course, especially of people like the Mesopotamian farmers, and also what the authors of this paper proffer as evidence that the EEF and these CHG admixed farmers were all that distinct, but even so, distinct doesn't mean dissimilar.

From the abstract:
http://smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au/days/2016-07-07/abstract/35146
"Their high frequency of short runs of homozygosity, comparable to other early Neolithic farmers, suggests that they overwintered the Last Glacial Maximum in a climatically favourable area, where they may have received a genetic contribution from a population basal to modern Eurasians."

How much Basal Eurasian was modeled in Stuttgart, who had picked up an additional 5-7% Loschbour/Villabruna like ancestry in Europe? Wasn't it around 44%? So, what do the models show for the Anatolian Neolithic farmers? It should be more than 44%, yes? We'll see what the authors propose for the Basal Eurasian percentage in the woman from this isolated population. CHG may not be 100% Basal Eurasian as one recent paper suggested, but if it's anywhere near 50%, how dissimilar were these two populations? Even so, I did say that the population that moved into India might have been of a slightly different ancestry. I also excepted the steppe "Indo-Europeans" except for the specifically EEF ancestry they picked up.

That leaves East Africa, which has already been modeled in papers as "Sardinian like" plus SSA, and North Africa, which will also, I think, turn out to be "Sardinian like" plus SSA (perhaps a different kind of SSA), with some additional WHG. So, they had an impact genetically and certainly culturally from Britain to the borders of the steppe in Europe, North Africa, and East Africa. Now, the people who went down toward Africa (Egyptians have an awful lot of EEF according to all the models I've seen) had to come from the Levant. They didn't fly over it from Anatolia, so they probably had a presence there.

This raises another point: when did "CHG" related "eastern" farmer ancestry, if we can call it that, spread out from it's "isolated" region? Just because modern Near Eastern populations are not now as EEF like as Europeans doesn't mean that was always the case. If Hofmanova is right, which I think they are, a CHG like component started filtering west very early, early enough, in fact, to get into Europe rather early, but the incursion grew much stronger over time. There's a lot of papers showing that a big chunk of the mtDna in the Levant and Anatolia is still very EEF like, although some of the papers then called it "European" like, if I remember it correctly. (One of the papers was on Crete). I think that probably the CHG was brought by J2, and possibly also J1. Then, a drifted, more Arabian like population with a portion of SSA also moved north. I even think we'll see some South Asian inflow, as a recent paper did indeed find.

This is speculation, I know, but not unwarranted, I think.

We'll see when the details start to get filled in.

I have to run, but if anyone doesn't remember some of the papers to which I refer, I can hunt down the citations tomorrow.

The point Dienekes was making is indeed broader than the EEF.

" The Neolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#Neolithic_1_.E2.80.93_Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_A_.28PPNA.29) of West Eurasia started, by most accounts, c. 12 thousand years ago. Its origin was in the area framed by the Armenian Plateau in the north, the Anatolian Plateau in the west, the Zagros Range in the east, and the lowlands of southern Mesopotamia and the Levant in the south. Intriguingly, the prehistoric site of Göbekli Tepe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe) sits right at the center of this important area, in eastern Anatolia/northern Mesopotamia. "

If there is a candidate for where the ur-population that became the modern Six lived, the early Neolithic of the Near East is surely it. This hypothesis makes the most sense chronologically, archaeologically, genetically, and geographically."

His discussion of the fst numbers between the "Six" is also interesting, as is the following:

"Migrants out of the core area would have spread their genes in all directions, becoming differentiated by a combination of drift, admixture, and the selection pressures they faced in different natural and cultural environments; some of them would acquire lighter pigmentation, others lactase persistence, malaria resistence, the ability to process the dry desert air or to survive the long winter nights of the arctic. These spreads were sometimes gradual, sometimes dramatic: they took place over thousands of years and from a multitude of secondary and tertiary staging points.

In Arabia, the migrants would have met (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI2.htm) aboriginal Arabians, similar to their next door-neighbors in East Africa,undergoing (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html) a subtle African shift (Southwest_Asians). In North Africa, they would have encountered denser populations during the favorable conditions of MIS 1 (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/upper-paleolithic-of-south-arabia.html), and by absorbing them they would became the Berbers (Northwest_Africans). Their migrations to the southeast brought them into the realm of Indian-leaning people, in the rich agricultural fields of the Mehrgarh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh) and the now deserted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LMvFI8gPAU) oases of Bactria and Margiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex). Across the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic facade of Europe, they would have encountered the Mesolithic populations of Europe, and through their blending became the early Neolithic inhabitants (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/10/sardinian-continuity-against-backdrop.html) of the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe (Mediterraneans). And, to the north, from either the Balkans, the Caucasus, or the trans-Caspian region, they would have met the last remaining Proto-Europeoid (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/04/anthropology-of-sredny-stog-and.html) hunters of the continental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_climate) zone, becoming the Northern Europeoids who once stretched all the way to the interior of Asia (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-on-prehistoric-south-siberians.html)."
I think the only place where he went wrong is in thinking a remnant of those early farmers remained in the Caucasus, but then he didn't have any ancient dna.Really extraordinarily prescient, since he was proposing all these things before 2010 and absent any ancient dna.

