PDA

View Full Version : The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers



Pages : 1 [2]

Garrick
24-06-16, 18:19
Not with the dialect of that language which later developed into Uralic (I'd say it developed from guys who stayed in/near Khvalynsk?), but with dialect of that language which became PIE.
If Indo-Uralic is right, then there is no "Uralic influence into PIE", it would be like saying there is Gaelic influence into Persian. PIE and Uralic are then sister language groups.

P.s.
For Anatolian and Indo-Uralic link:
"Some Indo-Uralic Aspects of Hittite" (Alwin Kloekhorst).

Problem is those studies can be speculative. Proto-Indo-Uralic language, what gives Kloekhorst, whether (and where) existed, where is evidence.

Even Proto Uralic languages seem much younger than earlier opinions. Hakinnen (2012) give that Proto-Uralic emerged about 2,800 BC. It is after Indo-European, it doesn't matter if you take in account Anatolian or Kurgan hypothesis.

Yes, Uralic languages could impact on Indo-European but this should no be exaggerated. And, Indo-European influenced Uralic. Hakinnen (2012) argue where it happened, in Steppe.

According Hakkinen (2012):

I stage 2,800 BC Early Archaic Indo-European borrowings to Early Proto Uralic,

II stage 2,300 BC Late Archaic (Northwest) Indo European borrowings to Late Proto Uralic

III stage 1,800 BC Northwest Indo European borrowings to Uralic dialects .

Sile
24-06-16, 19:05
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1707/

With these SNP's, then this T is part of the T1a1 group ...............so paper was wrong

Angela
24-06-16, 19:25
[QUOTE=Angela;482403]
We need Armenian N!
OK for a possible Anatolian contribution concerning WHG+LevtN (every new simulation sends new reference population, funny indeed!) intoArmenia: why not?
Concerning comparions metals age Armenia with CHG, as Armenia shows levels of WHG and LevtN, if Armenia was issued from old CHG, this new admixture would reduce the EHG and IranN (=CHG) in itself. Or if Armenia was previously a mix of WHG and LevtN (=Anatolia)+ the admixture with CHGs from N-Caucasus would also produce less EHG in itself tha in the donor CHG pop. So I think and CHG and Armenia had high levels of IranN, but Armenia received new EHG non-Caucasus, so surely Steppic. Some papers all the way seem showing metals ages Armenia had affinities with Yamnaya, not only 'westasian'; Genetiker whatever the worth of his work, "found" some East-Asia (rather 'amerind' or 'siberian') in BA Armenians what does not seem come through iran at these dates but was found in almost every supposed Steppic influenced pops. On a plotting of Davidsky BA Armenians are shifted towards Lezgins, and Tadjiks, closer to these last ones than Georgians or Adygei, far from the today Armenians and even Iranians. I 'm not sure all that would be without any signification at all? and EHG of some weight in CSW Asia at these dates? I don't buy before more infos.
We could say, it's true, that the supposed "steppic" admixture would not prove a cultural influence of North Caucasus upon South, but rather an osmosis after colonization of North by South Caucasus? Who knows? All the way I discard a colonization by Tadjiks from East at those times, for good sense and archeological reasons.

The problem is that the Armenian sample can't be modeled with an influx of early steppe.

That might just mean we don't yet have samples from the proximate population.

Just a point about Kurd's work on creating admixture analyses based on these samples: very interesting.

As expected, North Africans turn out to be mainly Levant Neolithic with about 20% SSA.

One thing that some of the commentary may be missing in terms of populations like the Palestinians and the Jordanians is that as time passed I think there was diffusion from Arabia north, intensified perhaps with the Muslim invasions, an Arabia which I think might have remained rather "Natufian" like because they didn't admix to the same extent with the Anatolian Neolithic or Iranian Neolithic groups.

So, perhaps it's not necessarily the case that they haven't changed at all since the early Neolithic, but that the area went from Natufian to Levant Neolithic and back to a slightly more "Natufian like" configuration.

Just throwing this out as some speculation.

Sile
24-06-16, 19:37
With these SNP's, then this T is part of the T1a1 group ...............so paper was wrong

The marker as per genetiker is T1 .............and not T1a

MOESAN
24-06-16, 19:55
I really doubt that EHG had actual WHG admixture. It was probably just some "WHG-like" ancestry, but not actual WHG.

It is probably a similar case as with Corded Ware having Yamna ancestry, while in reality it could be just "Yamna-like".

All that are simulations, modelings, it depends on what you call WHG or EHG: historical population or principal component? I am a bit doubtfull about all these admixture inequal results. What prevents somebody to "make" EHG as WHG+ANE? or something else?
Same for IranN in CHG? What kind of CHG? were not the first CHG reference people older than IranN? (or I missed something, possible).
First we had Neolithic EEF (pure in some modelings) after we have EEF+WHG, after EEF+WHG+CHG: what next? Shared genes, yes, but what more?
the only value of this is some reliability in global distances and affinities between populations, but what about who gave or received to or from who? Finally the plottings say almost more than all these admixtures results, changing sometime dramatically by time, even among scientist world.

bicicleur
24-06-16, 20:24
The marker as per genetiker is T1 .............and not T1a

indeed, positive for L206-T1
negative for L162-T1a1, L131-T1a2 and Y11151-Y8614 as per Yfull Tree https://www.yfull.com/tree/T/
no calls for intermediate positions

davef
24-06-16, 20:31
@MOESAN
This is why I joined this forum. You won't find me in any other ethnic forum. I learned nothing from "scientists" who insist that the Egyptians were Scottish because a pharaoh had "Celtic" y dna or calling y dna found throughout the Middle East and Europe "Roman".

johen
24-06-16, 20:35
How come Levant Neolithic got caucasoid light skin two genes, having 66% components of 100% black skin Natufians? Moreover, He was getting overload of vitamin D from Sun everyday. However, this fact applied to the situation of dark WHG and EEF w/ the 2 skin gene in Europe around 8,000ybp to 5,000ybp.

Another interesting thing is Levant bronze, the descendant of this levant neolithic, lost Levant Neolithic SLC45A2.

arvistro
24-06-16, 20:40
Problem is those studies can be speculative. Proto-Indo-Uralic language, what gives Kloekhorst, whether (and where) existed, where is evidence.

Even Proto Uralic languages seem much younger than earlier opinions. Hakinnen (2012) give that Proto-Uralic emerged about 2,800 BC. It is after Indo-European, it doesn't matter if you take in account Anatolian or Kurgan hypothesis.

Yes, Uralic languages could impact on Indo-European but this should no be exaggerated. And, Indo-European influenced Uralic. Hakinnen (2012) argue where it happened, in Steppe.

According Hakkinen (2012):

I stage 2,800 BC Early Archaic Indo-European borrowings to Early Proto Uralic,

II stage 2,300 BC Late Archaic (Northwest) Indo European borrowings to Late Proto Uralic

III stage 1,800 BC Northwest Indo European borrowings to Uralic dialects .
The main guy behind Indo-Uralic is not Kloekhorst, it is Kortlandt, who is quite a big name in mainstream linguistics.

For Indo-Uralic concept:
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf - An outline of Proto-Indo-European
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf - The Indo-Uralic verb
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art216e.pdf - Indo-Uralic and Altaic (more like bonus article)

As to Uralic age, I actually agree to Hakkinen, but one daughter's TMRCA can be way younger than other daughter's TMRCA, look at Baltic and Slavic and Balto-Slavic.

bicicleur
24-06-16, 20:49
[QUOTE=MOESAN;482443]

The problem is that the Armenian sample can't be modeled with an influx of early steppe.

That might just mean we don't yet have samples from the proximate population.

Just a point about Kurd's work on creating admixture analyses based on these samples: very interesting.

As expected, North Africans turn out to be mainly Levant Neolithic with about 20% SSA.

One thing that some of the commentary may be missing in terms of populations like the Palestinians and the Jordanians is that as time passed I think there was diffusion from Arabia north, intensified perhaps with the Muslim invasions, an Arabia which I think might have remained rather "Natufian" like because they didn't admix to the same extent with the Anatolian Neolithic or Iranian Neolithic groups.

So, perhaps it's not necessarily the case that they haven't changed at all since the early Neolithic, but that the area went from Natufian to Levant Neolithic and back to a slightly more "Natufian like" configuration.

Just throwing this out as some speculation.

Arabs are J1-P58.
Their origin is the Levant as Arab is a west-Semitic language.
They probably arrived in the Levant during Levantine EBA, as Levant BA is 44 % Iran Chl.
They moved into Arabia not earlier than ca 5 ka, way after Natufian era.

The Nabateans that moved into the area after the deportation of the Israelites by the Assyrians was probably an Arab backmigration. That was 6th cent. BC.

bicicleur
24-06-16, 21:07
Just a point about Kurd's work on creating admixture analyses based on these samples: very interesting.

As expected, North Africans turn out to be mainly Levant Neolithic with about 20% SSA.



Angela, this might be very interesting.
So N-Africa is 80 % Levant Neo and just 20 % SSA.
Are Berbers also 80 % Levant Neo?

Till now we only know for sure E1b1b1b2-Z830 is Natufian.
If Berbers are Levant Neo we can be sure E1b1b1b-Z827 is Natufian.
In that case Berbers are a backmigration into Africa as cattle or ovicaprid herders.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/E1b1b-tree.gif
The same applies for Somalians and E-V32 which is a subclade of E-V68.

7816
If Somalians are 80 % Levant Neo, we can be pretty sure E-V68 was Natufian too, and hence the common ancestor of all, E1b1b1-M243 (alias E1b1b1-M35) too. In that case, also E-V6 and E-V92 are backmigrations to Ethiopia.
Are Somalia and Ethiopia also 80 % Levant Neo?

Sile
24-06-16, 21:40
indeed, positive for L206-T1
negative for L162-T1a1, L131-T1a2 and Y11151-Y8614 as per Yfull Tree https://www.yfull.com/tree/T/
no calls for intermediate positions

I am confused how it works for myself

I am negative for L206 ..................but positive to its equal..... L490

both L206 and L490 .........then can form M70

I find this strange

johen
24-06-16, 21:47
The main guy behind Indo-Uralic is not Kloekhorst, it is Kortlandt, who is quite a big name in mainstream linguistics.

For Indo-Uralic concept:
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf - An outline of Proto-Indo-European
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf - The Indo-Uralic verb
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art216e.pdf - Indo-Uralic and Altaic (more like bonus article)

As to Uralic age, I actually agree to Hakkinen, but one daughter's TMRCA can be way younger than other daughter's TMRCA, look at Baltic and Slavic and Balto-Slavic.

Do you also consider American Indian language regarding PIE?
Some member said in http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2015/03/afanasievo-okunev-andronovo-sintashta.html.

The Native American component in Western Eurasians most likely is due in part to a more recent back migration from the Americas, and this population brought with them languages that formed the basis of Indo-European.

Kang et al. have published data showing distinctively Native American YHG Q-M3 from individuals from the cemetery at Barköl in the Xinjiang region of China. (See Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its implication on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families. LL. Kang, TB. Jin, F. Wu1, X. Ao, SQ. Wen, CC. Wang, YZ. Huang, XL. Li, H. Li,) The M3 variant of Y DNA type Q is widely thought to have originated in North America and is almost certainly is a marker for a back migration.
Recently, I have been comparing Tocharian to the Iroquoian languages of North America. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Proto-Tocharian word for 'wagon' closely resembles the modern Cherokee counterpart (with redupilication) and is based on the cognate verb root *PIE *-kwel- / Cherokee -gwal-meaning 'to turn, rotate'.
The form for ‘old’ in most Indo-European languages is based on *PIE *sen- ‘old’ which bears an obvious resemblance to equivalent forms in Dene-Yeniseian languages: ex. Ket sīn, Tlingit shaan (of people) and Navajo sání. However, the form for ‘old’ in Tocharian B closely resembles its equivalent in Iroquoian languages both phonetically and morphologically:
Toch B ktsaitstse ‘old’ ( = -ktsai- + -tstse ).
Compare with: Iroquoian Mingo kekëhtsi (-KËHTSI- Verb Root.) katkëhtsistha' ‘to become old’ (-at- (Middle prefix, -këhtsi- /someone is old/, -st- Base suffix. -atkëhtsist- ) and Iroquoian Oneida: -kstʌ- ‘old, aged’; -kstʌhaˀ- ‘to become old’, both of which are based on *Proto Northern Iroquoian *{ -kẽhtsi- } 'be old’ (Julian).
The Tocharian word for 'dirty', kraketstse ( = -krake- + -tstse ), has the same base suffix as ktsaitstse and, more to the point, this base suffix closely resembles the Iroquoian Mingo counterpart -st-.
While Kang relates the genetic findings from the Barköl site to the hypothesis that the Xiongnu (Huns?) spoke Yeniseian, it is just as likely that they may have spoken a language related to Tocharian, which was attested in the Tarim basin in the same region of western China.
Regarding :

Even Proto Uralic languages seem much younger than earlier opinions. Hakinnen (2012) give that Proto-Uralic emerged about 2,800 BC.
"The oldest ones have been discovered from the remains of Liao civilization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_civilization) - xinglongwa culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinglongwa_culture) (BC 6200 - 5400 BC) -.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic#cite_note-1) It appears in 4200 BC in Finland and 4000 BC in the Korean Peninsula, so theUrheimat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat) is assumed to be Liao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_River) region and spread afterward to North Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Europe) through Siberia and to Korean peniusla. This is possibly related to Uralic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_peoples) migration and spread ofhaprogroup N (Y-DNA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N-M231).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic#cite_note-2)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic

Angela
24-06-16, 21:54
[QUOTE=Angela;482485]

Arabs are J1-P58.
Their origin is the Levant as Arab is a west-Semitic language.
They probably arrived in the Levant during Levantine EBA, as Levant BA is 44 % Iran Chl.
They moved into Arabia not earlier than ca 5 ka, way after Natufian era.

The Nabateans that moved into the area after the deportation of the Israelites by the Assyrians was probably an Arab backmigration. That was 6th cent. BC.

I agree with all that. I just think that yDna is sometimes a poor predictor of total genomic "identity", and particularly so in Arabia.


Angela, this might be very interesting.
So N-Africa is 80 % Levant Neo and just 20 % SSA.
Are Berbers also 80 % Levant Neo?

Till now we only know for sure E1b1b1b2-Z830 is Natufian.
If Berbers are Levant Neo we can be sure E1b1b1b-Z827 is Natufian.
In that case Berbers are a backmigration into Africa as cattle or ovicaprid herders.

It was the Sahawaris who got that score. However, I'm exercising some caution since this is a preliminary run, and he says Iran Neolithic will increase somewhat in subsequent runs, as I would expect it to. We've known for a long time from other calculators, however, that North Africans don't have very much "Caucasus", so I don't expect the general parameters to be very much different.

My speculation has always been that this would be the case for North Africans, although I used to frame it as a two pronged movement of the Neolithic from the Near East, both moving east to west, but one along the North Mediterranean and one along the South Mediterranean. That isn't to say that their own hunter-gatherers didn't contribute something to their genomes. We've seen from other calculators that there's some WHG in them, for example, particularly as you head westward.

The gene flow, no matter the era, has always been from the Near East and from the rest of Africa, with perhaps a bit from north of Gibraltar.

This makes sense of how 23andme has seen the split in the Near East, with Palestinians and Jordanians clustering more with Egyptians than with Anatolians. Some of that may have to do with the slave trade, with movements north into Gaza of Egyptians etc., but a lot of it has to do with old divisions within the Near East itself.


