PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming paper on the Iranian Neolithic



Angela
13-06-16, 22:33
"The genetic landscape of Iran and the legacy of Zoroastrianism: Comparing haplotype sharing patterns among ancient and modern day samples using a mixture model."

This is the abstract released at the conference:
http://quantitative-genomics.com/programme/QuantGen16ConferenceBook.pdf


"Iran is considered a pivotal region in the Fertile Crescent, occupying a central space between Africa and Eurasia, andhas thus been extensively studied to infer the development of the earliest human civilizations and farming settlements.From a historical and cultural perspective, this region is also of great interest as the cradle of Zoroastrianism. Withreported roots dating back to the second millennium BC in Iran, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest religions in the worldand is now mainly concentrated in India, Iran, and Southern Pakistan. In this work we present novel genotype datafrom present-day Zoroastrians from Iran and India, along with a high coverage (10x) early Neolithic sample from Iran(7,455-7,082 BC), comparing these samples to publicly available genome-wide genotypes from >200 modern and ancientgroups worldwide to elucidate patterns of shared ancestry. We apply a novel Bayesian mixture model to represent theDNA from modern and ancient groups or individuals as mixtures of that from other sampled groups or individuals,using a haplotype-based approach that is more powerful than commonly-used algorithms. Our mixture model identifieswhich sampled groups are most related to one another genetically, reflecting shared common ancestry relative to othergroups due to e.g. admixture (i.e. intermixing of genetically distinct groups) or other historical processes. Interestingly,analysis of ancestry patterns revealed strong a!nities of the Neolithic Iranian sample to modern-day Pakistani andIndian populations, and particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians, in stark contrast to Neolithic samples from Europe. Wealso identify, describe and date recent admixture events in modern-day Iranian groups that have altered their currentgenetic make-up relative to these ancient origins."

I think this may be a sample from the highly CHG admixed Neolithic group we've been discussing on other threads, which I've speculated may be the group which brought the Neolithic to South Asia. I hope they got the yDna to see if we're right that it has more J2.

The comment about Iranian Zoroastrians is interesting in light of the fact that most Iranians were Zoroastrians prior to the arrival of Islam, or at least that's how I remember it, although I'm no expert on this religion. Is that the case?

If that is so, it might imply some change wrought on the Iranian population groups by the arrival of Islam. I believe certain Iranian groups and families do claim descent from this new group although I know some people have been skeptical of it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a minority religion might retain more of an older genetic signature. I think that's what the Assyrian Christians did to a certain degree, and certainly a group like the Samaritans. I'll be surprised if it's a huge difference, however. I think there was probably a steady increase in more Anatolian like farmer ancestry, and then of specifically Arabian like ancestry even before Islam arrived. I could be wrong, though.

I'm sure there were other genetic influences as well, which will be very interesting to see.

Btw, this is the same group that wrote the much maligned paper on the "Aegean" Neolithic. Perhaps if they now say things that support various agendas, they'll suddenly be discovered to be very good researchers indeed. :)

Goga
13-06-16, 23:01
Those ancient Zoroastrian folks were native to the Iranian Plateau, so they were definitely CHG-folks full of ANE and CHG. Because of all examined people they are the closest to 'Neolithic' Iranians.


But my question is, where are those samples are from? Were those Zoroastrians the east Iranian Plateau or west Iranian Plateau?



I believe that those who brought CHG auDNA to the Indus Valley (Pakistan & Northern India), brought not only Y-DNA hg. J2 but also Y-DNA hg. R1a-Z93 subclades to SouthCentral Asia. R1a-Z93 is not really that old in India and Pakistan.


Also, as an Ezdi Kurd, I'm of West Iranian origin. My people were NEVER Muslims. ALL my ancestors belonged to our native religion, nothing to do with Islam. My religion PRE-date Islam by thousands of years. And If you compare my DNA to other non-Ezdi Kurds, it is very similar to other Kurds.

holderlin
13-06-16, 23:09
This should be good.

Zoroastrianism is way older than Islam. Zoroastrianism and Brahmanism are descended from the same Indo-Iranian religion that was practiced in Andronovo at least by 2000BC. I believe it's most basic, early form was some sort of fire worship that may have begun as the PIE sun worship/diety. I'll need some google time to remind myself.

Goga
13-06-16, 23:22
This should be good.This is magnificent. Ancient Zoroastrians were CHG-folks native to the Iranian Plateau. And their religion was related to the Mesopotamian religions.

Ahura Mazda is based on the Sumerian deity Anu.


This Ahura Mazda (Kurdish/Median) is related to Mesopotamia:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/03/13603-004-841512F2.jpg

Angela
13-06-16, 23:27
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is just an abstract. All it says is that the Iranian Zoroastrians are the group which is most close to this ancient Iranian Neolithic sample. It's not saying there was total continuity.

holderlin
13-06-16, 23:35
I don't think you can connect Zoroastrianism with Mesopotamia at the early dates we speak of, but it clearly shares a common ancestor with Brahmanism.

Indo-Iranian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian)


Vedic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda) term
Avestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan) term
Common meaning


*ap
āp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap_%28water%29)
āp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aban)
"water," āpas "the Waters"



Apam Napat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apam_Napat), Apām Napāt
Apām Napāt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burz)
the "water's offspring"


*aryaman
aryaman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryaman)
airyaman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyaman)
"Arya-hood" (lit:** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyaman#Scholastic_issues) "member of Arya community")


*rta
rta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rta)
asha/arta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asha)
"active truth", extending to "order" & "righteousness"


*athar-van-
atharvan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvan)
āϑrauuan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashavan)
"priest"


*azi
ahi
azhi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahhak), (aži)
"dragon, snake", "serpent"


*daiva
daiva, deva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_%28Hinduism%29)
daeva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeva), (daēuua)
a class of divinities


*manu
manu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_%28Hinduism%29)
manu
"man"


*mi-tra-
mitra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra_%28Vedic%29)
mithra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra), miϑra
"oath, covenant"


*asura
asura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura)
ahura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura)
another class of spirits


*sarvatāt
sarvatat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati)
Hauruuatāt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haurvatat)
"intactness", "perfection"


*sara-svnt-ih
Sarasvatī (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati_River)
Haraxvaitī (Ārəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aredvi_Sura_Anahita))
a controversial (generally considered mythological) river, a river goddess


*sau-ma-
sauma, soma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma)
haoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haoma)
a plant, deified


*sva(h)r-
svar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya)
hvar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvare-khshaeta), xvar
the Sun, also cognate to Greek helios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios), Latin sol, Engl. Sun


*vr-tra-
Vrtra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrtra)-
verethra, vərəϑra (cf. Verethragna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verethragna), Vərəϑraγna)
"obstacle"


*yama
Yama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yama)
Yima (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamshid)
son of the solar deity Vivasvant/Vīuuahuuant


*yaj-na-
yajña (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagna)
yasna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasna), object: yazata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazata)
"worship, sacrifice, oblation"

holderlin
13-06-16, 23:38
Yeah we don't even know what language the Sumerians spoke, so I don't see how we can find cognates in IE deities.