Goodness, I miss his input, which always showed not just a mastery of statistics, but a mastery of logic and language.

Greying Wanderer
11-06-16, 07:02
Interesting. That would still leave the "Mediterranean" part to be explained, though. Still, as I said above, the West Eurasian majority part of the ancestry of modern North Africans could be broadly labelled "Mediterranean", so perhaps it could be some isolated group instead of the mating of slaves from widely scattered parts of the globe.

Supporting that is the fact that while obviously the slaves who were brought north might have contained some part of southern African ancestry, I find it hard to believe that the Arab slave traders got very many slaves who could be totally described as "southern" African.

There were (are?) Khoisan-like people in Namibia IIRC so one possibility is slaves taken from there combined with slaves taken from Europe.

Another is some isolated group of Khoisan-like people hidden in the desert somewhere taken as slaves and combined with slaves raided from Europe.

I don't know which is more likely but the second is potentially more interesting.

Greying Wanderer
11-06-16, 07:17
I am trying to keep up with all of the new developments, but often with limited success.

Does EEF mean Early European Farmer?
Is this group the people who are labeled Old Europe on Maciamo's maps?
Is this group synonymous with Neolithic Greeks who have recently shown to be the same as Neolithic Anatolians, and who may be called Aegean?

Thanks.

It's got quite confusing recently but I think the current state of play is:

EEF does mean that however currently it appears there may have been more than one source of farmers and what were originally thought of as the singular EEF are now more often referred to as ENF (for near eastern) and centered around the Aegean (Greece and NW Anatolia).

These getting partially displaced later in SE Europe by another group of farmers who may or may not have come from the direction of the Caucasus.

So most of Europe would be: Aegean farmers + steppe pastoralists + native HGs with SE Europe getting an extra dose of CHG-like farmers later.

Either way I think two farmer waves is accepted now but I wouldn't swear I got the details right.

(and still leaves ydna E to figure out)

LeBrok
12-06-16, 01:33
Apropos of all our discussions on the topic of the spread of the Neolithic through the movement of actual farmers, Razib Khan has a thread up on the subject called "It All Began At Eden".

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/it-all-began-at-eden/

He echoes things we've said repeatedly on this site. He also makes the obvious point that Dienekes predicted much of this long ago, in 2011, with his concept of "The Womb of Nations", and all without any of this ancient dna.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html

Unlike Razib Khan I always thought he was right, although Khan was always civil about his disagreement, in so far as I can remember, but oh, the irony of seeing people who excoriated him and the idea now acting as if they knew it all along. :)
I'm glad to learn that more smart people take under consideration genetic importance in farming and farming lifestyle. It is a rather new radical idea and for most hard to stomach. However these are the consequences of new genetic research, either in population genetics, human genome projects and genetic anthropology. This is where new genetic knowledge is pointing us to. To our genes dictating aspects of our behaviour, culture, food liking, traits of character, music creation, political affiliations, beliefs in supernatural, discipline, love, strong will, addictions, or sense of justice.

Fire Haired14
12-06-16, 02:48
Apropos of all our discussions on the topic of the spread of the Neolithic through the movement of actual farmers, Razib Khan has a thread up on the subject called "It All Began At Eden".

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/it-all-began-at-eden/

He echoes things we've said repeatedly on this site. He also makes the obvious point that Dienekes predicted much of this long ago, in 2011, with his concept of "The Womb of Nations", and all without any of this ancient dna.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html


Dienikes was correct Stone age Middle Easterners contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern Eurasians. However he was wrong in thinking the common West Asian ancestor was a farmer. We now know Neolithic people in the Zagros mountains and Aegean were very differnt, and the ones from the Zagros mountains were similar to previous hunter gatherer populations in the Caucasus mountains. Farming spread with genes to Europe but it may not have in some parts of the Middle East.

The common Stone age Middle Eastern ancestor I'm referring to were hunter gatherers. They're the common ancestors of EEF and CHG. EEF and CHG were very differnt but clearly had a lot of shared ancestry that Paleo Europeans did not have. It's amazing Dienkes was able to determine all West Eurasians have lots of recent common ancestry and their common ancestors lived in the Middle East, but he was wrong that they were the first farmers. The first farmers from Levant or whereever they lived might not have contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern people.

Also, I don't buy the idea Neolithic farmers laid the foundation of modern ethnicities or cultures. Everything in our way of life doesn't have to do with farming. Neolithic West Asia was not a womb of nations.