Oh, Somalis are slightly different. Provisionally, this is what they're getting:

Natufian: 52%
SSA: 45-46%

Indians are getting a ton of Iran Neolithic. Iran Neolithic itself gets a bit of ASI in his analysis, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Phenotypes do really tell you a bit about admixture if you pay close attention. As Kurd mentioned, it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between a northwest Indian and an Iranian. It even happens with Armenians.

The same applies to North Africa. There are a few tribes which have very little SSA, so you can occasionally find North Africans who to my eyes just look like Southern Europeans, and some look like Near Easterners.

If someone told me Emmanuelle Chriqui was Spanish, I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

https://musicacinetv.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/emmanuelle-chriqui.jpg

Alpenjager
24-06-16, 22:44
I am confused how it works for myself

I am negative for L206 ..................but positive to its equal..... L490

both L206 and L490 .........then can form M70

I find this strange

Finally I was able to confirm all I1707 positives using ICV software. The problem was that using Felix's tool I could not find any positive upstream IJK.

Alan
24-06-16, 23:47
How come Levant Neolithic got caucasoid light skin two genes, having 66% components of 100% black skin Natufians? Moreover, He was getting overload of vitamin D from Sun everyday. However, this fact applied to the situation of dark WHG and EEF w/ the 2 skin gene in Europe around 8,000ybp to 5,000ybp.



You are confusing dark skin with black. Natufians had dark skin in comparison to most modern West Eurasians. They were basically brown skinned, brown eyed and dark haired people like early Mal'ta was.

Alan
24-06-16, 23:53
People here and on many other places are confusing Natufians with Arabians and think the Natufians are best preserved by moden South_Levantines and Arabians. However the reason why Natufians plot next to Levant and Arabia is just coincidence, without a doubt Arabians and modern Levantines are not pure Levant_Neo, but rather a complex mix of Iran_Neo, Levant_Neo and some SSA (~5-10%). This however coincidantly plots them just close to Natufians and Levant Neo. Remember the Near Eastern Roman soldier from Britain? Which ploted inbetween South_Levant and Arabians? But on admixture calculators differed by having less CHG admixture, slightly less Red Sea and less SSA (I think there wasn't any) and being more Eastmed according to calculators.

So Natufians, Levant_Neo =/= modern Arabians or Levantines.

MOESAN
25-06-16, 00:41
How come Levant Neolithic got caucasoid light skin two genes, having 66% components of 100% black skin Natufians? Moreover, He was getting overload of vitamin D from Sun everyday. However, this fact applied to the situation of dark WHG and EEF w/ the 2 skin gene in Europe around 8,000ybp to 5,000ybp.

Another interesting thing is Levant bronze, the descendant of this levant neolithic, lost Levant Neolithic SLC45A2.

Don't focuse too much about the distribution of some rare genes; an autosomals analysis of thousands and thousands of genes doesn't need a great number of individuals but some rare picked genes or haplos are irrelevant statistically and need far greater samples than the ones we have to date from anDNA.

MOESAN
25-06-16, 01:04
[QUOTE=Angela;482485]

Arabs are J1-P58.
Their origin is the Levant as Arab is a west-Semitic language.
They probably arrived in the Levant during Levantine EBA, as Levant BA is 44 % Iran Chl.
They moved into Arabia not earlier than ca 5 ka, way after Natufian era.

The Nabateans that moved into the area after the deportation of the Israelites by the Assyrians was probably an Arab backmigration. That was 6th cent. BC.

There has been an error. The quote you did in your "#259 is not mine but an Angela (kind) answer to me about EHG and Chalco-Bronze Armenians. What doesn't disprove your proper commentaries. It could be the nasal shape (common, not general)of most Arabs or arabized people of Near-Eastern and Arabia (and even some Ethiopians) is an inheritage from Iranic-S-E Caucasus, a population rich for Y-J of any sort. (guess), when the genuine first levantine-mediterranean form was a rather stright nose without this "agressivty" in shape. This last guess about nose is at the mergin of this thread, it's true.

MOESAN
25-06-16, 01:11
[QUOTE=MOESAN;482443]

The problem is that the Armenian sample can't be modeled with an influx of early steppe.



Could you go more into details, please. (I have not read all the paper, for my greater shame, and even if so, I would nee to read it more than a time, so poor is arrived my immediate memory) so if the paper says something precise about it...
Thanks beforehand and buona notte.

Garrick
25-06-16, 01:24
The main guy behind Indo-Uralic is not Kloekhorst, it is Kortlandt, who is quite a big name in mainstream linguistics.

For Indo-Uralic concept:
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf - An outline of Proto-Indo-European
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf - The Indo-Uralic verb
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art216e.pdf - Indo-Uralic and Altaic (more like bonus article)

As to Uralic age, I actually agree to Hakkinen, but one daughter's TMRCA can be way younger than other daughter's TMRCA, look at Baltic and Slavic and Balto-Slavic.

“Speculative” or “controversial” doesn’t mean “impossible”.

What is problem?

Data, records, evidence.

According to Sammallahati (1988) there are only 150 reconstructable lexical items for Proto-Uralic. For Proto Fino-Ugric situation is somewhat better.

Nobody can prove Indo-Uralic hypothesis and mainstream scientists cannot accept it.

In “Grammar of Modern Indo-European”:

(quote)
Indo-Uralic or Uralo-Indo-European is therefore a hypothetical language family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic (i.e. Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic). Most linguists still consider this theory speculative and its evidence insufficient to conclusively prove genetic affiliation.
(end of quote)


Of course it is not unreasonably that Indo European and Uralic can be related but evidence missing and therefore this matter is speculative.

As for wider story, controversial Nostratic hypothesis, proposed by Pedersen (1903), which developed several variants (one of them by Russian scientist Starostin includes: Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic, Eskimo-Aleut) , maybe some of variants make sense. Who will prove it?


Today computerized statistical and mathematical methods are increasingly used and perhaps use of appropriate algorithms will say, with high reliability, what is probability that proto Indo-Uralic existed.

But statistical and mathematical methods are not omnipotent. From interpretations of team of scientists, assumptions, literature, data and established model, inputs and used algorithm, results will depend on.

You can see, Gray and Atkinson (2003) and wider scientific team including these authors (2012) using computerized mathematical-statistical methods got results in support of Anatolian hypothesis, and Chang et al (2015) found support for Steppe hypothesis.

Try of multilateral comparison and significance testing of Indo-Uralic issue by Kessler, Lehtonen (2006) didn’t get result. Authors conclude:

(quote)
Now we will be the first to admit that the failure to find positive results in any single test set is by no means definitive, and it is imaginable that our results would have been more positive if any number of parameters had been changed. But until new evidence emerges, it is difficult to avoid the conclusions that the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is not well supported by the sort of data afforded by multilateral lexical comparison.
(end of quote)

holderlin
25-06-16, 03:33
Mota Cave HG E1b1a didn't have Neanderthal

I glossed over this, sort of interesting. So you're thinking E1b was African rather than Basal Eurasian. When I first read that I thought you were driving at Natufian being Basal Eurasion.

I think it's relevant to note that R1b-V88 SSAs don't have any Neanderthal left either.

bicicleur
25-06-16, 07:11
[QUOTE=bicicleur;482495]



It was the Sahawaris who got that score. However, I'm exercising some caution since this is a preliminary run, and he says Iran Neolithic will increase somewhat in subsequent runs, as I would expect it to. We've known for a long time from other calculators, however, that North Africans don't have very much "Caucasus", so I don't expect the general parameters to be very much different.


Can you provide me a link Angela?

bicicleur
25-06-16, 07:13
I glossed over this, sort of interesting. So you're thinking E1b was African rather than Basal Eurasian. When I first read that I thought you were driving at Natufian being Basal Eurasion.

I think it's relevant to note that R1b-V88 SSAs don't have any Neanderthal left either.

I see Natufian as an admixture of E1b1b1 and Basal Eurasian.
For Basal Eurasian I guess G and/or H.
However if G is Basal Eurasian NW Anatolian, LBK and Cardial Ware should have had more of it.

I don't think of E as the source of Basal Eurasian, because Hotu Cave mesolithic had even more of it.
Both E and Basal Eurasian were very low on Neanderthal admixture.


I think it's relevant to note that R1b-V88 SSAs don't have any Neanderthal left either.
Where did you get this info?

bicicleur
25-06-16, 07:19
I am confused how it works for myself

I am negative for L206 ..................but positive to its equal..... L490

both L206 and L490 .........then can form M70

I find this strange

Where is L490 on the tree?
I don't find it, neither in Yfull, nor in Isogg.

bicicleur
25-06-16, 07:48
there were 3 populations :

Iran neolithic which expanded to South Asia & Central Asia
Natufians expanded to Africa
3rd population expanded to NW Anatolia & Europe : : they were seafaring fishermen that converted into agriculture,
you'll find them here :


http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/25/032763

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/06/01/1523951113/F1.large.jpg





Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo5]


7605–7529 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)





Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo1]


7288–6771 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)





Greece
Revenia [Rev5]
F
6438–6264 BC




X2b
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)







Greece
Paliambela [Pal7]
F
4452– 4350 BC




J1c1
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)





Greece
Kleitos [Klei10]
M
4230-3995 BC
G2a2a1b


K1a2
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)







Turkey
Barcın [I0707/BAR2 / L11-213]
F
6500-6200 BC




K1a4
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0708/BAR6 / L11-439]
M
6500-6200 BC
J2a
M410, L559, L212; J2a-M410 > PF4610 > Z6049 > Z6048(xS20392)
N1b1a
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015); Additional info on Y-DNA SNPs from Chris Rоttеnѕtеіnеr





Turkey
Barcın [I0709/BAR20 / M13-170]
M
6500-6200 BC
H2
L281, P96, L284, L285, L286
U3
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0736/L11-216]
F
6500-6200 BC




N1a1a1a
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0744/M10-275]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2b2a
Z3077, CTS688, PF3329, CTS4454, CTS10366, P303, Z3243, PF3342, Z3481, PF3343
J1c11
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0745/M11-363]
M
6500-6200 BC
H2
L281, P96, L284, L285, L286
U8b1b1
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0746/L11-322]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2b2a1c
CTS342
K1a or K1a1
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1096/BAR26/M10-76]
M
6500-6200 BC
I2c
L596, L597
N1a1a1
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1097/BAR271 / M10-271]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2b2a
Z3077, CTS946, PF3329, CTS4454, CTS10366, Z3243, PF3342, Z3481
W1-T119C
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1098/BAR99 / M10-352]
F
6500-6200 BC




X2d2
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1099/L11-S-488]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2a1b
L91
T2b
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1100/M11-351]
F
6500-6200 BC




K1a or K1a6
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1101/M11-352a]
M
6500-6200 BC




T2b
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1102/M11-354]
M
6500-6200 BC
C1a2
V20
K1a3a
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1103/M11-S-350]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2a1b1
PF3247
K1b1b1
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1579/M13-72]
F
6500-6200 BC




K1a-C150T
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1580/L12-393]
F
6500-6200 BC




H5
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1581/L12-502]
F
6500-6200 BC




U3
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1583/L14-200]
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2a1b
L91
K1a2
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I1585/M11-59]
F
6500-6200 BC




J1 or J1c
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [I0854/L11-215]
F
6500-6200 BC




N1a1a1a
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)



Fikirtepe
Turkey
Menteşe [I0723/T1, M229 / UH]
M
6400-500 BC
G2a2a
PF3165, PF3166, PF3175, PF3184
X2m2
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)



Fikirtepe
Turkey
Menteşe [I0724/T2 / UP]
M
6400-500 BC
I
CTS6231
K1a4
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)



Fikirtepe
Turkey
Menteşe [I0726/M15, M15.2, M15.2 / UF]
F
6400-500 BC




H or H5-C16192T
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)



Fikirtepe
Turkey
Menteşe [I0727/M24 / UA JK 16]
M
6400-500 BC
G
CTS11294
K1a2
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)



Fikirtepe
Turkey
Menteşe [I0725/T4 / SSK15]
F
6400-500 BC




N1a1a1a
Mathieson 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2015)





Turkey
Barcın [Bar31]
M
6419–6238 BC
G2a2b > genetiker G2a2b-L30*


X2m
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)





Turkey
Barcın [Bar8]
F
6212–6030 BC




K1a2
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)






http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7MtwyAGL9N4/Vlc7Axp7MxI/AAAAAAAAKNc/kmqUaEyPrR0/s1600/hofmanova.jpg

Sile
25-06-16, 08:59
Where is L490 on the tree?
I don't find it, neither in Yfull, nor in Isogg.

it was moved in january 2016

moved L490 from Provisional to Tree Investigation on 6 January 2016.

all testing companies have me as positive for it ..........ftdna, 23andme and natgeno2


..............................................

I am also negative for M193 in which 80% of T people have

arvistro
25-06-16, 09:55
“Speculative” or “controversial” doesn’t mean “impossible”.

What is problem?

Data, records, evidence.

According to Sammallahati (1988) there are only 150 reconstructable lexical items for Proto-Uralic. For Proto Fino-Ugric situation is somewhat better.

Nobody can prove Indo-Uralic hypothesis and mainstream scientists cannot accept it.

In “Grammar of Modern Indo-European”:

(quote)
Indo-Uralic or Uralo-Indo-European is therefore a hypothetical language family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic (i.e. Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic). Most linguists still consider this theory speculative and its evidence insufficient to conclusively prove genetic affiliation.
(end of quote)


Of course it is not unreasonably that Indo European and Uralic can be related but evidence missing and therefore this matter is speculative.

As for wider story, controversial Nostratic hypothesis, proposed by Pedersen (1903), which developed several variants (one of them by Russian scientist Starostin includes: Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic, Eskimo-Aleut) , maybe some of variants make sense. Who will prove it?


Today computerized statistical and mathematical methods are increasingly used and perhaps use of appropriate algorithms will say, with high reliability, what is probability that proto Indo-Uralic existed.

But statistical and mathematical methods are not omnipotent. From interpretations of team of scientists, assumptions, literature, data and established model, inputs and used algorithm, results will depend on.

You can see, Gray and Atkinson (2003) and wider scientific team including these authors (2012) using computerized mathematical-statistical methods got results in support of Anatolian hypothesis, and Chang et al (2015) found support for Steppe hypothesis.

Try of multilateral comparison and significance testing of Indo-Uralic issue by Kessler, Lehtonen (2006) didn’t get result. Authors conclude:

(quote)
Now we will be the first to admit that the failure to find positive results in any single test set is by no means definitive, and it is imaginable that our results would have been more positive if any number of parameters had been changed. But until new evidence emerges, it is difficult to avoid the conclusions that the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is not well supported by the sort of data afforded by multilateral lexical comparison.
(end of quote)
Yeah, it probably is right that it will be difficult to confidently confirm or disprove it.
http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/book-of-abstracts.pdf
Here was conference in Leiden last year where pro and contra arguments were presented.

Could be we are dealing here with EHG-ish language group (not a language; group called Indo-Uralic for no better term). One language of which developed into PIE due to NW Caucasian substrate, and other got some further influence from folk bearing N Y-dna to become Uralic.


As per Bomhard.
Alan Bomhard (The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian SubstrateHypothesis):
"Evidence will be presented todemonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of aEurasiatic language — to use Greenberg’s term — on a population speakingone or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages."