Goga
13-06-16, 23:38
Another thing:

This is a Kurdish/Median/West Iranian Ahura Mazda

With face to the WEST

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f3/0a/53/f30a53398c9c0430f72fda14156b4ffb.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFxMWG-qXNAhXC7BQKHUUbACcQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F363665 738640228515%2F&bvm=bv.124272578,d.d24&psig=AFQjCNFnXMyC7etW2KonrmpEIKfKpfDDJg&ust=1465939957749062)


While the Bacatrian (East Iranian) Ahura Mazda has a face to the EAST!

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/farohar.gif (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjXv9yr-qXNAhXJtRQKHb8uB38QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoblog.whmsoft.net%2Frelated_sear ch.php%3Fkeyword%3Dasho%2Bfarohar%2Bpictures%26lan guage%3Denglish%26depth%3D3&psig=AFQjCNGdJyZwZZVl7_u0GBASUA7QYSGLJw&ust=1465940002413508)





Aryan religion of Mithraism (Sun Worshippers) are also native to the Mesopotamia related to the more ancient Sumerian mythology and is actually OLDER than the Zoroastrianism. According to my people, Zarathustra was an Ezdi Kurd who abandoned his native religion and found his own religion in the East.

Goga
13-06-16, 23:59
Yeah we don't even know what language the Sumerians spoke, so I don't see how we can find cognates in IE deities.Never forget that ancient Zoroastrians were native to the Iranian Plateau full of CHG!!!



Sumerian 'TREE of LIFE' with the WINGED DISK:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXRZzWMxV9g/VLAxNXDkGgI/AAAAAAAAAxg/n9Ni0qUF3oc/s1600/Mesopotamian_cylinder_seal_impression.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7yN-a_6XNAhWI7RQKHeFCDAAQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftreeoflifemeaning22.blogspot.com% 2Fp%2Fmesopotamian-tree-of-life.html&psig=AFQjCNE-7cs1WvCLEhYLqX1wknioI18Xgw&ust=1465941345726920)

http://treeoflifemeaning22.blogspot.nl/p/mesopotamian-tree-of-life.html


About the Sumerian 'TREE of LIFE':

" There are several later paintings and drawings of the Tree of Life, but this Sumerian Clay tablet (however crude it might appear) is one of the earliest, if not the first. It is among the original Sumerian Cylinders and clay tablets excavated circa 2, 500 BCE.

http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/vohuman/Article/The%20Sumerian%20Tree%20of%20Life_files/image001.jpg


The clay tablet is prepared by rolling the carved metal seal on wet clay, which is then baked. Once baked the tablet cannot be altered. The original Sumerian (Indo-Iranian) concept was that wisdom is likened to a tree whose fruit endows those who eat it with health and longevity. The symbol of an elixir of life had already been well established in antiquity by the Indo-Iranian cultures long before Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other cultures had the opportunity to recognise it. This 4,500 year old clay tablet shows a man and a woman seated below the Tree of Life. Behind the woman is seen a serpent allegedly ‘tempting’ the woman.

This concept was expurgated in the Bible as the tree of life in the Garden of Eden by the Jews and Christians. The Book of Genesis 3.22 mentions such a tree as 'the giver of eternal life.' "

http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/vohuman/Article/The%20Sumerian%20Tree%20of%20Life.htm






Indo-Iranian ancestors (Mitanni-like folks) of Vedic folks came from Kurdistan and migrated into the BMAC before invading INDIA.



If you are interested in ARYAN religions and even in my MODERN-day Aryan religion of Shefredin (for layman, the Yezidism), you should watch this masterclass by this professor:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wn623TlM98


from the vid:

http://s32.postimg.org/zdr3wu5hx/image.jpg

http://s31.postimg.org/tkxl9m1uz/image.jpg

bicicleur
14-06-16, 00:30
This should be good.

Zoroastrianism is way older than Islam. Zoroastrianism and Brahmanism are descended from the same Indo-Iranian religion that was practiced in Andronovo at least by 2000BC. I believe it's most basic, early form was some sort of fire worship that may have begun as the PIE sun worship/diety. I'll need some google time to remind myself.

that is what I taught, Zoroastians are IE
then it is surprising they are similar to early neolithic

Goga
14-06-16, 00:39
that is what I taught, Zoroastians are IE
then it is surprising they are similar to early neolithic
They are not just similar to early neolithic, BUT to the native Neolithic IRANIANS (full of CHG/ANE/Gedrosia). What about that, ha???


These ancient Zoroastrian samples are the nail to the coffin of the wild sciencefiction fantasies of wannabe-Aryan EuroCentric folks.

All the racists dreams of Eurocentric folks are shattered in pieces and all their twisted lies are melted like snow under the warm Aryan SUN of the Iranian Plateau!



Aryans from the Steppes? Don't make me laugh, muhahaha, no way jose! Aryans were, are and always will be native to the Iranian Plateau, the land of the GODS, the land of the Sumerians, the land of Mitanni/Kassites, the land of the mighty MEDES, the true and only Aryan people!

Athiudisc
14-06-16, 00:41
If that is so, it might imply some change wrought on the Iranian population groups by the arrival of Islam.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Zoroastrians had a lower rate of mixture with Arabs over the centuries than those who converted to Islam.

Fire Haired14
14-06-16, 01:44
The abstract never said Muslim Iranians have less relation to the Neolithic Iranian than Zoroastrian Iranians, I'm sure the relationship is about the same.

holderlin
14-06-16, 02:06
that is what I taught, Zoroastians are IE
then it is surprising they are similar to early neolithic

Is it really surprising? The Vedas are IE too and I'm sure modern Brahmans look nothing like, say for example Andronovo samples. In fact it looks like the abstract says that Brahmans may very well resemble these Neolithic samples as well. It's doesn't change that the Avestan and Rig Veda were written in IE. There's many non-IE loanwords in Indo-Iranian as well which were no doubt taken from whatever it was that BMAC people spoke. Probably Elamite or something related.

Remember Indo-Iranians were a foreign superimposition, and almost certainly a minority in the region. It's no surprise that Iranian speakers of today might still resemble neolithic samples. It's not like in Europe where you had a ton of WHG and EHG all around. And there's actually still parts of IE speaking Europe that are mostly EEF.

holderlin
14-06-16, 02:07
They are not just similar to early neolithic, BUT to the native Neolithic IRANIANS (full of CHG/ANE/Gedrosia). What about that, ha???