Captain Nordic
12-06-16, 03:06
Dienikes was correct Stone age Middle Easterners contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern Eurasians. However he was wrong in thinking the common West Asian ancestor was a farmer. We now know Neolithic people in the Zagros mountains and Aegean were very differnt, and the ones from the Zagros mountains were similar to previous hunter gatherer populations in the Caucasus mountains. Farming spread with genes to Europe but it may not have in some parts of the Middle East.

The common Stone age Middle Eastern ancestor I'm referring to were hunter gatherers. They're the common ancestors of EEF and CHG. EEF and CHG were very differnt but clearly had a lot of shared ancestry that Paleo Europeans did not have. It's amazing Dienkes was able to determine all West Eurasians have lots of recent common ancestry and their common ancestors lived in the Middle East, but he was wrong that they were the first farmers. The first farmers from Levant or whereever they lived might not have contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern people.

Also, I don't buy the idea Neolithic farmers laid the foundation of modern ethnicities or cultures. Everything in our way of life doesn't have to do with farming. Neolithic West Asia was not a womb of nations.

I agree with this.

Fire Haired14
12-06-16, 04:40
Well, of course they did, in the sense that roughly similar people spread to all those areas, and all over Europe too as LeBrok pointed out, and not just Turkey but the whole Middle East, and they went south into Africa to create people like the Ethiopians and the Horners, and spread down into India too, to some extent, although perhaps mixed with a slightly different Near Eastern "farmer" group . Where have you been? The same thing happened in East Asia with their Neolithic migrations. Hunter-gatherers just can't compete with farmers.

When I say EEF I mean folks from Neolithic Turkey. EEF had many relatives in Western Asia, like CHG, but migrations by those relatives don't count as EEF migrations. It's like saying the Colonization of South America was done by French. I'm in doubt that real EEF, not relatives, ever lived far outside of Europe and Turkey.


I'm sorry to say that the fact that you're "tired" of seeing all the papers that prove this is irrelevant.

I'm "tired" in humorous way. Otzi's results were a surprise. Then Funnel Beaker girl Gok2 were a surprise. How could everyone in Europe in 3000 BC be so close to the little genetic isolates in Sardinia? And now North Africa! It's like one big joke.


Researchers should not reveal the facts about this aspect of ancient history and what percentage these ancient people contribute to modern people because they're not your "favorite" group? That's interesting in itself, by the way, given that you're probably at least 50% EEF.

I hope I'm 50% EEF that would be cool. I'm proud to have EEF ancestry. It's not like I care a lot about it, considering the same is true for billions of people. When has anyone been able to pin point an exact location a big chunk of their ancestors lived in 8,000 years ago? Never. So I feel lucky that i can pint point Anatolia.


Oh, and the steppe "Indo-Europeans" who came later and formed an elite in many countries had some specifically EEF ancestry by the time they reached central Europe, and the East, and in addition had a chunk of the Basal Eurasian that was also a part of EEF ancestry through their roughly 50% CHG. Not to mention that in my opinion everything other than the domestication of the horse they learned from heavily or at least significantly EEF like people.

I'm also proud that I have "Steppe" ancestry, Steppe+Anatolia Neolithic is basically what Europeans are. Pontic-Caspien Steppe and Anatolia are the mother lands. But of course EEF and Steppe were both hyprids who had ancestors who lived in other places. I'm not into Steppe=Horse riding badass. It wouldn't make sense if I was into that or any racist Nordic ideas, because I'm mixed. I don't know if you know this but I'm 25% Puerto Rican.


You might also want to remember that many of the ancient, great civilizations of the Near East to whom we owe so much in terms of metallurgy, urbanization, literacy, and on and on, including religion since you're religiously minded, were all developed by populations with significant EEF ancestry. We can add the Greek and Roman civilizations to that.

So, yes, I'd say they were a highly successful "race".

Ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were probably relatives though not EEF. It's debatable if they had lots of EEF ancestry. You can also add the British empire to that list. They weren't much less EEF than Romans. The divide between "Nordic" and anyone Nordic racists dislike because they're more swarthy, isn't EEF or Stone age Middle Eastern ancestry, it's slightly differnt ratios of ancestry from the same ancestors.

bicicleur
12-06-16, 09:05
I'm glad to learn that more smart people take under consideration genetic importance in farming and farming lifestyle. It is a rather new radical idea and for most hard to stomach. However these are the consequences of new genetic research, either in population genetics, human genome projects and genetic anthropology. This is where new genetic knowledge is pointing us to. To our genes dictating aspects of our behaviour, culture, food liking, traits of character, music creation, political affiliations, beliefs in supernatural, discipline, love, strong will, addictions, or sense of justice.

you are reading what you want to read
name me 1 gen that does that
how do you explain agriculture in America, China and New Guinee?
agriculture develloped after LGM not because of genes but because of climatologic circumstances

Angela
12-06-16, 16:50
Dienikes was correct Stone age Middle Easterners contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern Eurasians. However he was wrong in thinking the common West Asian ancestor was a farmer. We now know Neolithic people in the Zagros mountains and Aegean were very differnt, and the ones from the Zagros mountains were similar to previous hunter gatherer populations in the Caucasus mountains. Farming spread with genes to Europe but it may not have in some parts of the Middle East.