It fits very nicely genetic findings that arrived AFTER the linguistic theory. Those of Yamna genetically as EHG population imposed on CHG-like population.

Maciamo
25-06-16, 11:18
People here and on many other places are confusing Natufians with Arabians and think the Natufians are best preserved by moden South_Levantines and Arabians. However the reason why Natufians plot next to Levant and Arabia is just coincidence, without a doubt Arabians and modern Levantines are not pure Levant_Neo, but rather a complex mix of Iran_Neo, Levant_Neo and some SSA (~5-10%). This however coincidantly plots them just close to Natufians and Levant Neo. Remember the Near Eastern Roman soldier from Britain? Which ploted inbetween South_Levant and Arabians? But on admixture calculators differed by having less CHG admixture, slightly less Red Sea and less SSA (I think there wasn't any) and being more Eastmed according to calculators.

So Natufians, Levant_Neo =/= modern Arabians or Levantines.

I haven't seen any facial reconstruction of Natufians, but from the data I can imagine from their genome, my impression is that they resembled more closely modern South Egytians or even Ethiopians than modern Levantines or Saudis.

Maciamo
25-06-16, 11:25
If someone told me Emmanuelle Chriqui was Spanish, I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

https://musicacinetv.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/emmanuelle-chriqui.jpg

She is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry (recently from Morocco) so she could very well be of partial Spanish descent (many Jews left Spain for Morocco after the Reconquista), and possibly more Spanish-admixed than Moroccan-admixed. It also works the other way round. Modern Spaniards, especially in the south, carry far more Jewish/Phoenician ancestry than modern Moroccans. So the fact that South Spaniards have a lot of Levantine ancestry and the Sephardic Jews from Spain or Morocco also have partial Spanish ancestry eventually bring the two populations close to each others.

Alan
25-06-16, 14:24
I haven't seen any facial reconstruction of Natufians, but from the data I can imagine from their genome, my impression is that they resembled more closely modern South Egytians or even Ethiopians than modern Levantines or Saudis.

I agree that they didn't look that much like Arabians or Levantines because those have obvious Iran_Neo admixture (even Arabians) and some SSA admixture, but Ehtiopians are even more different aDNA wise, in being halfway SSA admixed which is even more different to Natufians aDNA than WHG is. From the wording of the paper and How I understood it Natufians were basically Basal Eurasian+ a WHG like people themselves. Also the West Eurasian in East Africans is actually Levan_Neo and not Natufian derived.

What I believe is that they were very dolichocephalic people similar to how you find them today in Ethiopia, the reason why probably some anthropologists of the past thought they look "Sub Saharan". Though this is quite weird considering the jaw/teeth region of the Natufians looked not really like that of Sub Saharans. I assume the authors used Ethiopians as Sub Saharan proxy than, since they have Jaws more similar to that of West Eurasians => http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.558693.1384759864!/image/444315202.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/444315202.jpg

They were hyperdolichocephalic like many people in Ehtiopia, Egypt and South_Levant. However I don't believe that they were identical based on skin pigmentation or facial features to any of them. Most Ehtiopians are simply Black pigmentated, while modern Levantines are slightly too light pigmented. I think they had facial features that is still exclusive to this circle region of South Levant, Northwest Arabia and Egypt and Ethiopia. Occasionally you find facial features that connect Sub Saharan mixed Ethiopians with South_Levantines even. I often see faces in Ethiopians that scream Egyptian or "Arab" derived if it wasn't for their SSA pigmentation.

In my opinion the Natufians were basically a dark pigmened physically West Eurasian people. They can't have been physically different if they were genetically very much like Levant_Neo.

I believe we find occassionally Natufian derived facial features, all in the Levant, Ethiopia, Egypt and Arabia but I don't think any of these people show a special resemblence to the Natufians by majority of their respective populations.

This is one of the faces I think could be Natufian derived. Have seen Ethiopians with very simlilar facial structur. Darker skin, brown eyes and dark hair, fits well the description of the Natufians.
https://lovingtelaviv.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/boazmauda31.jpg

This Egyptian has also a face that imo was found among Natufians, and that I have often seen among Ethiopians but with Black pigmentation.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FJGWHM/two-egyptian-men-show-their-ink-stained-thumbs-after-casting-their-FJGWHM.jpg

Here is some Ehtiopians with similar facial structure. They look like Sub Saharan pigmented versions of those above.
http://www.addisgag.com/uploads/da11e8cd1811acb79ccf0fd62cd58f86.jpg
http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ka/ka6898.JPG
http://thumbs.diretube.com/905Ethiopian_Police.jpg

Angela
25-06-16, 16:12
[QUOTE=Angela;482485]

Could you go more into details, please. (I have not read all the paper, for my greater shame, and even if so, I would nee to read it more than a time, so poor is arrived my immediate memory) so if the paper says something precise about it...
Thanks beforehand and buona notte.


Moesan, the quote had to do with not being able to get a migration edge between Samara Eneolithic and Armenian Chalcolithic. It wasn't from the paper; it was from Eurogenes. He also said that the influx seemed to come from the very base of the EHG branch.

Personally, I tend to take all of the experimentation with a large dose of salt until it is confirmed by the academics who created some of these programs and therefore understand better how to use them, and also, I think, may have information from other ancient genomes which will be released in subsequent papers.

However, that suggests to me that we may not yet have any published samples from the population(s) which went into creating the Armenian Chalcolithic.

It does seem to me that in this general area at this point in history there were a number of small groups of people, pretty mobile, with similar but not identical genetics. Some have had an out-sized impact on future demographics and some didn't. We have to find the ones who did.

I think this is what the authors are getting at here on page 8 of the paper:
"Our analysis show that the ancient populations of the Chalcolithic Iran, Chalcolithic Armenia, Bronze Age Armenia and Chalcolithic Anatolia were all composed of the same ancestral components, albeit in slightly different proportions (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Information, section 7)."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

They also say this as to the gene flow from south to north:
"To the north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

I also think the "intervention" by Lazaridis on the Eurogenes blog bears repeating.

"I just wanted to leave a brief comment that the model of Steppe_EMBA as a mixture of EHG+CHG is rejected (Table S7.11), while that of EHG+Iran_ChL is not. Note that in Table S7.11 we are modeling Steppe_EMBA and the references with respect to 13 outgroup populations (the set O9ALNW), not all of which are included in the TreeMix graph."

However,

"It is possible for some models to succeed with a particular set of outgroups (both EHG+CHG and EHG+Iran_ChL are feasible with only the O9 set of outgroups; Table S7.10), but for some of them to be rejected when additional outgroups are introduced (Table S7.11). As we mention further down, that doesn't mean there is no CHG-related ancestry in Steppe_EMBA as we can model it as a 3-way mixture involving CHG as one of the sources. What it does mean, however, is that CHG+EHG cannot be the only sources, as this model is rejected (Table S7.11). A further test of our overall model is that when we withhold Iran_ChL as a source, and infer mixture proportions by intersecting the EHG->Steppe_EMBA and Levant_N+Levant_BA clines (p. 134), we get fairly reasonable agreement (mixture proportions).

If I understand it correctly what they're talking about is that it could be modeled as EHG, plus Iran ChL, plus additional CHG. In the latter section I think they're saying that the model needs something like Levant Neolithic. That is provided by Iran ChL because Iran ChL can be modeled as " as a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG)." (This is also from the paper.)

In terms of gene flow from north to south, that isn't their focus. That will come, I'm sure, with the paper dealing with the Caucasus populations, probably with Patterson as lead author.

Fire Haired14
25-06-16, 16:33
Geneticker updated his phenitypr post with reads in each SNP. If I remember correctly most of the four Copper Age Armenians had both light skin mutations and blue eyes. That's surprising.

No lactose mutations. EDAR "East Asian' mutation found in Motala HGs and Afanasievo is in one Copper age Armenian.

Results are mostly expected. As far as I can see Neo/Bronze Levant has same allele frequencies as Levant today. Ancient Iran had low reads but appears to be majority ancestral in everything. Armenia is strangely pale.

Alan
25-06-16, 17:04
Geneticker updated his phenitypr post with reads in each SNP. If I remember correctly most of the four Copper Age Armenians had both light skin mutations and blue eyes. That's surprising.

No lactose mutations. EDAR "East Asian' mutation found in Motala HGs and Afanasievo is in one Copper age Armenian.

Results are mostly expected. As far as I can see Neo/Bronze Levant has same allele frequencies as Levant today. Ancient Iran had low reads but appears to be majority ancestral in everything. Armenia is strangely pale.


And it once again, confirms the accounts of historic past. Urartaens (that is Bronze Age Armenia) Subarians and Gutians from North_Central Mesopotamia and (North)West Iran, were described as "Namrum" in general, those people north of th Sumer (North Mesopotamia, NW Iranian plateau and Caucasus) are described as "Namrum" (Light featured) while the Sumerians in South_Mesopotamia who had very similar genetic signature to those in the north and the Iranian Plateau, called themselves "Black heads".

Shows once again that pigmentation is not much more than a combination of enviromental adaption, diet and genetics.


According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hoyle_Howorth) (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_Pinches) (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Woolley) (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignace_Gelb) (1944) the Gutians were pale in complexion and blonde. This was asserted on the basis of assumed links to peoples mentioned in the Old Testament.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-17) This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Oppert) (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, one of its many meanings being "light colored".[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-18)[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-19) This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also claimed up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Vacher_de_Lapouge) in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928).[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-20)[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#cite_note-21)

I don't believe that they were "Blonde" in North European context but "Blonde" in being everything lighter than Dark Brown/Black haired.

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



Calcolthic Armenia on the other hand is Kura_Araxes culture. So those guys had high frequency of light pigmented people also.

Angela
25-06-16, 17:17
Angela:It was the Sahawaris who got that score. However, I'm exercising some caution since this is a preliminary run, and he says Iran Neolithic will increase somewhat in subsequent runs, as I would expect it to. We've known for a long time from other calculators, however, that North Africans don't have very much "Caucasus", so I don't expect the general parameters to be very much different.


Bicicleur: Can you provide me a link Angela?

Here it is; it's Kurd's work.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7551-Neolithic-Near-East-ADMIXTURE-Results

The Sahawaris can be found on page 8. The results vary a bit in terms of CHG, ranging from almost nothing to around 8%, but it's very much a minority "component".

Here is one example:

Anatolia Neolithic:23.69
CHG: 4.14
SSA:21.76
Iranian N: 1.79
Natufian: 43.24

This suggests to me that indeed a population like Levant Neolithic may be the "mixing agent" in North Africa.

There is also data on the Egyptians, who are somewhat different as we might expect.

It's part of his effort to create a gedmatch calculator using these ancient samples. He's very transparent in terms of his methodology and explains all his choices. Within the limits of Admixture, I think the work is valuable. My only complaint is that he is focused on Asians, so he has very few Italian reference populations in his calculators. ):

As he says, and I mentioned above, it's the first stages, and I expect Iran Neolithic will increase for some groups, and CHG numbers may change, although I doubt it will increase a lot for North Africa and East Africa.

As I also mentioned above, although the Lazaridis paper finds that the best fit for a West Eurasian influx into East Africa as well as North Africa is the Levant Neolithic, Somalis in these experiments show basically Natufian and SSA. That may change, however.

If it doesn't, and is ultimately proved to be correct, either the gene flow was earlier than 3,000 years ago, and/or the admixing "agent", perhaps from someplace in southern Arabia or some place in the Sinai or closer to Egypt may have been more "Natufian like" than the people of the southern Levant.

Alan
25-06-16, 17:26
And now compare this Calcolthic Armenia samples with the Yamnaya who had roughly ~4% of likely ness of Blue eyes and only ~40% of them had both light skin mutations which is roughly the level you find today on the Iranian Plateau and the Levant. How can people ignore this fact and how atypical their pigmentation was for the Steppes and even most of the Caucasus. Therefore they can't be originally from there. and must have come either from the Iranian Plateau, or a nearby region with similar genetic structure, such as possibly South_Central Asia.

Angela
25-06-16, 17:27
Some of you may find this interesting. The usual caveats about using Admixture on ancient samples applies, but it's worth a look, I think:


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7489-Lazaridis-et-al-The-genetic-structure-of-the-world-s-first-farmers-(pre-print)/page63

Eurogenes К36
M967114 - I1290, Iran_N
0.04% Arabian
12.74% Armenian
5.19% East_Med
2.33% Near_Eastern
0.01% North_Caucasian
0.01% Pygmy
65.70% South_Central_Asian
0.88% West_African
13.09% West_Caucasian


M115616 - I0867, Levant_N
23.54% Arabian
27.97% East_Med
1.78% Italian
18.21% Near_Eastern
11.28% North_African
0.03% South_Chinese
17.19% West_Med


Oracle results for Neolithic levantine on Eurogenes k15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 48.63
2 West_Med 27.80
3 Red_Sea 23.25


Finished reading population data. 207 populations found.
15 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Samaritan @ 24.852867
2 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.554283
3 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.686113
4 Egyptian @ 26.345144
5 Palestinian @ 26.676630
6 Bedouin @ 27.384647
7 Saudi @ 27.511555
8 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.087376
9 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.233204
10 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.675303
11 Jordanian @ 28.966221
12 Cyprian @ 29.736849
13 Italian_Jewish @ 30.398230
14 Tunisian @ 30.747480
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 30.874126
16 Syrian @ 31.324089
17 Algerian @ 31.399315
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.566530
19 Moroccan @ 32.872646
20 Lebanese_Muslim @ 33.289722
And just because I was curious,the oracle results when a coptic sample is included



Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Egyptian_copt @ 21.712453
2 Samaritan @ 24.978455
3 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.766809
4 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.7952
5 Egyptian @ 26.626954
6 Palestinian @ 26.845314
7 Bedouin @ 27.591483
8 Saudi @ 27.62863
9 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.272767
10 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.32722
11 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.845364
12 Jordanian @ 29.161413
13 Cyprian @ 29.856846
14 Italian_Jewish @ 30.562651
15 Tunisian @ 30.998248
16 Sephardic_Jewish @ 31.028747
17 Syrian @ 31.479509
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.654907
19 Algerian @ 31.676992
20 Moroccan @ 33.150526
207 iterations.

Before we get carried away by speculation about the skin tones of the Natufians perhaps we should keep in mind that we're talking about three samples, some of which I understand are not particularly high coverage.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/#comments

Alan
25-06-16, 17:33
As expected Iran_Neo is predominantly "Gedrosia" just like the Teal portion in Yamnaya is.

ironic how even Levant__Neo had at least twice as much "West_Med" as even the most West Med part of Anatolia today.

So among modern People these Samaritans are closest to Levant_Neo.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_(GPO)_-_Samaritans_praying_during_Passover_holiday_ceremo ny_on_mount_Grizim.jpg
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/81574650-men-from-the-samaritan-sect-chant-prayers-at-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QdohIVvtExltOGAtKjfmp2TnXy7p kxpq3AtKiISpYKEq3NVYyc%2B3lbUAhkUeW5hGHg%3D%3D

MOESAN
25-06-16, 18:41
I haven't seen any facial reconstruction of Natufians, but from the data I can imagine from their genome, my impression is that they resembled more closely modern South Egytians or even Ethiopians than modern Levantines or Saudis.