These ancient Zoroastrian samples are the nail to the coffin of the wild sciencefiction fantasies of wannabe-Aryan EuroCentric folks.

All the racists dreams of Eurocentric folks are shattered in pieces and all their twisted lies are melted like snow under the warm Aryan SUN of the Iranian Plateau!



Aryans from the Steppes? Don't make me laugh, muhahaha, no way jose! Aryans were, are and always will be native to the Iranian Plateau, the land of the GODS, the land of the Sumerians, the land of Mitanni/Kassites, the land of the mighty MEDES, the true and only Aryan people!

It's posts like this that make me question whether or not you're real.

Aaron1981
14-06-16, 02:29
They are not just similar to early neolithic, BUT to the native Neolithic IRANIANS (full of CHG/ANE/Gedrosia). What about that, ha???


These ancient Zoroastrian samples are the nail to the coffin of the wild sciencefiction fantasies of wannabe-Aryan EuroCentric folks.

All the racists dreams of Eurocentric folks are shattered in pieces and all their twisted lies are melted like snow under the warm Aryan SUN of the Iranian Plateau!



Aryans from the Steppes? Don't make me laugh, muhahaha, no way jose! Aryans were, are and always will be native to the Iranian Plateau, the land of the GODS, the land of the Sumerians, the land of Mitanni/Kassites, the land of the mighty MEDES, the true and only Aryan people!

As you're sitting comfy in one of my countries as a refugee. Get out man.

Angela
14-06-16, 02:38
Please calm down, gentlemen.

Goga...enough, or you're going to find yourself banned again.

We don't yet have this paper in front of us, and none of us has a crystal ball, so stop making pronouncements as if you do.

There would be nothing extraordinary in Iranians showing some continuity with their Neolithic ancestors. Europeans do with theirs, so why shouldn't they? We don't know precisely how much continuity is involved either for the Zoroastrians or any other Iranians. We have to wait for the paper.

Any provocative comments, no matter who makes them, will get an infraction from here on in.

Goga
14-06-16, 02:43
Is it really surprising? The Vedas are IE too and I'm sure modern Brahmans look nothing like, say for example Andronovo samples. In fact it looks like the abstract says that Brahmans may very well resemble these Neolithic samples as well. It's doesn't change that the Avestan and Rig Veda were written in IE. There's many non-IE loanwords in Indo-Iranian as well which were no doubt taken from whatever it was that BMAC people spoke. Probably Elamite or something related.

Remember Indo-Iranians were a foreign superimposition, and almost certainly a minority in the region. It's no surprise that Iranian speakers of today might still resemble neolithic samples. It's not like in Europe where you had a ton of WHG and EHG all around. And there's actually still parts of IE speaking Europe that are mostly EEF.
You just forget 1 small detail. Only 1 very small detail. Those late Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya who invaded the Europe, and linguistically Indo-Europized the people of Europe were for a huge part CHG, related to those people who were ancestral to the Aryan Zoroastrians.

Goga
14-06-16, 02:47
As you're sitting comfy in one of my countries as a refugee. Get out man.
Your country or maybe that of your daddy? Ohh Really? Your planet? No thanks. You have to get out first! Netherlands is at least as much mine than Canada is yours...


Get out of Canada! You are also an immigrant in Canada! Or maybe you are an Eskimo, then I'm sorry..


Do you speak Dutch? I'm sure I do speak better Dutch than you English.


As an ethnic Kurd who lives more than 25 years in Holland who has been raised in Holland, I'm much more Dutch than you ever will be!

Goga
14-06-16, 02:52
Please calm down, gentlemen.

Goga...enough, or you're going to find yourself banned again.
What have I done? They are personally attacking ME. I'm not attacking them.

They are attacking me because they can't come with proper arguments, so they are desperate!


This is a discussion site and not a one way propaganda site!


The TRUE racists are showing their face, the masks are off now. And I get the blame...??

Goga
14-06-16, 03:04
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Achaemenid/Darius_the_Great/Darius_the_Great.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwrOn-qKbNAhWEaxQKHRIRBzsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.romanianhistoryandculture.com %2Fdariusiinthracia.htm&psig=AFQjCNFx0wltDIziZMDg7J-KloxdQGJLMw&ust=1465952558869207)

http://www.livius.org/a/iran/naqshirustam/DNa.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMk82kqabNAhVGWhQKHSXEDXsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livius.org%2Faa-ac%2Fachaemenians%2FDNa.html&psig=AFQjCNF1MUMTGEk1K68GUeskmV40RmysnA&ust=1465952558102544)



" A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many.

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

King Darius says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; they did what was said to them by me; they held my law firmly; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, India, the haoma-drinking Scythians, the Scythians with pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, the Greeks, the Scythians across the sea, Thrace, the sun hat-wearing Greeks, the Libyans, the Nubians, the men of Maka and the Carians. "


http://www.livius.org/a/1/inscriptions/DNa2.jpg

Goga
14-06-16, 03:14
H.7.62: "The Medes in the army were equipped like the Persians; indeed, that fashion of armor is Median, not Persian. Their commander was Tigranes, an Achaemenid. The Medes were formerly called by everyone Arians,1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+7.62.1#note1) but when the Colchian woman Medea came from Athens to the Arians they changed their name, like the Persians. This is the Medes' own account of themselves."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+7.62.1



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Median_Empire_Protoma.jpg/507px-Median_Empire_Protoma.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Median_Empire_Protoma.jpg)

Athiudisc
14-06-16, 03:18
What's the point of this Aryan stuff, Goga? I don't think anyone's disputing that Iranic folk have used the term.

ewjfoire
14-06-16, 03:38
What's the point of this Aryan stuff, Goga? I don't think anyone's disputing that Iranic folk have used the term.
My best Polish friend banned me again for 3 months for being ‘out of control’. Really? I'll come back.

Watch out for Polish internet losers. They spread the most retard nonsense!

It is summer so I wanted to go on the holidays at the first place. I'll take a time off.



Just a small reaction, those who called themselves Aryans were from nowhere, but NATIVE to the Iranian Plateau. Aryans were and are native to the Iranian Plateau. I'm humble and very honored that people want to be Aryan like me, and Aryan like my Aryan ancestors, the Medes (Mitanni & Kassites), but you are not an Aryan of you don't speak Kurdish or Farsi as your native language! You are just a loser and a wannabe-Aryan!




See you later guys! And I will well prepared as always!

Athiudisc
14-06-16, 03:45
You are just a loser and a wannabe-Aryan!

Well, that was weird.

I rather like being an Alban, to use Maciamo's term.

LeBrok
14-06-16, 04:17
As you're sitting comfy in one of my countries as a refugee. Get out man. It sounds rather grotesque when it comes from a Canadian.