The common Stone age Middle Eastern ancestor I'm referring to were hunter gatherers. They're the common ancestors of EEF and CHG. EEF and CHG were very differnt but clearly had a lot of shared ancestry that Paleo Europeans did not have. It's amazing Dienkes was able to determine all West Eurasians have lots of recent common ancestry and their common ancestors lived in the Middle East, but he was wrong that they were the first farmers. The first farmers from Levant or whereever they lived might not have contributed a lot of ancestry to a lot of modern people.

Also, I don't buy the idea Neolithic farmers laid the foundation of modern ethnicities or cultures. Everything in our way of life doesn't have to do with farming. Neolithic West Asia was not a womb of nations.

You are, in my opinion, basing your conclusions on questionable assumptions and a misunderstanding of the genetics of the people and of the processes involved in the Neolithic revolution.

First of all, we haven't yet seen the paper on the farmer from the Zagros, so we don't know exactly how different that genome was from the farmers to their west in the Anatolia of the same time period. The data may not absolutely support the conclusion in the abstract. Part of the sometimes mass confusion in this field is, in my opinion, that so many genetics researchers are not very skilled in the use of language. That's part of what makes Dienekes so unique. (Aegean farmer is a misnomer, in my opinion. I realize some people have latched on to that term, perhaps to "Europeanize" them, but until we have proof showing that they were very different from all the other Anatolian farmers, the best term is perhaps West Anatolian farmer. If anyone read the papers to which I linked, it seems that the archaeology shows that this northwest Anatolian Neolithic had heavy influence from Central Anatolia, but also from coastal areas to the south if I remember correctly.

Some of this will also be clarified when we have genomes from just south of the "heartland" in the Levant. Cyprus, and probably Crete were settled from the area where Anatolia and northern Syria meet. How different were they from farmers in the Troad? Nor do we know what the Mesopotamian farmers were like specifically as we have no genomes from that region. Your post shows a tendency common in some genetics enthusiasts of thinking that populations in a certain area were static over time, or not looking at the time differences between the various ancient samples. I would be very surprised if over time the farmers in the Middle East didn't become more and more similar, even if there might have been differences initially. After all, the Neolithic developed over a period of 5000 years before it moved out of the Middle East in any major way.

A related point concerns the CHG hunter-gatherer. That is a really ancient genome. It's not the genome of the people who brought the CHG like ancestry to steppe populations. We don't have a genome for them yet so we don't know. If, however, the gene flow took place during the Maykop period, for example, it did indeed occur by way of people who were "farmers". If the people who brought it arrived earlier over the Caucasus or from the east, but brought domesticated animals with them, again, they were "farmers".

I still see in your post some confusion about this most basic of points: everybody was once a hunter-gatherer. It's just that certain hunter-gatherers, in three widely spaced areas of the world, developed farming. You might want to take a look at some of the papers and indeed books on the nature of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic and the changes wrought by farming in the Neolithic. Dienekes wasn't speaking specifically of the EEF. He was talking about the spread of the genes carried by the Middle Eastern farmers, which of course were originally hunter-gatherer genes. You might want to read some papers or even books on the changes wrought by the Neolithic everywhere it developed and especially in terms of the effect on population growth and the spread of farming and animal husbandry, to be complete, through not just the technology, but the technology as brought by people . There are numerous papers showing the spread of the Neolithic farming settlements.

Hunter-gatherers, whether in Europe, Anatolia, the Levant, Russia, or where ever, lived in small, widely scattered bands, always on the verge of extinction. The only reason those alleles survive is because they were incorporated by those hunter-gatherers who developed farming, if you want to put it that way, and then spread by them even further.

This is all at the heart of Dienekes' post.

Also, re-read the Dienekes post more carefully. "Foundation" isn't the right word, or even necessarily the "majority" ancestry. It's more like "the tie that binds" or the glue, or the common thread, something like that. It's totally clear and the ancient dna analyses support the vast majority of what he says.

Fire Haired14
12-06-16, 19:55
@Angela,

This looks like the most likely science: Farming began in the Middle East which had distinct races who had common ancestry and didn't spread with genes all the time, then those related but differnt races who learned how to farm expanded into Europe, India, etc. This isn't the same as a single race inventing farming and spreading the idea with their genes all over the place. I don't understand why this is so special. Farming changes lifestyle and its origins is important to human history, but there was no farmer race who can be considered the "womb of nations" genetically(culture is another debate).



First of all, we haven't yet seen the paper on the farmer from the Zagros, so we don't know exactly how different that genome was from the farmers to their west in the Anatolia of the same time period. The data may not absolutely support the conclusion in the abstract.