I don't remember if the "HG" taken for comparisons are of immediate proximity or from other parts of Afro-Asia... Sorry for the vagueness, Maciamo.
-Fromdiverse unprecise sources it seems SOME OF THEM presented "negroid"imput, for the most about teeth area, without anybody said if it wasthe result of remote ancestry atavism or recent crossings(admixture). Something proto-mediterranean with some light 'negroid'traits, surely not pure "negroid" SSA people (ref.Afrocentric fora!).
-Morerecent PCA compared them with an "ancient levant" pop, a"recent levant" pop and local HGs. Andbetween themselves (within) : Aïn Mallah, Haynonim, Nahal Oren.
& :question : are the « HG » an anterior stage of thesame Natufian population, or something else ? I have no more thepaper at hand, only the « screencapture » pictures I did ; thatsaid it seems Late Natufians extended rather towards North,indirection to Anatolia, than towards South. But I have not thelocalizations according to periods...
-except"RL" (narrow faces as a whole) all three other old pops hadrather broad faces (no index provided helas!), "AL" >"HG" > "Nat".
but "Nat" as "AL"had rather more recedingfrontals spitehigh skulls (low frontal angle),small mastoids, longprotuding occipital when"HG" had low skullsbutmoresteepfrontal(pronouncedfrontal angle), strong mastoids and short compact occipital. « Nat »and « AL » had rather compact orbits when « HG »had spaced orbits (what meaning : orbit aperture or orbitposition aside nose ? - boring terminology).Here again « RL » are heterogenous concerning frontal,orbits and occipital.
-LocalNatufians were a bit heterogenous, being Hayonim population the mostdispersed of the three in the study I red.
-Whenclassified temporally, Early Nat falled in the range of « HG »,but a bit oriented towards other groups, and Late Nat overlappedover all the others(« HG », Earlt Nat, « AL » and « RL ») ;anevolution of « HG » or a crossing of « HG »with something else ?
-Whatseems to me is that « RL » spitemore elongated or narrowed faces, receivedsomething else, not directly from a re-admixture with « HG »liketypes nor« Nat »,something separating it from Late Nat and « AL ».
-Natufiansseems very different from Northwest African of the same periods(Afalou and others).
Thatsaid, the few measures taken in account in the PCA I red was so vaguethat they could even not serve to statute concerning SSA imput orno-imput ! A door largely open to prejudices of every sort amongpseudo-nationalists, eurosupremacists, afrocentrics or otherblind-brained people.
Iregreat theterminology used, too vague according to me, and absenceof a complemetary 'typologiic' description of all this, of indexes,absolutemeasures,shapes,including maxillars and teeth, andof comparisons with ancient and present people of others places inthe world to relativizetheir local diifferences.Pictureof a lot of skulls too...

MOESAN
25-06-16, 18:49
I agree that they didn't look that much like Arabians or Levantines because those have obvious Iran_Neo admixture (even Arabians) and some SSA admixture, but Ehtiopians are even more different aDNA wise, in being halfway SSA admixed which is even more different to Natufians aDNA than WHG is. From the wording of the paper and How I understood it Natufians were basically Basal Eurasian+ a WHG like people themselves. Also the West Eurasian in East Africans is actually Levan_Neo and not Natufian derived.

What I believe is that they were very dolichocephalic people similar to how you find them today in Ethiopia, the reason why probably some anthropologists of the past thought they look "Sub Saharan". Though this is quite weird considering the jaw/teeth region of the Natufians looked not really like that of Sub Saharans. I assume the authors used Ethiopians as Sub Saharan proxy than, since they have Jaws more similar to that of West Eurasians => http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.558693.1384759864!/image/444315202.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/444315202.jpg

They were hyperdolichocephalic like many people in Ehtiopia, Egypt and South_Levant. However I don't believe that they were identical based on skin pigmentation or facial features to any of them. Most Ehtiopians are simply Black pigmentated, while modern Levantines are slightly too light pigmented. I think they had facial features that is still exclusive to this circle region of South Levant, Northwest Arabia and Egypt and Ethiopia. Occasionally you find facial features that connect Sub Saharan mixed Ethiopians with South_Levantines even. I often see faces in Ethiopians that scream Egyptian or "Arab" derived if it wasn't for their SSA pigmentation.

In my opinion the Natufians were basically a dark pigmened physically West Eurasian people. They can't have been physically different if they were genetically very much like Levant_Neo.

I believe we find occassionally Natufian derived facial features, all in the Levant, Ethiopia, Egypt and Arabia but I don't think any of these people show a special resemblence to the Natufians by majority of their respective populations.

This is one of the faces I think could be Natufian derived. Have seen Ethiopians with very simlilar facial structur. Darker skin, brown eyes and dark hair, fits well the description of the Natufians.
https://lovingtelaviv.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/boazmauda31.jpg

This Egyptian has also a face that imo was found among Natufians, and that I have often seen among Ethiopians but with Black pigmentation.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FJGWHM/two-egyptian-men-show-their-ink-stained-thumbs-after-casting-their-FJGWHM.jpg

Here is some Ehtiopians with similar facial structure. They look like Sub Saharan pigmented versions of those above.
http://www.addisgag.com/uploads/da11e8cd1811acb79ccf0fd62cd58f86.jpg
http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ka/ka6898.JPG
http://thumbs.diretube.com/905Ethiopian_Police.jpg

Natufians had rather broad faces from what I red but I don't know for inferior maxillar (it could change the look from short ovale/triangular to quadrangular). Otherwise I rather agree with you concerning facial features shared by some Ethiopians Erythreans with Arabs and some Mediterraneans.

MOESAN
25-06-16, 18:54
As expected Iran_Neo is predominantly "Gedrosia" just like the Teal portion in Yamnaya is.

ironic how even Levant__Neo had at least twice as much "West_Med" as even the most West Med part of Anatolia today.

So among modern People these Samaritans are closest to Levant_Neo.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_(GPO)_-_Samaritans_praying_during_Passover_holiday_ceremo ny_on_mount_Grizim.jpg
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/81574650-men-from-the-samaritan-sect-chant-prayers-at-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QdohIVvtExltOGAtKjfmp2TnXy7p kxpq3AtKiISpYKEq3NVYyc%2B3lbUAhkUeW5hGHg%3D%3D

They show something more "europeanlike" that muslim Levantines. I already remarked some have something "danubian" (Catal Höyük-like) or others have basic 'mediter' without too strong south-Cauucasus-iran imput, or even something 'alpinelike'. All the way almost NO SSA imput compared to TODAY south Arabic people where it is light enough but present.

LeBrok
25-06-16, 19:16
They show something more "europeanlike" that muslim Levantines. I already remarked some have something "danubian" (Catal Höyük-like) or others have basic 'mediter' without too strong south-Cauucasus-iran imput, or even something 'alpinelike'. All the way almost NO SSA imput compared to TODAY south Arabic people where it is light enough but present. Soon we will figure out how all original populations looked like. I find it very exciting for some unexplained reason. ;)

davef
25-06-16, 19:24
Some of you may find this interesting. The usual caveats about using Admixture on ancient samples applies, but it's worth a look, I think:


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7489-Lazaridis-et-al-The-genetic-structure-of-the-world-s-first-farmers-(pre-print)/page63

Eurogenes К36
M967114 - I1290, Iran_N
0.04% Arabian
12.74% Armenian
5.19% East_Med
2.33% Near_Eastern
0.01% North_Caucasian
0.01% Pygmy
65.70% South_Central_Asian
0.88% West_African
13.09% West_Caucasian


M115616 - I0867, Levant_N
23.54% Arabian
27.97% East_Med
1.78% Italian
18.21% Near_Eastern
11.28% North_African
0.03% South_Chinese
17.19% West_Med


Oracle results for Neolithic levantine on Eurogenes k15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 48.63
2 West_Med 27.80
3 Red_Sea 23.25


Finished reading population data. 207 populations found.
15 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Samaritan @ 24.852867
2 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.554283
3 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.686113
4 Egyptian @ 26.345144
5 Palestinian @ 26.676630
6 Bedouin @ 27.384647
7 Saudi @ 27.511555
8 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.087376
9 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.233204
10 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.675303
11 Jordanian @ 28.966221
12 Cyprian @ 29.736849
13 Italian_Jewish @ 30.398230
14 Tunisian @ 30.747480
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 30.874126
16 Syrian @ 31.324089
17 Algerian @ 31.399315
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.566530
19 Moroccan @ 32.872646
20 Lebanese_Muslim @ 33.289722
And just because I was curious,the oracle results when a coptic sample is included



Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Egyptian_copt @ 21.712453
2 Samaritan @ 24.978455
3 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.766809
4 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.7952
5 Egyptian @ 26.626954
6 Palestinian @ 26.845314
7 Bedouin @ 27.591483
8 Saudi @ 27.62863
9 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.272767
10 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.32722
11 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.845364
12 Jordanian @ 29.161413
13 Cyprian @ 29.856846
14 Italian_Jewish @ 30.562651
15 Tunisian @ 30.998248
16 Sephardic_Jewish @ 31.028747
17 Syrian @ 31.479509
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.654907
19 Algerian @ 31.676992
20 Moroccan @ 33.150526
207 iterations.

Before we get carried away by speculation about the skin tones of the Natufians perhaps we should keep in mind that we're talking about three samples, some of which I understand are not particularly high coverage.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/#comments

Interesting stuff; but you always seem to bring up that people need to take results like these with a grain of salt. What incorrect conclusions would some people make of these results? I myself don't actually believe that the neolithic Levantine is 70 percent Yemenite Jew and 30 percent sardinian in spite of what oracle says in the anthrogenica thread you linked. For one, none of his ancestors even stepped toe on that island.

Alan
25-06-16, 20:12
Interesting stuff; but you always seem to bring up that people need to take results like these with a grain of salt. What incorrect conclusions would some people make of these results? I myself don't actually believe that the neolithic Levantine is 70 percent Yemenite Jew and 30 percent sardinian in spite of what oracle says in the anthrogenica thread you linked. For one, none of his ancestors even stepped toe on that island.

Mixed mode oracle results have to be not taken literally. They show that you can model Levant_Neo as 70/30 Yemenite/Sardinian, but that doesn't mean something Yemenite and something Sardinian like contributed to them, contrary it means ~30% of Sardinian DNA is identical to that of Levant_Neo and 70% of Yemenite DNA. It could mean that Levant_Neo contributed 30% of their DNA to Sardinians or that something Levant_Neo related but different (Anatolian_Neo) contributed much more DNA to Sardinians.

Angela
25-06-16, 23:38
In addition, you can't just take a calculator created for modern populations, run an ancient genome through it and think that the result is the last word. You get terrible fits for one thing. I mean, just look at them.

When Kurd publishes his calculator, specifically created with these ancient genomes, it will be better, but Admixture is not the only way or even the best way of analyzing ancient genomes.

In terms of phenotype perhaps the Samaritans published by Alan are good for the original Levant Neolithic. I don't know. There's another Samaritan type, however.

http://3fl57v4a19ai270s1i3u79qp6yx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Jacob-ben-Aaron.png
http://shomron0.tripod.com/holonpriest.jpg


The Samaritans, in addition to input from the Levant Neolithic, have quite a bit of input from the Iranian Neolithic and Chg, I think.

The best fit is actually Egyptian Copts, who also vary a bit, although they have demonstrable East African in calculators, up to 12% Omotic in some.

These are Copts executed by Muslims:

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B41.jpg

http://www.copts-united.com/uploads/2232/44_20150412155922.jpg
Some are obviously more SSA admixed:
http://www.churchinchains.ie/system/files/u3/Coptic%20Priest%20leads%20prayer%20(Nov%2011).jpg

I have a feeling the more SSA ones may more often be from southern Egypt.

Since Natufians and Levant Neolithic aren't scoring SSA in these same runs, you'd go with the more non SSA admixed looking ones, I guess.

I would agree with other posters. I think the "hawk like" profile came from the Caucasus and moved both north and south.

davef
26-06-16, 05:34
@Alan
Thank you! I think I understand this now! So in a nutshell, 30% of Sardinian DNA matches Levant Neolithic. And thus 30 percent of Levant Neolithic matches Sardinian. It doesn't necessarily imply that the Levant Neolithic came to be from a Sardinian like ancestor, which makes sense as I doubt Sardinian like people even existed back then. It seems more likely that Levant Neolithic was a founding population which contribtued 30 percent of its DNA to Sardinians?

@Angela
I see what you mean. The closest match had a fit score of 24? A fit score of 10 is far enough let alone 24. 24 would be as close as Sicilians are to Scots.

Alan
26-06-16, 13:24
@Alan
Thank you! I think I understand this now! So in a nutshell, 30% of Sardinian DNA matches Levant Neolithic. And thus 30 percent of Levant Neolithic matches Sardinian. It doesn't necessarily imply that the Levant Neolithic came to be from a Sardinian like ancestor, which makes sense as I doubt Sardinian like people even existed back then. It seems more likely that Levant Neolithic was a founding population which contribtued 30 percent of its DNA to Sardinians?

@Angela
I see what you mean. The closest match had a fit score of 24? A fit score of 10 is far enough let alone 24. 24 would be as close as Sicilians are to Scots.

Yes roughly ~30% is Levant_Neo like. But the source for Sardinian DNA is Anatolian_Neo with most likely some Iran_Neo.

Sardinians share ~80% of their ancestry from Anatolian_Neo.

Alan
26-06-16, 15:55
Here is the Dodecad K12b results of Iran_Neo

As seen it is very heavy in Gedrosia (even heavier than modern Baluch are) and indeed supports the idea that the Gedrosia component as the Baloch originate in West Asia since the Iran_Neo samples are from the Zagros mountains. In ANE K7 calculator Iran_Neo scores 28.5% "ANE". But I think this is shared ancestry with Mal'ta via a third ancestral population to both.
the "South Asian" and "SSA" showing up is very archaic Eurasian DNA. It is not atypical for archaic Eurasian DNA to show up as SSA as seen on Ust-Ishm and Kostenki14 results. And the "South Asian" is very ancient mesolithic West Eurasian DNA.

Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Gedrosia 67.02
2 Caucasus 19.91
3 South_Asian 6.25
4 Southwest_Asian 5.28
5 Sub_Saharan 1.55

LeBrok
26-06-16, 16:03
Here is the Dodecad K12b results of Iran_Neo

As seen it is very heavy in Gedrosia (even heavier than modern Baluch are) and indeed supports the idea that the Gedrosia component as the Baloch originate in West Asia since the Iran_Neo samples are from the Zagros mountains. In ANE K7 calculator Iran_Neo scores 28.5% "ANE". But I think this is shared ancestry with Mal'ta via a third ancestral population to both.
As Elamite weed said above, the "South Asian" and "SSA" showing up is very archaic Eurasian DNA. It is not atypical for archaic Eurasian DNA to show up as SSA as seen on Ust-Ishm and Kostenki14 results. And the "South Asian" is very ancient mesolithic West Eurasian DNA.

Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Gedrosia 67.02
2 Caucasus 19.91
3 South_Asian 6.25
4 Southwest_Asian 5.28
5 Sub_Saharan 1.55





Thanks, do you have K12b for CHG?

Angela
26-06-16, 20:03
From Open Genomes:

"We know about CHG (and the Iranian Hotu Cave J2a* hunter-gatherer).

We haven't seen any sign yet of a "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" Mesolithic hunter-gatherer population.

This ancestral hunter-gatherer population was very different than any of the Mesolithic European or northern Near Eastern hunter-gatherers. and equally distant from both WHG-SHG-EHG and CHG-IHG, and more distant from than any of these from Kostenki K14, Ust'-Ishim, and ANE, and East Asia.

I think it's accurate to describe this "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" population as "Basal Eurasian" because it's symmetrically related to everyone else in Eurasia - it's closer to no one.