LeBrok
14-06-16, 04:23
Well, that was weird.

I rather like being an Alban, to use Maciamo's term. I would pay a thousand bucks to see his face when we get a genetic picture of the area and he can't find his pure Aryan race anywhere. If it happens that we can't find R1a there in Neolithic it would be surely devastating for him. Usually, I don't care what haplogroup comes from, but in this case I wish it wasn't there, lol. He will look so silly he will not show his face here anymore...Skratch this, knowing him, he will be still here, perhaps with new name Agog, telling us that all this research is Turkish propaganda.

holderlin
14-06-16, 05:30
You just forget 1 small detail. Only 1 very small detail. Those late Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya who invaded the Europe, and linguistically Indo-Europized the people of Europe were for a huge part CHG, related to those people who were ancestral to the Aryan Zoroastrians.

Yes to the first part. I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't agree that IE culture/language came from The Caucuses or the Zagros or whatever you're trying to say because the evidence is all steppe. Even before we saw the surge in Teal we had a steppe culture that looked exactly like Yamnaya. This is because it was an earlier form of Yamnaya. The continuity on the Steppe from Samara to Yamnaya is obvious. These same cultural indicators became the criterion by which we judged a culture to be IE or non-IE. The people in the Zagros and the Iranian Plateau at this time had cultures that in no way resembled what we saw in Samara/Dnieper-Donets->stredny Stog/Khavalynsk->Yamnaya. Not only that, but in The Caucuses/Zagros we see historically attested non-IE languages immediately following what would have been the PIE period. We also see that these steppe cultures are Y-HG R1a and R1b, the same Y-HGs through which IE spread in the Bronze age. This is only the obvious stuff, there's endless support for a Steppe origin. How bout how Lithuanian is nearly the same as the reconstructed PIE? Or that we still have the highest Yamnaya/EHG in North East Europe? Until we see some new evidence, the data currently supports that PIE emerged from an earlier form that was spoken by Mesolithic EHG (and perhaps SHG or WHG).

You'll have us all believe that, in the Zagros, a group of Teal R1b's who were the true PIE's, bearing cultures that resembled nothing of the steppe, moved out onto the steppe, took on the identity of a steppe culture, replaced the indigenous Mongloid Uralic laguages, then went on to expand and spread the language in all directions?

holderlin
14-06-16, 05:35
oops he's banned again. poor guy

holderlin
14-06-16, 05:37
I would pay a thousand bucks to see his face when we get a genetic picture of the area and he can't find his pure Aryan race anywhere. If it happens that we can't find R1a there in Neolithic it would be surely devastating for him. Usually, I don't care what haplogroup comes from, but in this case I wish it wasn't there, lol. He will look so silly he will not show his face here anymore...Skratch this, knowing him, he will be still here, perhaps with new name Agog, telling us that all this research is Turkish propaganda.

Honestly it would be way more entertaining if he was proven right. Can you imagine how many hundreds of Mesopotamian and Zoroastrian mythological symbols and texts he would be blanketing this place with. They already make me giggle now. I can't imagine him celebrating.

Yetos
14-06-16, 06:10
holderlin? :confused2:

are you a reptilian? :wary2:

why you have war with Andromedeans? :thinking:

Tomenable
14-06-16, 19:06
Edit: Never mind.

holderlin
15-06-16, 04:20
holderlin? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/confused.gif

are you a reptilian? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/wary.gif

why you have war with Andromedeans? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/thinking.gif

Yes and I need to change that to something that's actually funny. And somehow not racist.

I didn't know Goga was an Alien. This changes everything.

Sile
15-06-16, 09:20
oops he's banned again. poor guy

This forum bans people very quickly if one does not agree with their opinions. .................democracy:confused2:

Goga finding will be correct

study also the LURS people ..............the paper will reflect much of them

Fire Haired14
15-06-16, 14:31
The lack of Neolithic Iranian ancestry in Europeans(according to the abstract) and its peaks in non-IE Dravidian speakers goes against the idea that IE languages originated in Iran. If Yamnaya derived a large part of their ancestry from Neolithic Iranians the authors would have mentioned it in their abstract. South Asians look like they have Steppe admixture(mtDNA, D-stats, TreeMix, Lactose Tolerance mutation) and we already know Sintashta-like Sycthians were Indo Iranian speakers, so everything is supporting the Kurgan hypothesis right now.

holderlin
15-06-16, 16:14
The lack of Neolithic Iranian ancestry in Europeans(according to the abstract) and its peaks in non-IE Dravidian speakers goes against the idea that IE languages originated in Iran. If Yamnaya derived a large part of their ancestry from Neolithic Iranians the authors would have mentioned it in their abstract. South Asians look like they have Steppe admixture(mtDNA, D-stats, TreeMix, Lactose Tolerance mutation) and we already know Sintashta-like Sycthians were Indo Iranian speakers, so everything is supporting the Kurgan hypothesis right now.

I didn't read that it was specifically Dravidians. So non-IE = Iranian Neolithic = Likely, South Asian neolithic as well

So Indus River people should look the same or very close to Iranian Neolithic, which is consistent with the archaeology.

Sumerian should look similar as well

holderlin
15-06-16, 16:15
Some details come as a surprise but the decades old consensus about these things is turning out to be true.

LeBrok
15-06-16, 16:27
I think that we are going to find in them a strong genetic base. Like EEF was mostly farmer (Natufian - ENF) base, this neolithic Iranian will also have strong farmer base with some additional admixtures. Now, if farming came to them from Fertile Crescent, then they will also have the same ENF (Natufian) base in them. If they invented farming independently they might have their own farmer genetic base. I'm guessing it could be Gedrosia.

Fire Haired14
15-06-16, 19:47
All info concerning Neolithic Iranian DNA from David Wesolski. He gets inside info from the authors. Looks like there's considerable genetic continuum in Iran since the Neolithic. Also an interesting highlight is affinity to Neolithic Iranians(and Paleo Caucasus) is low in SouthWest Asia.

So it looks like there's considerable genetic diversity/geographic genetic divides in the Middle East that have existed for 10,000 years(modern Caucasians have high amount of CHG ancestry. Iranians have high amount of Neo Iranian ancestry. SW Asians have little of both). Europeans are probably genetically much closer to each other than Middle Easterners are.