I trust them when they say the Zagros Neolithic woman was distinct from Neolithic Anatolians and more similar to earlier Caucasus hunter gatherers. They wouldn't have claimed this if the Zagros woman was very similar to Neolithic Anatolians.


Part of the sometimes mass confusion in this field is, in my opinion, that so many genetics researchers are not very skilled in the use of language. That's part of what makes Dienekes so unique.

I agree with this, however the absrtact about the Zagros Neolithic woman couldn't have been more clear and I don't see how it could be the result of a bad use of language.


(Aegean farmer is a misnomer, in my opinion. I realize some people have latched on to that term, perhaps to "Europeanize" them, but until we have proof showing that they were very different from all the other Anatolian farmers, the best term is perhaps West Anatolian farmer. If anyone read the papers to which I linked, it seems that the archaeology shows that this northwest Anatolian Neolithic had heavy influence from Central Anatolia, but also from coastal areas to the south if I remember correctly.

Yep, we have to wait for more ancient genomes to create more accurate names.


I would be very surprised if over time the farmers in the Middle East didn't become more and more similar, even if there might have been differences initially. After all, the Neolithic developed over a period of 5000 years before it moved out of the Middle East in any major way.

That would make sense but we still do know there was considerable genetic diversity in the Neolithic Middle East. The Caucasus mountains became much more EEF-like between 7000 and 2000 BC, but I think the population(s) who made them EEF like were relatives of EEF and not actual EEF. Because I know a lot about mtDNA, I know as well as anyone that modern Middle Easterners don't appear to be direct descendants of EEF. I'm skeptical about EEF ancestry being important anywhere outside of Europe.


A related point concerns the CHG hunter-gatherer. That is a really ancient genome. It's not the genome of the people who brought the CHG like ancestry to steppe populations. We don't have a genome for them yet so we don't know. If, however, the gene flow took place during the Maykop period, for example, it did indeed occur by way of people who were "farmers". If the people who brought it arrived earlier over the Caucasus or from the east, but brought domesticated animals with them, again, they were "farmers".

Yamnaya's CHG ancestors may have been farmers but that doesn't make them the same people as EEF.


Dienekes wasn't speaking specifically of the EEF. He was talking about the spread of the genes carried by the Middle Eastern farmers, which of course were originally hunter-gatherer genes.

Dienekes was claiming that farming always spread with genes and all the Middle Eastern farmers were the same people. It doesn't matter if Zagros and Anatolian farmers shared lots of distant ancestry, they were still genetically distinct. They weren't the same people. Middle Eastern farmers who shared distant pre-farming ancestry went all over the world and contributed of genes to people, but there was no "womb of nations" and farming race like Dienekes thought. It's historically and genetically significant but whatDienekes predicted isn't exactly correct.


You might want to read some papers or even books on the changes wrought by the Neolithic everywhere it developed and especially in terms of the effect on population growth and the spread of farming and animal husbandry, to be complete, through not just the technology, but the technology as brought by people . There are numerous papers showing the spread of the Neolithic farming settlements.

I understand farming is important to human history. I just don't think a region that farming expanded from with differnt races who were distantly related can be called a "womb of nations".

Hunter-gatherers, whether in Europe, Anatolia, the Levant, Russia, or where ever, lived in small, widely scattered bands, always on the verge of extinction. The only reason those alleles survive is because they were incorporated by those hunter-gatherers who developed farming, if you want to put it that way, and then spread by them even further.


Also, re-read the Dienekes post more carefully. "Foundation" isn't the right word, or even necessarily the "majority" ancestry. It's more like "the tie that binds" or the glue, or the common thread, something like that. It's totally clear and the ancient dna analyses support the vast majority of what he says.

And he was totally correct. He was just wrong to think there was a farmer race.

bicicleur
12-06-16, 21:09
First of all, we haven't yet seen the paper on the farmer from the Zagros, so we don't know exactly how different that genome was from the farmers to their west in the Anatolia of the same time period. The data may not absolutely support the conclusion in the abstract. Part of the sometimes mass confusion in this field is, in my opinion, that so many genetics researchers are not very skilled in the use of language. That's part of what makes Dienekes so unique. (Aegean farmer is a misnomer, in my opinion. I realize some people have latched on to that term, perhaps to "Europeanize" them, but until we have proof showing that they were very different from all the other Anatolian farmers, the best term is perhaps West Anatolian farmer. If anyone read the papers to which I linked, it seems that the archaeology shows that this northwest Anatolian Neolithic had heavy influence from Central Anatolia, but also from coastal areas to the south if I remember correctly.



not only don't we know how different this Zagros woman was from Western Anatolians, we even don't know how many ka she lived
that is very important
cereal farming was devellopped in the Southern Levant and Upper Eurphrates area by Natufians 11.5 ka
but goat domestication started in the Zagros 14 ka
these were 2 different populations
by the time they came to the Marmara Sea area and Eastern Greece, 8.4 ka some admixture between both populations may have happened, alltough I don't think they had admixed 100 %, there is to big a majority of G2a2 Y DNA among the 8.4 ka Marmara Sea area and LBK (who are supposedly downstream of 8.4 ka Eastern Greece)