From the PCA, it doesn't seem possible that the Anatolian Neolithic is a three-way mix of WHG, CHG, and Natufian.

One Levantine PPNB sample from 'Ain Ghazal, from a few hundred years before Barcin in Northwest Anatolia, looks like it has a higher percentage of this "ghost population" than the other PPNB Levantines.

It doesn't seem possible that this kind of admixture came from Northwest or even Central Anatolia to the Levant. It seems likely that it originated among hunter-gatherers along the Middle Euphrates, a region with no autosomal aDNA sequences. (mtDNA sequences are available from Tell Halula and presumably these samples are going to be sequenced soon.)

Here is the map of the radiocarbon-dated sites in the Levant and Anatolia during the LGM:
Radiocarbon dated sites in the Near East during the LGM, 21,500-16,000 calBCE (23,500-18,000 ybp) (http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/img/P0A.png)

This is the group that the Ramonian/Mushabians must have encountered when they left Africa and arrived in the Near East c. 18,000 ybp.
Perhaps these people moved north when it became warmer and that's why they were mostly replaced by the recently arrived African-shifted Natufians.

Is there any other explanation for this "third pole of Eurasian diversity" aside from an undiscovered isolated and highly-drifted Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer population?
I think we can see that the Natufians share drift with North Africans, leading toward East Africans. Two Natufians, I0861 and I1690 lie precisely between the Africans and the Anatolian Neolithic. Others appear to be "above the plane" of modern human variation, for some reason. However, another Natufian, 10861, appears to be halfway beween the Africans and CHG.

It seems that the Natufians were mixes between a "North African-like" (proto-Afro-Asiatic?) population and two separate Near Eastern hunter-gatherer populations, one "Anatolian Neolithic-like" and the other, CHG. "

What do you guys think?

Angela
26-06-16, 20:26
Is it Bedouin B who come out over 80% Levant Neolithic on these calculators and with little SSA?

Does anyone know where or among which tribes Bedouin A and Bedouin B were taken?

Alan
26-06-16, 22:37
Thanks, do you have K12b for CHG?
We had some but can't find it anymore. It was basically ~60% Caucasus, ~30% Gedrosia.

Alan
26-06-16, 22:41
From Open Genomes:

"We know about CHG (and the Iranian Hotu Cave J2a* hunter-gatherer).

We haven't seen any sign yet of a "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" Mesolithic hunter-gatherer population.

This ancestral hunter-gatherer population was very different than any of the Mesolithic European or northern Near Eastern hunter-gatherers. and equally distant from both WHG-SHG-EHG and CHG-IHG, and more distant from than any of these from Kostenki K14, Ust'-Ishim, and ANE, and East Asia.

I think it's accurate to describe this "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" population as "Basal Eurasian" because it's symmetrically related to everyone else in Eurasia - it's closer to no one.

From the PCA, it doesn't seem possible that the Anatolian Neolithic is a three-way mix of WHG, CHG, and Natufian.

One Levantine PPNB sample from 'Ain Ghazal, from a few hundred years before Barcin in Northwest Anatolia, looks like it has a higher percentage of this "ghost population" than the other PPNB Levantines.

It doesn't seem possible that this kind of admixture came from Northwest or even Central Anatolia to the Levant. It seems likely that it originated among hunter-gatherers along the Middle Euphrates, a region with no autosomal aDNA sequences. (mtDNA sequences are available from Tell Halula and presumably these samples are going to be sequenced soon.)

Here is the map of the radiocarbon-dated sites in the Levant and Anatolia during the LGM:
Radiocarbon dated sites in the Near East during the LGM, 21,500-16,000 calBCE (23,500-18,000 ybp) (http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/img/P0A.png)

This is the group that the Ramonian/Mushabians must have encountered when they left Africa and arrived in the Near East c. 18,000 ybp.
Perhaps these people moved north when it became warmer and that's why they were mostly replaced by the recently arrived African-shifted Natufians.

Is there any other explanation for this "third pole of Eurasian diversity" aside from an undiscovered isolated and highly-drifted Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer population?
I think we can see that the Natufians share drift with North Africans, leading toward East Africans. Two Natufians, I0861 and I1690 lie precisely between the Africans and the Anatolian Neolithic. Others appear to be "above the plane" of modern human variation, for some reason. However, another Natufian, 10861, appears to be halfway beween the Africans and CHG.

It seems that the Natufians were mixes between a "North African-like" (proto-Afro-Asiatic?) population and two separate Near Eastern hunter-gatherer populations, one "Anatolian Neolithic-like" and the other, CHG. "

What do you guys think?

I think the author has a mistake in his thinking or the author missed this statement of the Lazaridis paper, namely that Sub Saharan Africans do not share more with Natufians as they do with any of the other Eurasian groups, which kinda rejects the Idea that Natufians were more African shifted.

Natufians ironically seem closer/share more to WHG based on fst distances as Levant_neo, Iran_Neo or CHG does. Which kinda means that Natufians were a mix of Basal Eurasian and a H&G group that was ancestral to WHG.

Natufians do not share drift with North and East Africans. North and East Africans share drift with Natufians. Yes on PCA Natufians are "halfway inbetween" Africans and CHG, so are Saudis and so is also Anatolian_Neo but it doesn't work that way, because the non Basal Eurasian ancestry of Natufians is more WHG akine.

Alan
26-06-16, 22:51
Is it Bedouin B who come out over 80% Levant Neolithic on these calculators and with little SSA?

Does anyone know where or among which tribes Bedouin A and Bedouin B were taken?

I think it was somewhere in Israel/Palestine or Syria.

Garrick
27-06-16, 00:07
Is it Bedouin B who come out over 80% Levant Neolithic on these calculators and with little SSA?

Does anyone know where or among which tribes Bedouin A and Bedouin B were taken?

Presumably desert or semidesert areas in Israel.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:34
:rolleyes2:

No, Iran_CHL does not have any EHG. CHG which is mesolithic does however have, Armenian EBA level, "EHG like" admixture. Armenian EBA looks pretty much like Armenian CHL + Iran CHL. Armenian Calcolthic has significantly higher frequency of "EHG " like ancestry (note they do not differentiate EHG-WHG in the graph it seems) than Armenian EBA. So whatever happened in the Armenian EBA it actually decreased the "EHG" admixture.

Yes I see this, but we have a lot of EBA and MBA samples that shift towards steppe from EBA->MBA. Just means there was even more steppe earlier that we would have expected, and the Late Bronze Age shown in the plot below is the furthest shifted towards the steppe of all ancient Armenian samples. I don't think this is shown in the chart from the paper we're discussing. I did find one such chart but it's hard to read.
http://i.imgur.com/CFJj4PO.png?1

The light pigment is no surprise to me in Chalc Armenia. This also comes with SIBERIAN alleles. Explain that one.

Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia. The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem. If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand the problem. Look at Modern Iran, it’s the same as ancient Armenia, and we know exactly how modern Iran came to be populated.





Suprise :rolleyes2:

And why do you think R2 at this point makes more sense? I doubt anyone would have thought of R2 if not a dubious Blogger brought this theory up.

Yeah. It's R2. Stop saying "dubious" it's annoying.


Alone through this statement I get the impression that you don't have much clue about the whole subject. If you actually knew a little bit of genetics, linguistics and archeology such you wouldn't have written this comment. This statement doesn't make linguistically, let alone genetically sense.

The extend of phantasy in some of your theories rival the phantasy found in Gogas.

I'm sorry but you're retarded. Why would you say such a thing when you don't know what you're talking about.

Assuming we're going to completely forget about the fact that the Avestas themselves are localized geographically in Central Asia/North Eastern Iran. Compare Avestan to Sanskrit. Then compare both of these to West and East Iranian languages. What I say is absolutely correct. It's not a bad thing. Avestan is much, much closer to Indic than it is to the earliest attested West and East Iranian languages. This tells us that Indo-Iranian was likely none other than an ancient Indo-Aryan/Indic. A very base archaic Indic in the Mitanni is the earliest attested Indo-Iranian language. Why would this piss you off? The confidence of your repudiation would actually imply the reverse of what you insist about me, being that you are the one who is truly in a fantasy. And I really don’t know why you ignore all of this evidence. IE is a language and culture, not a haplogroup. If you ignore the language and the culture then you've lost sight of what you're looking for in the first place.




We have very early written history in Asia. This is something we don’t have in Europe, so actually IE’s intrusive nature to Asia is in many ways even more certain than that in Europe. I know you don’t like to listen to those things, but they’re there none the less. Do you really think that Iranian pre-dated Elam? Do you realize how absurd and retarded this would sound to a historian or archaeologist? Iranian isn’t even attested until like the 8th century BC in Assyrian records. A semitic language mind you. Not Sumerian. Assyrians were expanding into the Zagros and encountered them. Do you really think that Iranian speakers had anything to do with Sumer? That they were involved in the Uruk expansions? Or even less that they were the expanding Sumerians? These notions are truly ridiculous.

The entire region is plastered with non-IE since pre-history. Urartian, Semetic, Elamite, Hattic, Hurrian, Sumerian blah blah blah. The Indoeuropeans’ intrusive nature to the region is crystal clear in every decipherable document that we have from the period. They attest to Hittite replacing Hattic (and Assyrian), Armenian absorbs the populations and languages of IE Luwains and Urartians, Iranian expands over the earlier territory of Elam, and now there’s no doubt that Indic replaced a vast expanse of what was likely Dravidian speaking people. The problem is that your evidence tends to be very singular, inadequate to explain all the historical outcomes, and sometimes wrong all together. If anyone has their head in the sand it’s surely you. How can you not see that Iranian is clearly what became of steppe Indo-Iranian that did not move into India? This mythical R1b that you’re looking for will not be enough to change all of these conclusions nor the evidence that leads us to them. And guess what? THE GENETICS ARE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS MODEL AS WELL. This isn’t a white supremacists agenda. Most of the Asian origin theories have been abandoned or defeated so many times that they’re not seriously considered anymore. Do you think this is all nationalism? Because if you really do then you’re surely the only nationalist in the room.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:36
[QUOTE=Angela;482403]
We need Armenian N!
OK for a possible Anatolian contribution concerning WHG+LevtN (every new simulation sends new reference population, funny indeed!) intoArmenia: why not?
Concerning comparions metals age Armenia with CHG, as Armenia shows levels of WHG and LevtN, if Armenia was issued from old CHG, this new admixture would reduce the EHG and IranN (=CHG) in itself. Or if Armenia was previously a mix of WHG and LevtN (=Anatolia)+ the admixture with CHGs from N-Caucasus would also produce less EHG in itself tha in the donor CHG pop. So I think and CHG and Armenia had high levels of IranN, but Armenia received new EHG non-Caucasus, so surely Steppic. Some papers all the way seem showing metals ages Armenia had affinities with Yamnaya, not only 'westasian'; Genetiker whatever the worth of his work, "found" some East-Asia (rather 'amerind' or 'siberian') in BA Armenians what does not seem come through iran at these dates but was found in almost every supposed Steppic influenced pops. On a plotting of Davidsky BA Armenians are shifted towards Lezgins, and Tadjiks, closer to these last ones than Georgians or Adygei, far from the today Armenians and even Iranians. I 'm not sure all that would be without any signification at all? and EHG of some weight in CSW Asia at these dates? I don't buy before more infos.
We could say, it's true, that the supposed "steppic" admixture would not prove a cultural influence of North Caucasus upon South, but rather an osmosis after colonization of North by South Caucasus? Who knows? All the way I discard a colonization by Tadjiks from East at those times, for good sense and archeological reasons.

Agreed, at least to the non-questions.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:37
I really doubt that EHG had actual WHG admixture. It was probably just some "WHG-like" ancestry, but not actual WHG.

It is probably a similar case as with Corded Ware having Yamna ancestry, while in reality it could be just "Yamna-like".

I think it's obvious that AG2 and AG3 are mixtures of Villabruna and MA-1. Maybe I'm missing something.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:41
I don't think Yamnaya is PIE though

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:43
I think Anatolian/Hittite in Maykop makes some sense. But I’m thinking that it may have been in Armenia even earlier. And I’m also thinking that Yamnaya may not have been PIE and was actually beginning to speak what resembled a proto-Indo Iranian that strongly resembled Indic, with Corded Ware being a proto-Balto-Slavic differentiation from this. I’m still trying to deconstruct all my preconceptions though and so I haven’t yet convinced myself that this makes sense. We know that proto-Celto-Italic and Tocharian differentiated early as well, which I think we may already be seeing in very early Western Steppe Cultures like Stredny Stog. These people infiltrated Europe causing the Bell Beaker phenomenon. So I’m shifting everything back a bit which will make some people freak out, but I’m going on the evidence for a Neolithic on the Volga by 6000BC. This would put actual PIE in Samara/Dneiper Donets growing out of a Mesolithic steppe language. Remember there is no PIE root for sea, which is pretty huge if you ask me. All of this is consistent linguistically and is supported by archaeology and genetics.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:50
It would go something like this: Anatolian leaves before the Centum-Satem split. Centum-Satem splitting begins to occur. Celto-Italic and Tocharian differentiate/depart as Centum, shortly after Proto-Hellenic does the same, but doesn’t move too far away to the West. Hellenic continuous to churn in the balkans leading Phyrgian, Armenian, Illyrian(?), and Greek, which eventually populate Anatolia and the Aegean.


Remaining on the steppe/forest zone is a Satem IE that is differentiating into Proto-Balto-Slavic in the N/NW and a very Indic(Indo-Aryan) like Satem in the South and East. The period just before and likely during significant differentiation was Yamnaya and it was more Indic than Baltic. IE was constantly expanding at this time so Indic (genetically yamnaya) is moving South and East steadily eventually ending up in India and founding the Kingdom of Mitanni along the way. Then we see emergence of Srubna, Poltvka, Sintasha, and Andronovo, which are already starting to sound Iranian. The earlier the steppe culture the more Indic like Indo-Iranian they speak. The very Indic like Indo-Iranian remains on the steppe and Iranian plateau(which it passed through) and differentiates into the different Iranian languages. A striking piece of evidence of this latter structure of Satem IE is that Lithuanian retains roughly the same general forms as does Sanskrit. And actually comparisons between Latin, Sanskrit, Tocharian, and Lithuanian should convince one of this structure after Hittite departed, but before others did. Remember Indo-Aryan is already attested by the 2nd millenium B.C. as a horse breeding ruling elite in the Mitanni, and horses are in the SE Caspian by the latest 3000BC.



Someone find something not awesome about this, or unoriginal.

holderlin
28-06-16, 02:56
And I'm sorry everyone, but this had everything to do with horses. In all of the earliest attested IE languages we have mythical horse driven chariot riders. Not only that, but we have the earliest evidence for chariots in Iranian Sintashta, then by the Hittites which are also historically attested. If you don't buy horses, than at least accept chariots, which will lead you to the same conclusion. And of course we have the earliest evidence of domestication of horses­ for transport in Samara, and then wherever we have known IE peoples we also have horses. Horse=IE. This is a fact. Egyptians didn't have horses and chariots until New Kingdom, which coincides with Mitanni, and GUESS WHAT? There are Egyptian records of correspondence with the Mitanni where the former is asking the latter for horses and chariots. The Egyptians then have horses and chariots when they battle the Hittites. This is fascinating evidence and I don't understand why one would ignore it.

berun
28-06-16, 08:41
These people infiltrated Europe causing the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

Can you give data/facts for that? I'm not aware of such case.