- the Neolithic genomes are from the Zagros Mountains in western Iran, and there are more than two; unfortunately I don't know where the Iron Age genome is from or its date

- many modern day populations all the way from Iraq to the Pamirs and down into South India harbor significant levels of early Zagros farmer ancestry


- genetic affinity to the early Zagros farmers peaks in Iran, among both Muslim and Zoroastrian Persians, Pakistan, especially in Balochistan, and in much of India, including among Dravidian-speakers


- at the same time, it drops like a rock west of Iraq and northwest of Iran


- in terms of ancient affinities, the early Zagros farmers are most closely related to Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG), and very distinct from early Anatolian and European farmers


- they are also the most basal clade outside of Africa, which probably means a very high level of the so called Basal Eurasian admixture


- the Iron Age Iranian is different from the early Zagros farmers, but it's not clear at this stage where his/her affinities lie, and whether he/she shows much affinity to modern day Iranians

Angela
15-06-16, 20:06
Fire-Haired:
"Also an interesting highlight is affinity to Neolithic Iranians(and Paleo Caucasus) is low in SouthWest Asia. "

Where is that found and how do you define "low". How do you define "Southwest Asia"?

There's an awful lot of calculators and admixture analyses done by an awful lot of people who find "Caucasus" and/or West Asian in the Levant for example. Even Bedouins show a little, although not much.

Are we going to draw hard and fast conclusions from hear say evidence twice or maybe three times removed? Please...


"Europeans are probably genetically much closer to each other than Middle Easterners are."

What are you talking about? Whatever was the case 6000 or 7000 years ago, prove that's the case about modern Near Easterners before you make such a blanket statement.

So, all of a sudden the research group who couldn't shoot straight are sharing info with someone who was trying to destroy their careers? How forgiving of them!

Fire Haired14
15-06-16, 20:23
@Angela,

Georgians are are about 50% CHG while Syrians are probably close to 0% or have hard to detect CHG ancestry. Affinity to Neolithic Iranians is highest in Iran but reportedly drops very much West of Iran. These are huge genetic divides between Middle Easterners. CHG and Neolithic Iranians existed 9,000 or more years ago, and some Middle Easrterners trace huge chunks of their ancestry to them while others trace small amounts to them.

You don't see that in Europe. First of all you have Neolithic Anatolians. They colonized basically the entire continent, making all Europeans have lots of common ancestry in the last 9,000 years. Next and most importantly after the Neolithic genes were traded around Europe like crazy. Everyone in Europe, except Sardinians, has 20% or more ancestry straight from the "Steppe". And for all Europeans a huge chunk of their Neolithic Anatolian ancestry is from Central/East Europe and was carried to their homelands with Steppe admixture. It appears every inch of land in Europe, except maybe Sardinia, was mostly repopulated after 3000 BC.

You don't have genetic diversity/geographic genetic divides in Europe that traces back to the Paleolithic or Neolithic age like you do in the Middle East. Genetic diversity in Europe is the result of slightly differnt ancestry percentages from the same Neolithic and Bronze age ancestors. The geography of current European genetic diversity was formed in the Bronze age or later. It's probably more like Europe within subregions of the Middle East and there's definitly been lots gene flow between SW Asia and Caucasus and Iran in the last 9,000 years, but not as much gene flow as there's been between Portugal and Russia in the last 9,000 years.

Angela
15-06-16, 20:38
@Angela,

Georgians are are about 50% CHG while Syrians are probably close to 0% or have hard to detect CHG ancestry. Affinity to Neolithic Iranians is highest in Iran but reportedly drops very much West of Iran. These are huge genetic divides between Middle Easterners. CHG and Neolithic Iranians existed 9,000 or more years ago, and some Middle Easrterners trace huge chunks of their ancestry to them while others trace small amounts to them.

You don't see that in Europe. First of all you have Neolithic Anatolians. They colonized basically the entire continent, making all Europeans have lots of common ancestry in the last 9,000 years. Next and most importantly after the Neolithic genes were traded around Europe like crazy. Everyone in Europe, except Sardinians, has 20% or more ancestry straight from the "Steppe". And for all Europeans a huge chunk of their Neolithic Anatolian ancestry is from Central/East Europe and was carried to their homelands with Steppe admixture. It appears every inch of land in Europe, except maybe Sardinia, was mostly repopulated after 3000 BC.

You don't have genetic diversity/geographic genetic divides in Europe that traces back to the Paleolithic or Neolithic age like you do in the Middle East. Genetic diversity in Europe is the result of slightly differnt ancestry percentages from the same Neolithic and Bronze age ancestors. The geography of current European genetic diversity was formed in the Bronze age or later. It's probably more like Europe within subregions of the Middle East and there's definitly been lots gene flow between SW Asia and Caucasus and Iran in the last 9,000 years, but not as much gene flow as there's been between Portugal and Russia in the last 9,000 years.

Absolutely unpersuasive. Stop making pronouncements and prove it.

Athiudisc
15-06-16, 20:40
So, all of a sudden the research group who couldn't shoot straight are sharing info with someone who was trying to destroy their careers? How forgiving of them!

I do believe he's expressed some doubt that they will continue to speak with him overmuch at this point. :P

Fire Haired14
15-06-16, 20:41
Absolutely unpersuasive. Stop making pronouncements and prove it.

Just about every little objection you have to what I say is proven correct eventually. Just wait.

bicicleur
15-06-16, 21:01
so there would be a divide for 10.000 years or more
I would guess there could be a divide between Mesopotamia and the Zagros
as I mentioned earlier, the cereal farmers descending from Natufians were not the same as the hunters and later herders that domesticated the goat in the Zagros and the pig in the Eastern Taurus Tigris river area
there was the divide between Summerians and Elamites, and there is a theory about relation between Elamite and Dravidian language
the Bronze Age Semitic people invaded Mesopotamia but not the Zagros, nor Anatolia
the Persians conquered Mesopotamia, but unlike the Assyrians before them, they didn't displace whole tribes

it is possible, but I think it is best to await the publication of the paper to draw conclusions

furthermore I think that todays people in the Levant and Mesopotamia are more related to the Semitic invaders than to the neolithic people descending from Natufians
it could be that Europeans are more related to Natufians than Middle Easterners

Angela
15-06-16, 22:22
Just about every little objection you have to what I say is proven correct eventually. Just wait.

You are obviously not keeping score or you have a very bad memory. I am, and I have an excellent memory. Some people are wrong so often that, as I once stated on this Board, their incorrect pronouncements, and misinterpretations of what is said in papers would fill a city phone directory. "Predictions" based on leaks don't count.

I don't know and I don't give a damn if Europeans are closer to one another than Middle Easterners are to one another. I've never investigated it. The point is that neither have you.

There's a lot of fst analysis of Europeans. I'm sure you can find data comparing Middle Easterners to one another. Look it up. When you have it, let me know. The same applies to Admixture analyses. Line up Iranian results versus Saudi results. Line up Sicilian results and Finnish results. Which are closer to one another?

I'm not going to do the work of proving or disproving every proposition or speculation posted on this Board. I do have other things to do.

@Bicicleur,
I do think it might turn out that some Europeans are closer to Natufians than some Middle Easterners are, but time will tell.