Angela
12-06-16, 21:27
Fire Haired14;481622]@Angela,
This looks like the most likely science: Farming began in the Middle East which had distinct races who had common ancestry and didn't spread with genes all the time, then those related but differnt races who learned how to farm expanded into Europe, India, etc. This isn't the same as a single race inventing farming and spreading the idea with their genes all over the place. I don't understand why this is so special. Farming changes lifestyle and its origins is important to human history, but there was no farmer race who can be considered the "womb of nations" genetically(culture is another debate).



There you go again, using undefined terms and drawing conclusions not based on anything yet presented into evidence, to use a lawyerly term. Terms have to be defined and generally agreed upon. If there isn't a piece of evidence directly on point, all anyone can do is give an opinion, hopefully an education opinion, but an opinion none the less. Fire-Haired, please don't break the law, and if you do and are charged, never go on the stand. Any decent prosecutor would have you tied in verbal knots in minutes! :)

These aren't different races. There's a vast over-use of that term by amateurs in this field. If we were to speak of it in a general, modern sense, we have three roughly continental "breeding groups", perhaps West Eurasian, East Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African. Maybe you could add "Native American" and Australoid or Papuan New Guinea. All the people who first developed farming were West Eurasians from everything we know so far. There were different groups in the Middle East, not different races.

Were there differences between them? It seems there were; I'm not at all denying that, but by the time they moved out of the Middle East, five thousand years after farming first started, there was, in my opinion probably a certain amount of admixture. That's 5000 years, Fire-Haired. Even in Europe, where the H-G and farmer groups were living totally different lifestyles, there was some admixture, and a significant amount 2000 years in. Those in the west had some WHG, those to the east, perhaps CHG or something CHG like if the abstract turns out to be accurate. From everything we know so far, they perhaps both had a lot of Basal Eurasian, have you forgotten that? How different could they have been if they both turn out to have been around 50% Basal Eurasian, for goodness sakes? Then, one of the most interesting things in the Hofmanova paper is that pretty early there is a change that shows up even in what that paper calls the "Aegean farmers". That seems totally sensible. As I said, the archaeology shows movement from Central Anatolia to the northwest. The mistake you and some other enthusiasts are making is that you're, as I said above, assuming that the genetics stayed static in the Middle East. They didn't. At some point there was admixture.


I trust them when they say the Zagros Neolithic woman was distinct from Neolithic Anatolians and more similar to earlier Caucasus hunter gatherers. They wouldn't have claimed this if the Zagros woman was very similar to Neolithic Anatolians.



See above.


Yep, we have to wait for more ancient genomes to create more accurate names.

Finally, agreement.


That would make sense but we still do know there was considerable genetic diversity in the Neolithic Middle East. The Caucasus mountains became much more EEF-like between 7000 and 2000 BC, but I think the population(s) who made them EEF like were relatives of EEF and not actual EEF. Because I know a lot about mtDNA, I know as well as anyone that modern Middle Easterners don't appear to be direct descendants of EEF. I'm skeptical about EEF ancestry being important anywhere outside of Europe.

I'm not denying there was diversity. (See above) I'm sorry to say that the rest of this comment doesn't make any sense. You acknowledge my point, that the Caucasus, among other areas, became more EEF like as time passed, but they weren't EEF they were just relatives of EEF? Have you taken Shakespeare, yet, Romeo and Juliet?

"What’s in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. "

If they're more EEF like as time passes, it's because EEF like people moved there.


Yamnaya's CHG ancestors may have been farmers but that doesn't make them the same people as EEF.

I never said they were. Please see comments above and in prior posts.

Your initial comment, which sparked this debate, was your seeming disbelief that the EEF, or, in your terms, "Sardinian like" people had spread and dominated for a while North Africa in addition to the land mass from Ireland across Europe all the way to Turkey. We don't have access as of yet to North African ancient genomes, but it is my prediction that farming and animal herding spread there, as it did everywhere else, to our knowledge, with people. I think it is highly likely that those farmers, although they may have gotten some CHG by the time they got there, were more EEF like or rather, to be more precise myself in my language "Early Neolithic farmer like" than anything else. There, the farmers met the local hunter-gatherers, whom other analyses, although not ancient dna, have shown had quite a bit of WHG. There is no admixture analysis of which I'm aware that shows very much "West Asian" or Caucasus in North Africa, despite the Arab invasions which brought J1 and some J2, but I think that's because there was a massive founder effect for J1 in the Arabian peninsula, not because there are huge amounts of "Caucasus" there, although even the Bedouin have some, in so far as I remember.