By the way in East-Anatolia and Caucasus a good proposal for an IE introgression is the Trialeti Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialeti_culture) with kurgans and chariots, and that just some time before we have Hittites in Central Anatolia.

Athiudisc
28-06-16, 15:42
Remember there is no PIE root for sea, which is pretty huge if you ask me.

*Mori? Whence Latin "mare," Gaelic "muir," English "mere," Russian "more," etc.

Greying Wanderer
28-06-16, 17:33
@holderlin


Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia. The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem.

Artisans from the Kargaly copper field looking for sources of copper elsewhere imo.

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

I used to think it was the other way round - south Caucasus to steppe - but the DNA seems to say no.


And I'm sorry everyone, but this had everything to do with horses.

I'd say the first wave was connected to metallurgy, limited in numbers but ranging from Ireland to China but I'd agree the main IE event was all about horses.

(reason: kilts)

holderlin
28-06-16, 18:10
*Mori? Whence Latin "mare," Gaelic "muir," English "mere," Russian "more," etc.

It doesn'tmean sea. It's seems to actually mean like "marsh" or "swampland", or "Lake" rather than large body of open water, and it's only in European IE, not Indo-Iranian.

This is related to the Germanic substratum, where we find all these non-IE seafaring words that seem to be borrowed into IE. And a bunch of pig farming words as well I believe.

This is supportive of Samara PIE homeland, if you give it any weight. Like I say, it's the language that brought us here in the first place. If you ignore that entirely then you're doing something else, less related to the IE question.

I know this is genetics discussion, but I'm applying that as well. If people are going to discuss a LANGUAGE GROUP then expect some language posts. Especially considering outlandish theories.

holderlin
28-06-16, 18:12
Can you give data/facts for that? I'm not aware of such case.

By the way in East-Anatolia and Caucasus a good proposal for an IE introgression is the Trialeti Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialeti_culture) with kurgans and chariots, and that just some time before we have Hittites in Central Anatolia.

I can only theorize that the subclades associated with the Bell Beakers will be found in these early Western Steppe cultures.

holderlin
28-06-16, 18:16
@holderlin



Artisans from the Kargaly copper field looking for sources of copper elsewhere imo.

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

I used to think it was the other way round - south Caucasus to steppe - but the DNA seems to say no.



I'd say the first wave was connected to metallurgy, limited in numbers but ranging from Ireland to China but I'd agree the main IE event was all about horses.

(reason: kilts)

Interesting, I always believed the earliest copper in the West was usually from the Balkans, and I'm pretty sure the spectral data from Samara and Khvalynsk show this.

Perhaps yes on metal before horses, but I don't think so. We see cheek pieces, horse headed scepters, horse figuring, and of course horse remains when the steppe barely had any copper. Horse sacrifices are known in Samara as well I believe.

And I must qualify my IE=Horses claim. Before a certain point in time we can say that IE will always be associated with loads of evidence for horse domestication for transport.

Angela
28-06-16, 18:36
RK has posted some nMonte results on anthrogenica. They're interesting although of course not dispositive.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7614-nMonte-tour-of-the-Middle-East-across-Space-and-Time

I'd have to check the dates, but I wonder if the increase in terms of European Neolithic intrusion might be because the first wave of steppe like gene flow came, as has been hypothesized, from the steppe through the Balkans, picking up such genes there.

The operative word is "might".

berun
28-06-16, 19:56
I can only theorize that the subclades associated with the Bell Beakers will be found in these early Western Steppe cultures.

So no proof at all, only an argumentum ad ignorantiam, so weak is the yamnayist theory?

Science is not working like that except for the steppe theory.

Athiudisc
28-06-16, 22:20
It doesn'tmean sea. It's seems to actually mean like "marsh" or "swampland", or "Lake" rather than large body of open water, and it's only in European IE, not Indo-Iranian.

I'm not at all sure this is the case. The North, Black or Mediterranean seas, for example, don't strike me as marshes or swamps. I'll grant that it seems localized to non-Indo-Aryan languages, though, so maybe the substrate theory has legs.

I hardly consider the reconstruction outlandish, though.

holderlin
28-06-16, 22:55
So no proof at all, only an argumentum ad ignorantiam, so weak is the yamnayist theory?

Science is not working like that except for the steppe theory.

Wtf are you talking about? This is a steppe theory. Proof? I have proof of the evidence I'm drawing on, which you will find if you read.

Yamnaya isn't weak is just doesn't explain everything. It's quite strong actually given models that use Yamnaya admixture.


argumentum ad ignorantiam

These are fighting words.

If we had proof there would be no reason discuss this, or make all of these predictions that people on here seem to be so proud of. We still haven't found European R1b subclades (M269) prior to Bell Beaker associated burials. If you're a proponent of the steppe model then there should be something in between Samara and Europe. Corded ware is basically all R1a with one R1b so far and I think it's an older subclade. The M269 subclades we're looking for are likely on the Western Steppe from layers that have not been sampled. Explain to me how this is a theory based on ignorance. Sredny Stog is a candidate, and in support of this model.

holderlin
28-06-16, 23:04
I'm not at all sure this is the case. The North, Black or Mediterranean seas, for example, don't strike me as marshes or swamps. I'll grant that it seems localized to non-Indo-Aryan languages, though, so maybe the substrate theory has legs.

I hardly consider the reconstruction outlandish, though.

It's one of the weirder facts about PIE, but think about what it was like being a steppe peoples. You live in a grass sea with rivers and lakes.

holderlin
28-06-16, 23:25
Someone also asked about what the PIE lexicon says about the geography or climate in general.

The answer is that it is in great support of the steppe model. All of the agricultural products native to Asia are loan words, and conversely none of these items are in PIE e.g. figs, grapes, olives and even the domestic camel. There are some obvious examples in in Hittite, Iranian, Aryan, and Greek. What do all of these regions have in common? They are a warmer climate than the steppe and produce different ecosystems with different flora. I believe there's a ton of evidence suggesting that BMAC and predecessors domesticated the camel, so all of you Iranian homeland proponents explain to me why there's no camel in PIE and why domesticated camel didn't spread across the world with Indo-Europeans, besides that because they're an embarrassing mode of transportation.

holderlin
28-06-16, 23:30
By the way all of the reconstructed flora, fauna, and agricultural products in PIE are consistent with a more Northern latitude.

Sile
28-06-16, 23:46
I think the author has a mistake in his thinking or the author missed this statement of the Lazaridis paper, namely that Sub Saharan Africans do not share more with Natufians as they do with any of the other Eurasian groups, which kinda rejects the Idea that Natufians were more African shifted.

Natufians ironically seem closer/share more to WHG based on fst distances as Levant_neo, Iran_Neo or CHG does. Which kinda means that Natufians were a mix of Basal Eurasian and a H&G group that was ancestral to WHG.

Natufians do not share drift with North and East Africans. North and East Africans share drift with Natufians. Yes on PCA Natufians are "halfway inbetween" Africans and CHG, so are Saudis and so is also Anatolian_Neo but it doesn't work that way, because the non Basal Eurasian ancestry of Natufians is more WHG akine.

what we need to note:

1. the main passage from eastern iran to anatolia was via the north of the Zargos mountains. The mountains in this part are formed in east-west corridors.

2. the levant and north of Zargos lands were settled before the fertile crescent . the initial populace of Mesopotamia came from people in the north of the zargos mountains.

3. the Black , Aral and Caspian seas where fresh water "lakes".

4. the black sea did not penetrate the sea of Marmara ( the aegean ) until 9200 years ago, so people from anatolia could enter europe without a boat.

5. hatti, hurri, hittite, luwian are not semitic languages.......so the sumerians from north of the Zargos initially did not speak a semitic language, neither did the assyrians or akkadians

berun
28-06-16, 23:53
@holderlin

Argumentum ad ignorantiam if you take the worst sense is fighting statement but it is in fact an argument taking as proof our ignorance, in this case if it was or not R1b in western Yamnaya.

And true, even the IE is against the Yamnayans' steppe, you can check how it's related to a northern forested ecosystem.

Angela
29-06-16, 01:08
Someone also asked about what the PIE lexicon says about the geography or climate in general.

The answer is that it is in great support of the steppe model. All of the agricultural products native to Asia are loan words, and conversely none of these items are in PIE e.g. figs, grapes, olives and even the domestic camel. There are some obvious examples in in Hittite, Iranian, Aryan, and Greek. What do all of these regions have in common? They are a warmer climate than the steppe and produce different ecosystems with different flora. I believe there's a ton of evidence suggesting that BMAC and predecessors domesticated the camel, so all of you Iranian homeland proponents explain to me why there's no camel in PIE and why domesticated camel didn't spread across the world with Indo-Europeans, besides that because they're an embarrassing mode of transportation.

I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

"Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) around 2,500 BC,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-mukasa81-13)[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-62)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-63)[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-64) as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-65)"

"Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains), then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-68)"

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

Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html

If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?

holderlin
29-06-16, 04:42
RK has posted some nMonte results on anthrogenica. They're interesting although of course not dispositive.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7614-nMonte-tour-of-the-Middle-East-across-Space-and-Time

I'd have to check the dates, but I wonder if the increase in terms of European Neolithic intrusion might be because the first wave of steppe like gene flow came, as has been hypothesized, from the steppe through the Balkans, picking up such genes there.

The operative word is "might".

Thanks Angela.

Well anyone wondering about evidence of early steppe in Armenia, there's surely some of it here. Lots of Euro too.

The Euro is really interesting, but hardly surprising. The Balkans were going off at this time.

holderlin
29-06-16, 06:19
I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

"Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) around 2,500 BC,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-mukasa81-13)[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-62)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-63)[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-64) as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-65)"

"Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains), then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-68)"

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

Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html

If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?

Thanks for the camel information. It was definitely there during BMAC, that's for sure.

I can say that there's a lot of non-IE loanwords for local items in Aryan and Iranian.

If you're talking about the Caucuses I don't think there's a reason to reject it based on the lexicon, but right now I would reject it on other grounds. There would probably be a word for sea if that were the case. There's definitely a word for river and boat. You can't get too carried away with this kind of thing, especially with flora. At best we can conclude that there were trees and in the Northern hemisphere : )

Reconstructions for Fauna is a little more clear with things like bear, elk, lynx, otter, beaver, hare, red deer, mouse, hedgehog, and of course the wolf and horse, so riverine forests must be included along with steppe or grasslands.

It's when you take all of these as a whole you arrive at a place that was at least seasonally cold and didn't have the aforementioned local products of West Asia and Southern Europe.

holderlin
29-06-16, 06:49
@holderlin

Argumentum ad ignorantiam if you take the worst sense is fighting statement but it is in fact an argument taking as proof our ignorance, in this case if it was or not R1b in western Yamnaya.

And true, even the IE is against the Yamnayans' steppe, you can check how it's related to a northern forested ecosystem.

I proposed it as a mechanism. I didn't say that it was the case, and it's one part of a larger mechanism that was based on a ton of linguistic, historical, archaeological, and genetic evidence. It wasn't a single logical assertion.

Riverine forests along with grasslands is what PIE describes.

berun
29-06-16, 08:38
But when you try to make BB indoeuropean only with supposed DNA: the mechanism is going too far, without such tons of data.

Another thing is that you are happy getting the word "forest" from riverine forests, but you can check youself that the IE ecosystem can't be maintained only with riverine forests as it is limited in speces (adapted to inundations or producing long roots): willows, alders, black poplars, poplars, ashes, elms, tamarix, etc., limitating also the fauna that it can suppoort.

bicicleur
29-06-16, 08:39
I don't think of myself as an Iranian homeland proponent, but I'll answer anyway. :)

Domesticated camels seem relatively recent even in the Near East.

Topics like this, which aren't really political, are covered relatively well in Wiki, I think.

"Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) around 2,500 BC,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-mukasa81-13)[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-62)[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-63)[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-64) as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-65)"

"Martin Heide's 2010 work on the domestication of the camel tentatively concludes that the bactrian camel was domesticated by at least the middle of the third millennium somewhere east of the Zagros Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains), then moving into Mesopotamia, and suggests that mentions of camels "in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel." while noting that the camel is not mentioned in relationship to Canaan.[68] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#cite_note-68)"

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

Another type didn't reach Israel until around 930 BC, probably introduced through Egypt as part of the copper trade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html

If they were domesticated around 2500 BC they were in the area earlier, but do we know they were in the Armenian highlands before that?

I don't think the choice is between some lowland grain farmers from an area with a Mediterranean climate and steppe foragers. It's whether there's a possibility that the language might have arisen among herders living in places like the Armenian Highlands and/or the Iranian plateau. I asked the original question about what differences there might be between areas just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and those other areas in terms of flora and fauna because I'm by no means an expert in this topic and wondered if someone else might have more detailed information.

Ed. Does anyone know what it's like in adjacent areas of Turkmenistan?

the Bactrian camel was probably in use 2500 BC as draught animal, for transportation use
that was in Bactria, from where the Vedic Aryans migrated to the Indus Valley around 1700 BC
the dromedary or Arabian camel was first domesticated for meat and milk only
the Arabian camel was used for transportation through the desert only 1000 BC, that is when first caravans arrived in the southern Levant

south of Turkmenistan are the Kopet Dag Mountains
the mountain rivers flow northwards and dry up in the lowland deserts
and there is the Oxus (Amu Darya) river which flows through the desert, all the way from the Hindu Kush to the Aral Sea

camels would have brought precious stones and tin ores from this area to the Indus Valley or to Mesopotamia

holderlin
29-06-16, 16:50
But when you try to make BB indoeuropean only with supposed DNA: the mechanism is going too far, without such tons of data.

This is your opinion as was my mechanism mine. But you refuted it like it was a logical assertion.


Another thing is that you are happy getting the word "forest" from riverine forests, but you can check youself that the IE ecosystem can't be maintained only with riverine forests as it is limited in speces (adapted to inundations or producing long roots): willows, alders, black poplars, poplars, ashes, elms, tamarix, etc., limitating also the fauna that it can suppoort.

I'm trying to not put too much in any one aspect of the lexicon. Yes, included but not limited to forests, with riverlands and grasslands. Forests are included, to be clear. And actually the mesolithic tradition in the area is from the Northern Forest zone.

Angela
30-06-16, 05:18
I'm going to try to answer my own question about the genesis of Bedouin A and Bedouin B. I think it might come from this paper:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html

They studied the Bedouin of the Negev in Israel.

This is part of what they found:
"Two main clusters are obvious and are indicated in Figure 2 (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html#fig2) as A and B. It is evident from Figure 2C (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html#fig2) that both recent and ancient ancestries contribute to the signals in clusters A and B, as both clusters are clearly indicated in Drecent and Dresidual. Note, however, that cluster A seems to be distinct from the rest of the data, whereas cluster B shows signals of common ancestry with several external tribes around it. "

" Investigation of surnames identified cluster A as one of the oldest, well established clans in the Negev. On the other hand, cluster B is composed of related tribes, probably from a common founder, that migrated from Gaza to the Negev around 300 years ago. Thus, it seems that clan B, as opposed to clan A, allows interactions with tribes outside the clan."

Can anyone confirm that this is the source of the two groups and that Group B has no SSA whereas Group A has some?

Now that would be interesting, as although in the introduction the authors state that the Negev Bedouin are thought to have migrated northward from Saudi Arabia even before the time of the Muslim conquests, Group B is stated to have come from Gaza only 300 years ago. I wonder if some of these tribes, the more SSA admixed ones, came from areas of Saudi Arabia closer to Yemen, for example, than others? Or perhaps Group B, from Gaza, has some amount of ancestry from people with a longer history in the region.