This is total speculation, but I wonder if perhaps the Basal Eurasians were the population that actually started domesticating plants and animals, and that's the common denominator between the various groups in the Near East?

Ed. to Fire-Haired,

I'll tell you one thing, the difference in "Caucasus" between Iranians and Jordanians, for example, is very small.

LeBrok
16-06-16, 01:50
@Angela,

Georgians are are about 50% CHG while Syrians are probably close to 0% or have hard to detect CHG ancestry. Affinity to Neolithic Iranians is highest in Iran but reportedly drops very much West of Iran. These are huge genetic divides between Middle Easterners. CHG and Neolithic Iranians existed 9,000 or more years ago, and some Middle Easrterners trace huge chunks of their ancestry to them while others trace small amounts to them.

Some time ago, in discussion with Alan, I pinpointed Gedrosia admixture to originate in a region South of Caspian Sea, or maybe South East, IIRC that is. I wish I had Angela's memory. :)
I also talked about all HGs of Europe, Central and West Asia, being trapped in distinct and separate refugia, from LGM to pretty much end of Ice Age. We have to cupture their genome at 12,000 year ago, to have a clear picture of basic and animated yet genetic base signals, the admixtures. Unmixed admixtures, if we can create an oximoron.

LeBrok
16-06-16, 01:53
This is total speculation, but I wonder if perhaps the Basal Eurasians were the population that actually started domesticating plants and animals, and that's the common denominator between the various groups in the Near East?

Ed. to Fire-Haired,

I'll tell you one thing, the difference in "Caucasus" between Iranians and Jordanians, for example, is very small.
Do you mean Natufians (if they were the first farmers), or you suspect other source of Basal Eurasian?

Fire Haired14
16-06-16, 02:47
@Angela,

Just stop. Next time I'm right I'm really going to rub in your face.

Fire Haired14
16-06-16, 04:52
Ok I overreacted. You can say I'm jumping the gun too quickly when there isn't a lot of data to look at without being insulting. You don't have to nit pick every little thing I write.

Angela
16-06-16, 05:08
Ok I overreacted. You can say I'm jumping the gun too quickly when there isn't a lot of data to look at without being insulting. You don't have to nit pick every little thing I write.

I've been saying that and similar things to you for what seems like years now. How many times does it have to be said? There are people who read this Board who don't spend eons of time on this kind of research, or they're newbies. I'm not going to let you continue to confuse people by making these kinds of unsupported claims over and over again.

If you have no evidence for what you claim, then don't make the claim, or learn how to signal that it's a speculation, a hypothesis, or pose it as a question. These are elementary rules of discourse among civilized people.

You've been given more leeway than any adult would receive, which has cost us a great member, but continue to speak to me like you did above, and there are going to be consequences, do you understand? Not another word...

Instead, why don't you find that fst data; I'm actually interested in the answer, or at least what that particular kind of data will show, and I'm sure other people would be as well.

Angela
16-06-16, 05:13
Do you mean Natufians (if they were the first farmers), or you suspect other source of Basal Eurasian?

I don't have enough data to do anything but wildly speculate. If it turns out to be the case that the Iranian farmer sample is more "Basal Eurasian" than the CHG sample or the ANF samples we have at present, it's possible that the Basal Eurasian group moved generally north into those areas from a refugia to the south. I think it's been proposed before that there was such a refugia in the Arabian peninsula. The other possibility would be a refugia somewhere around the Persian Gulf, although traces of it may have been destroyed by rising sea levels. I don't know if there is any indication of a refugia more to the east.

We really need ancient dna from not only the Natufian farmers but also from Mesopotamian farmers. That will tell us a lot. I hope the Reich team has some other, perhaps more eastern hunter-gatherers as well.

As for where agriculture "first" developed, I know some people are still holding onto the idea that even cereal farming arose in the foothills above the Tigris Euphrates, but there are some papers with earlier dates for it in Natufian areas. Of course, as we've discussed before, it all depends how you define "farming". If a group gathers and stores wild grain, and threshes and grinds it for food, is that farming? I would say not really. What about if they gather the seeds and plant them in areas where through trial and error they've discovered they will grow well, but they haven't actually gotten to the point where they are creating domesticated strains of these grains. I would say that's already farming, but that's my subjective judgment. The same analysis could be done for the domestication of animals. We've discussed how some researchers maintain that some of the animals taken in the first expansion to Cyprus were not yet the domestic strains developed later. Or what about dairying? How long did it take to realize you could make cheese or butter or yogurt from it? How long to figure out a way to keep them lactating?

I think there's this impression among some people that oh, there's good weather, a surplus of wild grain, some nice animals, and all of a sudden we have farming. Everything I've ever read about it indicates it didn't happen that way. I'm not saying it could have taken place in the Arctic, you needed certain environmental conditions, but it required thousands of years for the "package" to be complete, and a change not only in the plants and animals, but in humans, with humans domesticating themselves as well as plants and animals, in my opinion. Even if people find that far fetched, it's a completely different mindset and way of looking at the world, even if no genetic changes are involved, and it would have taken a long time to be accepted.

I still maintain, as I think you do as well, that it's possible that the larger populations that could be supported by changing conditions in this part of the world meant that more mutations were present in these populations that might have proved helpful for people trying to develop this technology and selection might have acted upon them. At the very least, I would think that this different technology might put selective pressure on these people, bringing changes that could be traced.

Perhaps it's too much to hope for that someone will come upon a "pure" Basal Eurasian genome. If they do we'll see if the same kind of analysis can be done comparing that genome with that of the other hunter-gatherers with whom they came into contact as has been done for the Neanderthal AMH enounters. Were their genes selected for, or purged?

Anyway, we may not ever be able to figure out in which specific area of the Near East farming "first" developed, but it's pretty clear to me that the genetic tie between the ANFs and the IRFs is "Basial Eurasian".

I must say I retained a bit of skepticism for a long time as to whether "Basal Eurasian" really existed; I thought the Lazaridis paper might have been really out there and they would have to draw it back. Maybe not, however. It will be pretty amazing if they got it right with no ancient genome for it.

LeBrok
16-06-16, 05:41
I don't have enough data to do anything but wildly speculate. If it turns out to be the case that the Iranian farmer sample is more "Basal Eurasian" than the CHG sample or the ANF samples we have at present, it's possible that the Basal Eurasian group moved generally north into those areas from a refugia to the south. I think it's been proposed before that there was such a refugia in the Arabian peninsula. The other possibility would be a refugia somewhere around the Persian Gulf, although traces of it may have been destroyed by rising sea levels. I don't know if there is any indication of a refugia more to the east.I see, pretty much a ghose ancestor. I'll be happy if we set base admixtures at the end of Ice Age. Before that the samples will be scarce and bad quality and will take ages to figure out how it exactly went around between populations.