There are already papers using ancient genomes which have modeled Ethiopians and Horners as "Sardinian like" plus SSA, and we know that Sardinians are the closest living people to the early farmers, although they're not identical to them. So, I think that covers that. How did these "Sardinian like" people get to Egypt and the Horn? Did they fly over the Levant, as I asked you before? I doubt it, so at some point, Sardinian like people seemed to have at least moved through the Levant, yes?

That leaves the Near East itself. We'll have to wait to see what genomes from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Near East show, but from the evidence we have so far, my speculation is that just as EEF like genes moved from Anatolia toward the Caucasus, they probably moved down to the Levant if they didn't already exist there.


Dienekes was claiming that farming always spread with genes and all the Middle Eastern farmers were the same people. It doesn't matter if Zagros and Anatolian farmers shared lots of distant ancestry, they were still genetically distinct. They weren't the same people. Middle Eastern farmers who shared distant pre-farming ancestry went all over the world and contributed of genes to people, but there was no "womb of nations" and farming race like Dienekes thought. It's historically and genetically significant but whatDienekes predicted isn't exactly correct.

Yes, in so far as we can tell with our current samples and analyses, farming always spread with people. It was not spread anywhere that we know of by cultural diffusion alone. That great question which vexed archaeologists and geneticists and anthropologists for so many decades has been answered. As for the rest you're going around in circles. Dienekes wasn't talking about EEF versus other kinds of farmers. This was years before any ancient genomes had been analyzed. He's talking about "farmer genes" in general, genes present in the Near East, which of course originally were carried by h-g groups, which were brought to other parts of the world by farmers. They're what brings the fst so close for all the six groups he listed. I find it hard to believe you don't see the evidence and the logic here. Anyway, I can't explain it any better, so if you refuse to acknowledge it, there's nothing I can do about it.

This, by the way, is the area he was talking about, the one in red. As more recent papers have shown, I think the initial relevant areas extended to the Natufian zone in the Levant.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QAWUaqeqNT8/TuYYXgI3b2I/AAAAAAAAEXM/-pVWXhiNLrY/s1600/db_GobekliTepe_Urfa-Region9.jpg

Angela
12-06-16, 22:06
not only don't we know how different this Zagros woman was from Western Anatolians, we even don't know how many ka she lived
that is very important
cereal farming was devellopped in the Southern Levant and Upper Eurphrates area by Natufians 11.5 ka
but goat domestication started in the Zagros 14 ka
these were 2 different populations
by the time they came to the Marmara Sea area and Eastern Greece, 8.4 ka some admixture between both populations may have happened, alltough I don't think they had admixed 100 %, there is to big a majority of G2a2 Y DNA among the 8.4 ka Marmara Sea area and LBK (who are supposedly downstream of 8.4 ka Eastern Greece)

That's how I see it as well.

Alpenjager
12-06-16, 23:51
These aren't different races. There's a vast over-use of that term by amateurs in this field. If we were to speak of it in a general, modern sense, we have three roughly continental "breeding groups", perhaps West Eurasian, East Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African. Maybe you could add "Native American" and Australoid or Papuan New Guinea. All the people who first developed farming were West Eurasians from everything we know so far. There were different groups in the Middle East, not different races.
According to Pedro Gómez Gómez 2013, Physical Anthropologist of the University of Oviedo: "There is no consensus about what are the limits to set the barrier of race between humans." The lack of consensus among the scientific community regarding the concept of race doesn't necessarily imply the absence of races. It is more a problem of establishing how many and which are necessary to start talking about racial differences.

So, as Firehaired believe, there could be several unrecognized biological races that actually are mostly found in admixed forms.




This looks like the most likely science: Farming began in the Middle East which had distinct races who had common ancestry and didn't spread with genes all the time, then those related but differnt races who learned how to farm expanded into Europe, India, etc. This isn't the same as a single race inventing farming and spreading the idea with their genes all over the place. I don't understand why this is so special. Farming changes lifestyle and its origins is important to human history, but there was no farmer race who can be considered the "womb of nations" genetically(culture is another debate).

This is not a proof. We have not DNA results of the most ancient farmer group. I don't see easy that multiple unrelated human groups start to farm at the same exact time.

LeBrok
12-06-16, 23:56
you are reading what you want to read
name me 1 gen that does thatThere will be many genes discovered. Look at this as adaptation genes, like LP gene in areas with extensive cattle herding, like adaptation of skin for African and European UV radiation. As you know we just started to decipher DNA and function for most of it is still unknown. I'm just reading available clues and coming to certain conclusions. I'm glad others, especially coming as knowledgeable and intelligent, start seeing it too.

how do you explain agriculture in America, China and New Guinee?Same as agriculture of Natufians.

agriculture develloped after LGM not because of genes but because of climatologic circumstances How long was the process from increased consumption to becoming full farmers? Thousands of years perhaps?