We really need ancient dna from not only the Natufian farmers but also from Mesopotamian farmers. That will tell us a lot. I hope the Reich team has some other, perhaps more eastern hunter-gatherers as well.

As for where agriculture "first" developed, I know some people are still holding onto the idea that even cereal farming arose in the foothills above the Tigris Euphrates, but there are some papers with earlier dates for it in Natufian areas. Of course, as we've discussed before, it all depends how you define "farming". If a group gathers and stores wild grain, and threshes and grinds it for food, is that farming? I would say not really. What about if they gather the seeds and plant them in areas where through trial and error they've discovered they will grow well, but they haven't actually gotten to the point where they are creating domesticated strains of these grains. I would say that's already farming, but that's my subjective judgment. The same analysis could be done for the domestication of animals. We've discussed how some researchers maintain that some of the animals taken in the first expansion to Cyprus were not yet the domestic strains developed later. Or what about dairying? How long did it take to realize you could make cheese or butter or yogurt from it? How long to figure out a way to keep them lactating?

I think there's this impression among some people that oh, there's good weather, a surplus of wild grain, some nice animals, and all of a sudden we have farming. Everything I've ever read about it indicates it didn't happen that way. I'm not saying it could have taken place in the Arctic, you needed certain environmental conditions, but it required thousands of years for the "package" to be complete, and a change not only in the plants and animals, but in humans, with humans domesticating themselves as well as plants and animals, in my opinion. Even if people find that far fetched, it's a completely different mindset and way of looking at the world, even if no genetic changes are involved, and it would have taken a long time to be accepted.
Right, becoming a farmer it was a long process, thousands of years, if only reading clues from Natufians and pre Natufians excavated villages. Now if it was thousands of years long process it is pretty much impossible that natural selection didn't enhance "pro farming" genes. Especially taking under consideration how different diet and lifestyle is of farmers versus HGs.

bicicleur
16-06-16, 08:03
7804

the first Natufian permanent settlement arose 14.5 ka in the southern Levant
13.5 ka some moved to Abu Hureya, upper Eufrates
during younger dryas all settlements were abandonned except Mureybet, a new Natufian settlement upstream from Abu Hureya
there were no more gazelles to be hunted in Abu Hureya, but they were in Mureybet
7805
people in Mureybet were not just Abu Hureya people, they were a Natufian tribe making 'khiam points', originating from west of lake Tiberias
Mureybet was the first site where rye and cereals were grown, during or right after youngest dryas

7806

beozars (ancestral to goats) were selectively hunted (only adult males) near Great Zab river, Zagros Mts, it was the 1st step in domestication of female beozar
the female beozar were not killed, as they always attracted fresh beozar males coming from further away
on the contrary, the hunters protected the female beozars from predators like wolves
during younger dryas this area was abondonned, the tribe split :
- south to Lorestan (where I guess the women's DNA in this study is situated)
- north to upper Tigris, where they also domesticated pig
during younger dryas people from upper Tigris came with beozar herds west to the Göbekli Tepe area, where they build their temple (inspired by the shrines in the upper Tigirs settlements)
the Göbekli Tepe temple is just 80 km east of Mureybet as the bird flies

what I learn from the abstract is that these beozar hunters near Great Zab river would have been CHG

holderlin
16-06-16, 16:36
so there would be a divide for 10.000 years or more
I would guess there could be a divide between Mesopotamia and the Zagros
as I mentioned earlier, the cereal farmers descending from Natufians were not the same as the hunters and later herders that domesticated the goat in the Zagros and the pig in the Eastern Taurus Tigris river area
there was the divide between Summerians and Elamites, and there is a theory about relation between Elamite and Dravidian language
the Bronze Age Semitic people invaded Mesopotamia but not the Zagros, nor Anatolia
the Persians conquered Mesopotamia, but unlike the Assyrians before them, they didn't displace whole tribes

it is possible, but I think it is best to await the publication of the paper to draw conclusions

furthermore I think that todays people in the Levant and Mesopotamia are more related to the Semitic invaders than to the neolithic people descending from Natufians
it could be that Europeans are more related to Natufians than Middle Easterners

Perhaps Sumerian is a very old union between EEF and "Iranian Neolithic" (Proto-Elamite/Elamo-Dravidian). I've always had a tendency to theorize that Sumerian was an Elamite language just because there's no agreement on the classification, but this doesn't appear to be the case. A lingua franca between two farming groups seems most likely at this point.

But this recent genetic evidence combined with the archaeology and linguistics strongly supports the notion of Elamo-Dravidian.

Angela
16-06-16, 16:55
7804

the first Natufian permanent settlement arose 14.5 ka in the southern Levant
13.5 ka some moved to Abu Hureya, upper Eufrates
during younger dryas all settlements were abandonned except Mureybet, a new Natufian settlement upstream from Abu Hureya
there were no more gazelles to be hunted in Abu Hureya, but they were in Mureybet
7805
people in Mureybet were not just Abu Hureya people, they were a Natufian tribe making 'khiam points', originating from west of lake Tiberias
Mureybet was the first site where rye and cereals were grown, during or right after youngest dryas

7806

beozars (ancestral to goats) were selectively hunted (only adult males) near Great Zab river, Zagros Mts, it was the 1st step in domestication of female beozar
the female beozar were not killed, as they always attracted fresh beozar males coming from further away
on the contrary, the hunters protected the female beozars from predators like wolves
during younger dryas this area was abondonned, the tribe split :
- south to Lorestan (where I guess the women's DNA in this study is situated)
- north to upper Tigris, where they also domesticated pig
during younger dryas people from upper Tigris came with beozar herds west to the Göbekli Tepe area, where they build their temple (inspired by the shrines in the upper Tigirs settlements)
the Göbekli Tepe temple is just 80 km east of Mureybet as the bird flies

what I learn from the abstract is that these beozar hunters near Great Zab river would have been CHG

This is very important information. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you have Natufians who were growing grains moving to the upper Euphrates, and people from the Zagros mountains who were starting the process of the domestication of animals moving to the upper Tigris and then actually into central Anatolia.

Certainly there was a transfer of the "technology" both ways. Now, given that we have both Natufians and Zagros farmers in the foothills of the Tigris/Eurphrates Valley we have to see if the genetics of people like the later Mesopotamian farmers shows that there was any admixture of these two groups. I would be very surprised if there wasn't.

Likewise, the genetics of the people in Central Anatolia are very important. I speculated on prior threads that perhaps some of the increasing CHG that starts to appear in the farmers of northwest Anatolia very early came with people from central Anatolia, as the archaeology seems to indicate that there is a trail from there to the northwest. This might all hang together.

bicicleur
16-06-16, 17:34
Perhaps Sumerian is a very old union between EEF and "Iranian Neolithic" (Proto-Elamite/Elamo-Dravidian). I've always had a tendency to theorize that Sumerian was an Elamite language just because there's no agreement on the classification, but this doesn't appear to be the case. A lingua franca between two farming groups seems most likely at this point.



this is not likely, as the origin of the Ubaid culture is known, it is the Samarra culture in central Mesopotamia

I think there was a 'Natufian language' all the way from the Levant down to south Mesopotamia prior to the Semitic invasion.

bicicleur
16-06-16, 17:38
This is very important information. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you have Natufians who were growing grains moving to the upper Euphrates, and people from the Zagros mountains who were starting the process of the domestication of animals moving to the upper Tigris and then actually into central Anatolia.

Certainly there was a transfer of the "technology" both ways. Now, given that we have both Natufians and Zagros farmers in the foothills of the Tigris/Eurphrates Valley we have to see if the genetics of people like the later Mesopotamian farmers shows that there was any admixture of these two groups. I would be very surprised if there wasn't.

Likewise, the genetics of the people in Central Anatolia are very important. I speculated on prior threads that perhaps some of the increasing CHG that starts to appear in the farmers of northwest Anatolia very early came with people from central Anatolia, as the archaeology seems to indicate that there is a trail from there to the northwest. This might all hang together.

yes there should have been admixture, but farmers to Europe were still in majority all the same G2a2 Y DNA
and why didn't farmers have domesticated animals during PPNA? during PPNA they were relying on hunting for their meat

Angela
16-06-16, 19:15
yes there should have been admixture, but farmers to Europe were still in majority all the same G2a2 Y DNA
and why didn't farmers have domesticated animals during PPNA? during PPNA they were relying on hunting for their meat

We're talking about changes over long periods, as I've been saying repeatedly. I haven't yet checked for the latest papers, but this Wiki article seems rather in line with what I recall reading on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B

"Cultural tendencies of this period differ from that of the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_A)(PPNA) period in that people living during this period began to depend more heavily upondomesticated animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication) to supplement their earlier mixed agrarian and hunter-gatherer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) diet. In addition the flint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint) tool kit of the period is new and quite disparate from that of the earlier period. One of its major elements is the naviform (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naviform) core. "

This is very interesting as well:
" they found evidence of a fully established PPNB culture at 8700 BC at Aswad, pushing back the period's generally accepted start date by 1,200 years. Similar sites to Tell Aswad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Aswad) in the Damascus Basin of the same age were found at Tell Ramad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Ramad)and Tell Ghoraifé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Ghoraif%C3%A9). How a PPNB culture could spring up in this location, practicing domesticated farming from 8700 BC has been the subject of speculation. Whether it created its own culture or imported traditions from the North East or Southern Levant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) has been considered an important question for a site that poses a problem for the scientific community."

Maybe the question will be settled by genetics. :)

And this:
"The PPNB culture developed from the Earlier Natufian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian) but shows evidence of a northerly origin, possibly indicating an influx from the region of north eastern Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia). The culture disappeared during the 8.2 kiloyear event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event), a term that climatologists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology) have adopted for a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,200 years before the present, or c. 6200 BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE), and which lasted for the next two to four centuries. In the following Munhatta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munhata) andYarmukian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarmukian) post-pottery Neolithic cultures that succeeded it, rapid cultural development continues."

The next sequence shows influence from the south.
"Work at the site of 'Ain Ghazal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Ain_Ghazal) in Jordan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) has indicated a later Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_C) period which existed between 8,200 and 7,900 BP. Juris Zarins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Zarins) has proposed that a Circum Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex developed in the period from the climatic crisis of 6200 BCE, partly as a result of an increasing emphasis in PPNB cultures upon animal domesticates, and a fusion with Harifian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harifian) hunter gatherers in Southern Palestine, with affiliate connections with the cultures of Fayyum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiyum) and the Eastern Desert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Desert) of Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt). Cultures practicing this lifestyle spread down the Red Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea) shoreline and moved east from Syria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) into southern Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B#cite_note-12)"

If archaeologist can learn from geneticists, the opposite is true as well. In analyzing these ancient genomes people should be keeping the archaeology in mind, not just jumping to wild conclusions.

That applies to admixture analyses as well. I'm reminded of the "Red Sea" component that Dienekes was exploring.Another thing I noticed is that the prior house structures were round, in contrast to the rectangular form, which eventually made its way to LBK, which was from the subsequent PPNB period. If I remember correctly, the early northwest Anatolian farmers were still using the round form.

holderlin
16-06-16, 20:18
this is not likely, as the origin of the Ubaid culture is known, it is the Samarra culture in central Mesopotamia

I think there was a 'Natufian language' all the way from the Levant down to south Mesopotamia prior to the Semitic invasion.

I don't think it's that simple. I don't think Samarra->Ubaid->Uruk was a continuous EEF population speaking a Natufian language. The Ganj Dareh sample is hinting at this.

This would explain both the unclear origins of Sumerian Civilization and the "unclassified" language.

bicicleur
16-06-16, 20:48
I don't think it's that simple. I don't think Samarra->Ubaid->Uruk was a continuous EEF population speaking a Natufian language. The Ganj Dareh sample is hinting at this.

This would explain both the unclear origins of Sumerian Civilization and the "unclassified" language.

the farmers coming from the Samarra area probably had a high Natufian content
but Summerians were supposed to be a mixture of these farmers with local fisher/hunters from the lagoons and with local herders

I guess the Ganj Dareh sample is more representative for the later Elamites
If I recall well goat herders combining with pulse gathering were allready at Ganj Dareh before cereal farming was introduced around 10.3 ka

anyway we are talking about an area of which no DNA has been published uptill now
I hope this paper will be published soon

MOESAN
17-06-16, 18:25
Is it really surprising? The Vedas are IE too and I'm sure modern Brahmans look nothing like, say for example Andronovo samples. In fact it looks like the abstract says that Brahmans may very well resemble these Neolithic samples as well. It's doesn't change that the Avestan and Rig Veda were written in IE. There's many non-IE loanwords in Indo-Iranian as well which were no doubt taken from whatever it was that BMAC people spoke. Probably Elamite or something related.

Remember Indo-Iranians were a foreign superimposition, and almost certainly a minority in the region. It's no surprise that Iranian speakers of today might still resemble neolithic samples. It's not like in Europe where you had a ton of WHG and EHG all around. And there's actually still parts of IE speaking Europe that are mostly EEF.

I red the I-Ean period in India was less "racist" (Oh! I speak now as Goga) than subsequent India (castes system later): reports of non-I-Ean names of people incorporated in the administrative I-Ean system and non-I-Ean divinities the same way. By the way it could explain the discrepancy in current India (in some cses, not in all) concerning languages, castes and DNA...