Fire Haired14
13-06-16, 05:19
The difference between us is you're fairly convinced farming expanded out of the Middle East with EEF-like or at least closely related people, while I'm more neutral and therefore skeptical of this idea. We both agree they were pretty related because they shared Middle Eastrern-specific ancestry and that they spread this Middle Eastern specific ancestry to other locations with farming. So are opinons aren't very differnt.


Fire-Haired, please don't break the law, and if you do and are charged, never go on the stand. Any decent prosecutor would have you tied in verbal knots in minutes! :)

I jay-walked today. Hope there were no cameras.


These aren't different races. There's a vast over-use of that term by amateurs in this field. If we were to speak of it in a general, modern sense, we have three roughly continental "breeding groups", perhaps West Eurasian, East Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African. Maybe you could add "Native American" and Australoid or Papuan New Guinea. All the people who first developed farming were West Eurasians from everything we know so far. There were different groups in the Middle East, not different races.

Race means an entity of people defined by common ancestry. That's it. In America we used to say "The Irish race", "The German race", etc. Originally in the English language race had nothing to do with white vs black etc. Later people used the that same word to designate people based on geographic origin/phenotype. When I use the term "race" in genetic discussion I'm usually not referring to people separated by continents, 10,000s of years of genetic separation, and noticeable differences in phenotype. So, while I agree with you "West Eurasian", "East Asian", etc. are the big genetic divides in humanity when I use the word "race" I'm usually not referring to such big divides. I use the word "race" because it's less wordy than "Genetically defined population". In English we don't have any-other word but "race" to describe differnt genetic groups; like EEF, CHG, WHG, etc. I wouldn't use that word in school, I use it on forums because it's less formal. So when I use the word "race" remember what I just described.


Were there differences between them? It seems there were; I'm not at all denying that, but by the time they moved out of the Middle East, five thousand years after farming first started, there was, in my opinion probably a certain amount of admixture.

Maybe. Modern near Easterners certainly are very related to EEF, but i don't think they're part EEF. I really have no idea how much the Neolithic revolution in the Middle East had to do with genes. I open to any theory. I wouldn't be surprised if it had little to do with genes.



If they're more EEF like as time passes, it's because EEF like people moved there.

Yeah but they weren't EEF. Cyrpiots are EEF-like and a better candidate than EEF for the people who mixed with CHG to help create Georgians.


Your initial comment, which sparked this debate, was your seeming disbelief that the EEF, or, in your terms, "Sardinian like" people had spread and dominated for a while North Africa in addition to the land mass from Ireland across Europe all the way to Turkey.

"Sardinian like" is the key word here. Ancient SouthWest Asian relatives of EEF should be closer to Syrians or Druze than Sardinians. Being apart of the big family EEF was doesn't make you Sardinian like. Ok maybe EEF did preserve some uqinue type of ancestry that was widespread in the Middle East, That's possible. In F3-stats Middle Easterners fit best as EEF+something else. So who knows. The Neolithic revolutuion might have had a lot to do with genes but it's not proven. The difference between you and me is you're more convinced it did.


That leaves the Near East itself. We'll have to wait to see what genomes from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Near East show, but from the evidence we have so far, my speculation is that just as EEF like genes moved from Anatolia toward the Caucasus, they probably moved down to the Levant if they didn't already exist there.

I agree with that.


Yes, in so far as we can tell with our current samples and analyses, farming always spread with people. It was not spread anywhere that we know of by cultural diffusion alone. That great question which vexed archaeologists and geneticists and anthropologists for so many decades has been answered

For Europe and South Asia the question is answered but not for the Middle East.


As for the rest you're going around in circles. Dienekes wasn't talking about EEF versus other kinds of farmers. This was years before any ancient genomes had been analyzed. He's talking about "farmer genes" in general, genes present in the Near East, which of course originally were carried by h-g groups, which were brought to other parts of the world by farmers.

I agree 100% with that i just don't think that's what Dienekes said. Farming expanded among related hunter gatherers in the Middle Easters, and then Middle Eastern-specific ancestry expanded with farming to Europe and South Asia and North Africa(?). But I'm not as convinced as you expansion of farming in the Middle East had lots to do with genes.

I'm mostly neutral in this debate because I don't know very much about Middle Eastern diversity. I'm going up against you because you're not neutral. I do know CHG and EEF share Middle Eastern-specific ancestry but are significantly differnt, I just don't know how to quantify their difference. I also know that Middle Easterners today are much closer to EEF than CHG was, but once again I don't know how to quantify the relationship between modern Middle Easterners and EEF. I think you suggested this, that EEF is apart of a big farming family which went to the Caucasus and other parts of the Middle East and made the entire Middle East more EEF-like. That's possible I guess but there isn't much data to refute or confirm it.


They're what brings the fst so close for all the six groups he listed. I find it hard to believe you don't see the evidence and the logic here. Anyway, I can't explain it any better, so if you refuse to acknowledge it, there's nothing I can do about it.

I do see it.