Some Negev Bedouin:
http://media.fromthegrapevine.com/assets/images/2014/11/kids%20at%20the%20Bedouin%20Umm%20Batin%20elementa ry%20school%20-%20where%20a%20demo%20setup%20created%20by%20HomeB ioGas%20is%20part%20of%20the%20educational%20susta inability%20courseware.JPG.824x0_q85.jpg

http://static1.972mag.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/hadaj1.jpg

http://bimkom.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/bedouin_demo.activestills.org_.6.jpg

Anyway, the famed patriarchal endogamy of these tribes comes at a heavy cost in terms of genetic load and genetic disease. Group A, for example, harbors a mutation for hereditary retardism, and the paper finds and tracks numerous others.

MOESAN
30-06-16, 15:16
I'm going to try to answer my own question about the genesis of Bedouin A and Bedouin B. I think it might come from this paper:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html

They studied the Bedouin of the Negev in Israel.

This is part of what they found:
"Two main clusters are obvious and are indicated in Figure 2 (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html#fig2) as A and B. It is evident from Figure 2C (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v112/n2/full/hdy201390a.html#fig2) that both recent and ancient ancestries contribute to the signals in clusters A and B, as both clusters are clearly indicated in Drecent and Dresidual. Note, however, that cluster A seems to be distinct from the rest of the data, whereas cluster B shows signals of common ancestry with several external tribes around it. "

" Investigation of surnames identified cluster A as one of the oldest, well established clans in the Negev. On the other hand, cluster B is composed of related tribes, probably from a common founder, that migrated from Gaza to the Negev around 300 years ago. Thus, it seems that clan B, as opposed to clan A, allows interactions with tribes outside the clan."



Can anyone confirm that this is the source of the two groups and that Group B has no SSA whereas Group A has some?

Now that would be interesting, as although in the introduction the authors state that the Negev Bedouin are thought to have migrated northward from Saudi Arabia even before the time of the Muslim conquests, Group B is stated to have come from Gaza only 300 years ago. I wonder if some of these tribes, the more SSA admixed ones, came from areas of Saudi Arabia closer to Yemen, for example, than others? Or perhaps Group B, from Gaza, has some amount of ancestry from people with a longer history in the region.

Some Negev Bedouin:


Anyway, the famed patriarchal endogamy of these tribes comes at a heavy cost in terms of genetic load and genetic disease. Group A, for example, harbors a mutation for hereditary retardism, and the paper finds and tracks numerous others.

I don't know anything about these Bedwins A and B. But I was amazed by the apparently strong differences in SSA DNA,
very light if present among group B opposite to group A.
If group A supposed more endogamic came from Yemen, it seems they have had time to mix with SSA. At the contrary, Yemen Jews show very little SSA, spite having very less 'westasian' than other Jews communauties, what could argue for an ancient presence in far South? Religious endogamy before crossings?
other thing: if Bedwins A have more endogamic created problems than the B, it could prove the genetic diseases have nothing to do with ethnic purity but, whatever the degree of crossings and admixture, are linked only to too small mating circles.
All tha way, the question of bad mutations conservation in population (non-elimination) is complicated.

holderlin
30-06-16, 17:36
The Steppe in chlk Armenia is actually very supportive very early genetic contact between the steppe and the Caucuses. So this is actually good for anti-steppe theorists. The neolithic on the Volga is also loaded with ovicaprid, which we know originally came from the Zagros. It should be noted the Anatolian languages share certain features with Caucasian languages, which as in Caucasian languages are absent from all other IE languages.

Nalchik burials and what we have of settlements are very non-steppe, this is the immediate predecessor to Maykop, which is why I say that the cultural package seen earlier on the steppe is not coming from the Caucuses. It could be that we had very early infiltration of PIE that became anatolian, "peaking " in Maykop, then later we have Indic speaking IE's expand over the top of that.

One thing that people also need to keep in mind is that "Yamnaya" cannot be defined as one culture. It's a broad cultural horizon likely with much linguistic differentiation within itself whereas in my theory this is more Indic in the Southish and more Baltic in the Northish. There is also cord decorated pottery in the area since Sredny Stog and in Yamnaya.

The Uralic word for pig being in Indo-Iranian is something that I bring up from time to time, which is very strong evidence that the Indic I speak of was in the the Volga-Ural region for a long time. Pigs are coming from the West too, which also make sense because Uralic speaking peoples would be even less familiar with it than Pontic-Caspian peoples. There's pig is Sredny Stog, but not in the east. I would also note the non-IE loanwords in Germanic languages revolving around pig farming.

So I guess I'm looking for M269 in early Western Steppe, early West Yamnaya, or anywhere in between.

berun
30-06-16, 18:22
Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N


I'm trying to not put too much in any one aspect of the lexicon.

OK, we are in a forum and we can express our thoughts freely, but triying to do a good scientific analysis, if i would appreciate very much the horse and chariot words but dismissing at the same time those words not supported by the steppe ecosystem I would not work finely. Even with that we have the problem that bears, squirels or firs will not move too far from were they grew up, but chariots and horses can be bought, robbed or shared, they have no clear boundaries.

holderlin
30-06-16, 22:58
Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N



OK, we are in a forum and we can express our thoughts freely, but triying to do a good scientific analysis, if i would appreciate very much the horse and chariot words but dismissing at the same time those words not supported by the steppe ecosystem I would not work finely. Even with that we have the problem that bears, squirels or firs will not move too far from were they grew up, but chariots and horses can be bought, robbed or shared, they have no clear boundaries.

There's steppe in chlc_armenia. Read the thread and look at the data. There's also what appear to be Siberian alleles.

This isn't a hard science, not even close, nor do we have even close to most of the genetic data that's out there. So "good scientific" analysis in this context is completely relative. I've offered a vast array of evidence all of which are in support of what I say. If you want better then you may want to consider physics or chemistry.

I didn't just say "horses" blah like an idiot. I provided a multitude of details about all of the different kinds of evidence for horse domestication for transport on the steppe. Where did they steal or borrow these already domesticated horses from? Who taught them how to make the horse equipment? which by the way had thousands of years of development on the steppe. Why did they do horse sacrifices for thousands of years? The is because they were the first people to domesticate horses for the purpose of transportation, and I'm not even bothering with the historical evidence in this example.

holderlin
30-06-16, 23:01
Which Steppe is in Armenia_Chalco? As far as I see the difference with old CHG is +Levant_N

Yes, specifically there appears to also be contributions from North Eurasian specific Alleles. Although the populations being used are very young in some of the comparisons I've seen.

berun
30-06-16, 23:12
I'm not discussing that chariots and horses were developed by IE... even if carts were already used in Neolithic contexts; I was wondering why more natural lexicon is dismissed when precissely such lexicon is more informative about the IE geography. Chariots, horses and so can be shared, check the Chineses or the Egyptians, they didn't change language.

Were it is supposed to be the Yamnayan DNA in Armenia_Chalco?

holderlin
01-07-16, 05:12
I'm not discussing that chariots and horses were developed by IE... even if carts were already used in Neolithic contexts; I was wondering why more natural lexicon is dismissed when precissely such lexicon is more informative about the IE geography. Chariots, horses and so can be shared, check the Chineses or the Egyptians, they didn't change language.

Were it is supposed to be the Yamnayan DNA in Armenia_Chalco?

Chariots and horses are used because they provide archaeological and historical evidence as well as linguistic. I'm not using horses and chariots as a linguistic argument. And you can maybe use the lexicon to rule out regions that are completely incompatible, but that's about it. Some reconstructions are disputed. Among the stuff that everyone agrees on we can deduce that their environment included forest, grasslands, lake, rivers, and mountains. It was also seasonally cold. That is about it. I'm limiting this to nature. There's a whole host of technological terms that tell us something about the environment as well, but again, it doesn't provide any precision.

It's in the autosomal DNA. The haplogroups are L2, I think.

berun
01-07-16, 06:43
I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...

holderlin
01-07-16, 07:14
I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...

It's not really in the paper. In the admixture plots in the paper you just see a pull towards steppe in chlc Armenia compared to Ancient Iranian and CHG. Check it out. Other people noticed this and ran stats to figure out why. This is what I'm drawing on.

Alan
01-07-16, 12:34
If I'm not mistaken the last Lazaridis paper found out that Proto Indo-Europeans are a mixture of bronze age Iranians and European hunter

gatherers, I think that proves that the homeland of the Proto Indo-European langauge should be in Iran as this will accounts for the

mutual Indo-European, Semitic, Kartvelian and North-East Caucasian lexical borrowings, whereas if the homeland of PIE was to be the

Ukraine we should have had mutual lexical borrowings between PIE and Basque (wich is related to the pre Indo-European languages spoken

during neolithic Europe)
As a matter of fact, there are similar words for numerals, tools and plants between PIE, Proto Kartvelian, Proto Semitic and Proto East-

Caucasian.
All this fits very well with the West Asian origin (probably even Iranian) of R1b-M269 that was found in the earliest Indo-European

cultural sites (Yamnaya...)

The most solidly argued theories about the cradle of the Indo-European (IE) proto-language are 1) the Pontic and 2) the Anatolian. The

first proposed the steppes north of the Black Sea, in what are today south-Ukraine and south-Russia; the second: some region in central or

eastern Anatolia. Both theories allow for contacts with the Caucasus and the indigenous Caucasian languages: north for the first, south

for the second.

As we will see, the Pontic theory is enfeebled by the total absence of any contact between IE and the North-West Caucasian languages

(NWC): Cherkess-Kabard-Abkhaz, which should have been their most immediate neighbours. NWC languages like Cherkess, that in historical

times have occupied the Black Sea coast between Crimea and the Caucasus range, diverge from IE in all respects: typologically, lexically,

phonologically.

The Anatolian theory, on the other hand, explains the profound affinities (typologically, lexically, phonologically) with proto-Semitic,

proto-Kartvelian (South-Caucasian: SC) and proto-Nakh-Daghestani (the North-East Caucasian languages: NEC).

...

The numerals

Kartvelian and IE languages borrowed in prehistorical times a series of numerals from proto-Semitic, especially the numerals 6 and 7. We

thus have shesh and sheva in Hebrew, sitta and sab’a in Arabic, shetta and shub’a in Aramaic, etc.

In the Indo-European family, there is a close parallel: sex and septem in Latin, sechs and sieben in German, sześć and siedem in Polish,

sheshí and septyni in Lithuanian.

And in Kartvelian, 6 is ekvsi in Georgian, usgwa in Svan; 7 is švidi in Georgian, išgwid in Svan.

What is interesting and revealing is that there happened a chassé-croisé of designations of numerals. Thus, in Georgian the Semitic 4

(arb’a in Hebrew) became 8 (rva), while the Georgian 4 (oti) is identical with the IE 8: octo, ahtau, etc…

Moreover, 8 in Indo-European was a dual, something which is visible in Sanskrit, Avestan and Gothic: ahtau. A dual means that 8 designated

“twice 4”, which sends us immediately to the Georgian oti = 4. Oti, if we reconstruct it as *okt– (-i is simply the termination of the

nominative in Georgian), explains why the IE octo, ahtau is a dual. The same mechanism would explain why the Semitic 4 (arb’a in Hebrew)

became 8 (rva) in Kartvelian (Georgian).


...

It is thus perfectly coherent that the Georgian oti = 4, while the IE 8 octo (ahtau etc.) is a dual, that is: 4 x 2 . In the same way, the

Semitic 4 (arb’a in Hebrew) became the Georgian 8 = rva. This also vindicates Gamkrelidze’s theory that the formal identity, in IE

languages, of the numeral 9 with the adjective “new” is not due to mere coincidence: novum-novem, neu-neun, new-nine etc. 9 was simply

opening a new series.

All this indicates that Indo-European must have been formed in the vicinity of Semitic and Kartvelian and possibly other Caucasian

languages. This excludes the possibility of a cradle north of the Black Sea, and totally excludes the Danube area, the Balkans, or any

part of Eastern Europe. Those regions are too far from the Caucasus and from the Semitic languages, and we have seen that in the Neolithic

in today’s Europe the languages might have had a typology similar with today’s Basque, or with the Finnic languages, which have an

agglutinative typology.

It is only the Anatolian hypothesis that explains the borrowings and the many lexical common terms between IE, Kartvelian and Semitic. The

borrowings from Semitic into IE and Kartvelian are too numerous to be listed here. Between IE and Kartvelian we have surprising

correspondences, such as the verbal root *sed– to sit, to stay, to remain (identical in IE and Kartvelian), ordinal numerals such as the

Georgian pirveli (first), which cannot come from a Slavic language, with which Georgian had no contact by the time of the first written

texts in the Vth century.

Numerous are also the lexical archaic correspondences between IE and the North-East Caucasian languages (Chechen, Avar etc.), while Indo-

European borrowings into Basque or Finnic are all recent and can be easily traced historically.

All this shows that proto-Indo-European was formed in Eastern Anatolia, in the vicinity of the Semites and Caucasians.
https://cabalinkabul.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/anatolia-and-the-caucasus-the-cradle-of-the-indo-europeans/

I don't believe in the Anatolian theory anymore, if the northern Black Sea is not the source for the reason of Basque being different, then Anatolia (that is the homeland of the Basque language) is not either. However I am very pro Iranian_Plateau homeland because this, is the only group there which we don't know about what language they spoke, and who could have had contact to most of the above listed groups + even Uralic if we believe that just like Haplogroup N, Uralic came from South_Central Asia.

The other theory is of course the Black/Caspian Sea theory in which Iranian Plateau is just a region that build half of the ancestry of Indo Europeans but evolved in the Steppes to what it was. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/clear.gif Edit Post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/editpost.php?p=4559127&do=editpost) http://www.theapricity.com/forum/clear.gif Reply (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4559127&noquote=1) http://www.theapricity.com/forum/clear.gif Reply With Quote (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4559127) http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/multiquote_40b.png (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4559127) (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/report.php?p=4559127)

Alan
01-07-16, 12:52
Yes I see this, but we have a lot of EBA and MBA samples that shift towards steppe from EBA->MBA. Just means there was even more steppe earlier that we would have expected, and the Late Bronze Age shown in the plot below is the furthest shifted towards the steppe of all ancient Armenian samples. I don't think this is shown in the chart from the paper we're discussing. I did find one such chart but it's hard to read.
http://i.imgur.com/CFJj4PO.png?1


As we already agreed on, the EHG we see in Calcolthic, EBA and MBA Armenia equals that found in CHG. The map doesn't seem to show any CHG samples. This seems rather to be some sort of CHG admixture than real Steppe. Even David admitted that the "EHG" in Calcolthic and EBA Armenia is not Steppe derived but more archaic. It could be that "Steppe" influence increase from EBA to MBA but that isn't important for the question how the EBA Armenia samples turned out with R1b. Because exactly this sample has a decrease of the EHG component in comparison to Calcolthic Armenia. While Calcolthic Armenia looks like a threeway mix of Iran_Calcolthic, Anatolian_Calcolthic and CHG in which CHG is obviously the strongest part. the same does EBA Armenia, with the difference of having more of the Iran_Calcolthic.


The light pigment is no surprise to me in Chalc Armenia. This also comes with SIBERIAN alleles. Explain that one.

I fail to see how Siberian alleles explain Steppic ancestry, if there is no Siberian alleles found in Yamna at all. This is a special case and chalcolthic Armenia could have gained it via the Iranian_Plateau route.


Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia.
That is indeed the case and logical is it the most active part of the ancient world, of course folks from the less advanced Steppes come down to West Asia for a better living much like immigrants do so today in Europe, and than it was just next door to the Steppes too. However this strong Steppe influence didn't start until the late Bronze Age. As the genetic data proves.


The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem.
The problem is that you fail to see, or didn't realize that there is no WHG or EHG influx into West Asia at all and the levels of WHG there are consistent from beggining the Neolithic to Bronze Age, in fact we see a decrease of the WHG like ancestry. EHG also existed in Mesolithic Iran. I don't know if you missed it, the authors come to the conclusion that Iran_Meso is basically Iran_Neo+ EHG. And this EHG came obviously from South_Central Asia.


If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand the problem. Look at Modern Iran, it’s the same as ancient Armenia, and we know exactly how modern Iran came to be populated.






You don't see allot of things, but I fail to see how ancient Armenia is like modern Iran. ancient Armenia is indeed most similar to North Caucasian and Iranic speakers but the reason for that is not Steppic input, the reason is that Armenia was repopulated in Iron Age by a more EEF and almost non EHG shifted and ironically Indo European population from Phrygia.


Yeah. It's R2. Stop saying "dubious" it's annoying.

Allot of things you say are annoying to me and not correct at all. Dubious might be annoying to you but certanly it isn't out of truth.



I'm sorry but you're retarded.
Thanks for the compliment I add some uninformed idiot to it and give it back.


Why would you say such a thing when you don't know what you're talking about.:laughing: you obviously are annoyed because of lack of arguments.




Assuming we're going to completely forget about the fact that the Avestas themselves are localized geographically in Central Asia/North Eastern Iran. Compare Avestan to Sanskrit. Then compare both of these to West and East Iranian languages. What I say is absolutely correct. It's not a bad thing. Avestan is much, much closer to Indic than it is to the earliest attested West and East Iranian languages. This tells us that Indo-Iranian was likely none other than an ancient Indo-Aryan/Indic. A very base archaic Indic in the Mitanni is the earliest attested Indo-Iranian language. Why would this piss you off? The confidence of your repudiation would actually imply the reverse of what you insist about me, being that you are the one who is truly in a fantasy. And I really don’t know why you ignore all of this evidence. IE is a language and culture, not a haplogroup. If you ignore the language and the culture then you've lost sight of what you're looking for in the first place.

We have very early written history in Asia. This is something we don’t have in Europe, so actually IE’s intrusive nature to Asia is in many ways even more certain than that in Europe. I know you don’t like to listen to those things, but they’re there none the less. Do you really think that Iranian pre-dated Elam? Do you realize how absurd and retarded this would sound to a historian or archaeologist? Iranian isn’t even attested until like the 8th century BC in Assyrian records. A semitic language mind you. Not Sumerian. Assyrians were expanding into the Zagros and encountered them. Do you really think that Iranian speakers had anything to do with Sumer? That they were involved in the Uruk expansions? Or even less that they were the expanding Sumerians? These notions are truly ridiculous.

The entire region is plastered with non-IE since pre-history. Urartian, Semetic, Elamite, Hattic, Hurrian, Sumerian blah blah blah. The Indoeuropeans’ intrusive nature to the region is crystal clear in every decipherable document that we have from the period. They attest to Hittite replacing Hattic (and Assyrian), Armenian absorbs the populations and languages of IE Luwains and Urartians, Iranian expands over the earlier territory of Elam, and now there’s no doubt that Indic replaced a vast expanse of what was likely Dravidian speaking people. The problem is that your evidence tends to be very singular, inadequate to explain all the historical outcomes, and sometimes wrong all together. If anyone has their head in the sand it’s surely you. How can you not see that Iranian is clearly what became of steppe Indo-Iranian that did not move into India? This mythical R1b that you’re looking for will not be enough to change all of these conclusions nor the evidence that leads us to them. And guess what? THE GENETICS ARE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS MODEL AS WELL. This isn’t a white supremacists agenda. Most of the Asian origin theories have been abandoned or defeated so many times that they’re not seriously considered anymore. Do you think this is all nationalism? Because if you really do then you’re surely the only nationalist in the room.

I repeat again, after calling Iranic tongues a bastardized variant of Indo_Aryan, don't expect me to take you serious in anyway. For that comment you would be considered the laughing stock of linguistics. You don't even realize how idiotic this statement even was. Both Iranic and Indo_Aryan have gone through their own share of loudshift from obviously one common root. However calling one being the descend of the other, that only shows the degree of your knowledge.



I think it's obvious that AG2 and AG3 are mixtures of Villabruna and MA-1. Maybe I'm missing something.

You are missing allot I assure you that


I asked where in the paper is that that you say about Yamnayan DNA in Armenian Chalco, I'm not finding it...

There is nothing of that kind in the paper, all he sees is Armenia Calolthic being more shifted towards EHG (actually towards CHG since it is in the same direction) in comparison to Iran_Neo wich makes geographically sense and he interprets wildly things into it.

Alan
01-07-16, 13:02
And I'm sorry everyone, but this had everything to do with horses. In all of the earliest attested IE languages we have mythical horse driven chariot riders. Not only that, but we have the earliest evidence for chariots in Iranian Sintashta,

You see and this is the biggest problem with you, you fail to read other peoples comments throughout the thread, therefore miss at least ~50% of the information and come out making bald idiothic statements.

If you even bothered reading the freakin study for once you would have realized that the authors do not see Sintashta as source of the Iranic languages at all but more like a reflection of an early Indo_Iranian culture that got extinct. They point with the finger to Srubna and related cultures.

Chariots are basically war wagons driven by horse, nothing more and nothing less. Wagons are known throughout Neolithic as well ancient Bronze Age cultures of Western Asia. Kura Araxes had wagons, so did Maykop, inside of the Kurgans.

hey are also remarkable for the production of wheeled vehicles (wagons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon) and carts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cart)), which were sometimes included in burial kurgans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan).[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-Edens55-15)

And about the Horse statement, most of these statements of Sintashta being the first were made in the far past before other cultures were even studied well and the authors of these books made several errors and put even for their time allot of bold lies into it. I made at least several comments about this but since you seem to be too cool to take them into consideration you will always make halfbaked, half informed bold statements.


But in the hope that you see it this time.


Before the Kura-Araxes period, horse bones were not found in Transcaucasia. Later, beginning about 3300 BCE, they became widespread, with signs of domestication.



Sintashta culture

Period
Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age)


Dates
2100–1800 BCE






And to take any doubts away, that you might have missed it again.

3300 BCE > 2100 BCE

bicicleur
01-07-16, 14:12
Yes I see this, but we have a lot of EBA and MBA samples that shift towards steppe from EBA->MBA. Just means there was even more steppe earlier that we would have expected, and the Late Bronze Age shown in the plot below is the furthest shifted towards the steppe of all ancient Armenian samples. I don't think this is shown in the chart from the paper we're discussing. I did find one such chart but it's hard to read.
http://i.imgur.com/CFJj4PO.png?1

The light pigment is no surprise to me in Chalc Armenia. This also comes with SIBERIAN alleles. Explain that one.

Chalcolithic Armenia is actually starting to look to me like the earliest region of strong steppe influence in West Asia. The earliest and largest influx of WHG/EHG into West Asia is very important for the PIE problem. If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand the problem. Look at Modern Iran, it’s the same as ancient Armenia, and we know exactly how modern Iran came to be populated.

I would guess .. during early Maikop period a movement across the Caucasus south to north .. during late Yamna, early Sintashta a movement across the Caucasus north to south

Alan
01-07-16, 14:29
I would guess .. during early Maikop period a movement across the Caucasus south to north .. during late Yamna, early Sintashta a movement across the Caucasus north to south

^ this

As said in the past my theory is a network of cultures, there was much more interaction between the Steppes, East Anatolia, Caucasus, Iranian Plateau, South_Central Asia as many people realize. But in archeologic point of view from Neolithic/Calcolthic to Middle Bronze Age the influx from South to North is evident, while towards 2000-1500 BC, not so much from archeologic but historic point of view, more influx from North to South gets evident (Indo_Iranian speakers).

Angela
01-07-16, 16:33
Guys, it's a very interesting discussion, and I, for one, like a lively debate, but please stop with the name calling and insults. There's no need for that, and often it just escalates until complaints are lodged. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about...

Thanks.

MOESAN
01-07-16, 17:56
Chariots and horses are used because they provide archaeological and historical evidence as well as linguistic. I'm not using horses and chariots as a linguistic argument. And you can maybe use the lexicon to rule out regions that are completely incompatible, but that's about it. Some reconstructions are disputed. Among the stuff that everyone agrees on we can deduce that their environment included forest, grasslands, lake, rivers, and mountains. It was also seasonally cold. That is about it. I'm limiting this to nature. There's a whole host of technological terms that tell us something about the environment as well, but again, it doesn't provide any precision.

It's in the autosomal DNA. The haplogroups are L2, I think.

These three men were in the same place, so the survey did not extrapolate too much concerning the whole Armenian ChL. But it seems this makes a link with the Indus Valley, at first sight. The 'steppic' supposed auDNA could have been picked in Central Asia? Or Armenia was at these times a crossing point of a lot of culture, linked to material "industrial" progresses? It seems at this time there begun to be a lot of cultural exchanges and autosomes exchanges too, on every direction concerning elite burials! I keep in mined the few Maykop men studied by metrics were drifted towards old pops of today Turkmenistan southern Caspian area. Archeology seems in accord for exchanges between BMAC and Harappa too.

MOESAN
01-07-16, 18:02
Some archeologists would link Catacombs to early I-Ians, and their mtDNA seems very "russian" or "steppic" at least: an eastern Caspian trail? Their metrics seemed mixed enough. But I'm not sure of the link with previous Maykop. All the way it seems to me South Caspian shores and promontories saw a lot of traffic between Uruk and Kura-Araxes and maybe later! Xhat is not to simplify our "work"...

berun
01-07-16, 23:12
OK I understand now the pursue for Armenian_Chalco being a Yamnayan: they must be steppic otherwise what the R1b guy of Kura-Araxes would imply...? that maybe R1b in the steppes came with the CHG/Iran_Calcho?... so the exclusivity of IE R1b would be lost? opening even new doors to wild theories anti-Yamnaya?

A. Papadimitriou
02-07-16, 00:28
OK I understand now the pursue for Armenian_Chalco being a Yamnayan: they must be steppic otherwise what the R1b guy of Kura-Araxes would imply...? that maybe R1b in the steppes came with the CHG/Iran_Calcho?... so the exclusivity of IE R1b would be lost? opening even new doors to wild theories anti-Yamnaya?
Did they notice that he was.. black?

holderlin
02-07-16, 16:53
These three men were in the same place, so the survey did not extrapolate too much concerning the whole Armenian ChL. But it seems this makes a link with the Indus Valley, at first sight. The 'steppic' supposed auDNA could have been picked in Central Asia? Or Armenia was at these times a crossing point of a lot of culture, linked to material "industrial" progresses? It seems at this time there begun to be a lot of cultural exchanges and autosomes exchanges too, on every direction concerning elite burials! I keep in mined the few Maykop men studied by metrics were drifted towards old pops of today Turkmenistan southern Caspian area. Archeology seems in accord for exchanges between BMAC and Harappa too.

I agree about Harappa and Iran. In fact I'm betting they're both inhabited by genetically very similar people. I think I said R2 for IRV Y-HGs.

Yes, ancient Armenia could be explained in other ways than steppe, but I think steppe is the most likely given everything else we know.

holderlin
02-07-16, 17:59
As we already agreed on, the EHG we see in Calcolthic, EBA and MBA Armenia equals that found in CHG. The map doesn't seem to show any CHG samples. This seems rather to be some sort of CHG admixture than real Steppe. Even David admitted that the "EHG" in Calcolthic and EBA Armenia is not Steppe derived but more archaic. It could be that "Steppe" influence increase from EBA to MBA but that isn't important for the question how the EBA Armenia samples turned out with R1b. Because exactly this sample has a decrease of the EHG component in comparison to Calcolthic Armenia. While Calcolthic Armenia looks like a threeway mix of Iran_Calcolthic, Anatolian_Calcolthic and CHG in which CHG is obviously the strongest part. the same does EBA Armenia, with the difference of having more of the Iran_Calcolthic.

In the admixture chart in Fig. 1, there is no EHG in ancient Iran, but there's EHG in CHG, which makes sense because it's closest to the EHG homeland. In Fig. 4, which looks like different admixture software, we do see EHG in chl and Neo Iran. We also see EHG in more recent Iranian samples, but MLBA Armenia has the most EHG between CHG, all of Ancient Iran, Chl Armenia, and EBA Armenia. The EHG in Armenia could not have come from CHG alone even if it was a complete replacement, which didn't happen because we also see neo Levant in ancient Armenia. It's only your opinion that this had nothing to do with R1b, and in fact, with what we currently know it is most likely that this had everything to do with the appearance of R1b in Armenia. Anatolian chl actually moves from Neo Anatolian towards Armenia and Iran. This looks to me more like Armenia moving into Anatolia in between neo and chl.




I fail to see how Siberian alleles explain Steppic ancestry, if there is no Siberian alleles found in Yamna at all. This is a special case and chalcolthic Armenia could have gained it via the Iranian_Plateau route.

I'm not sure that we don't see this signal in Yamnaya, but we likely see it in ancient steppe populations in general. Yes there are other ways to explain this, but they are far less likely given everything we know.


That is indeed the case and logical is it the most active part of the ancient world, of course folks from the less advanced Steppes come down to West Asia for a better living much like immigrants do so today in Europe, and than it was just next door to the Steppes too. However this strong Steppe influence didn't start until the late Bronze Age. As the genetic data proves.

The genetic data shows the highest steppe earliest in Armenia. For you to say that this could only have been during the late bronze age is your opinion, and not supported by a vast swath of additional data. The rest of this post is nonsense.





The problem is that you fail to see, or didn't realize that there is no WHG or EHG influx into West Asia at all and the levels of WHG there are consistent from beggining the Neolithic to Bronze Age, in fact we see a decrease of the WHG like ancestry. EHG also existed in Mesolithic Iran. I don't know if you missed it, the authors come to the conclusion that Iran_Meso is basically Iran_Neo+ EHG. And this EHG came obviously from South_Central Asia.

There appears to be some conflicting or vague data with regard to EHG in chl and neo Iran. And I believe in data that shows EHG in neo and chl Iran they are making more assumptions in an effort to conform a more complex model.


You don't see allot of things, but I fail to see how ancient Armenia is like modern Iran. ancient Armenia is indeed most similar to North Caucasian and Iranic speakers but the reason for that is not Steppic input, the reason is that Armenia was repopulated in Iron Age by a more EEF and almost non EHG shifted and ironically Indo European population from Phrygia.

No, I mean literally on the admixture chart. Recent Iranians are the same as ancient Armenians. This has nothing to do with Modern Armenia. You're not even making sense now.







:laughing: you obviously are annoyed because of lack of arguments.

I think the situation is actually the opposite.


I repeat again, after calling Iranic tongues a bastardized variant of Indo_Aryan, don't expect me to take you serious in anyway. For that comment you would be considered the laughing stock of linguistics. You don't even realize how idiotic this statement even was. Both Iranic and Indo_Aryan have gone through their own share of loudshift from obviously one common root. However calling one being the descend of the other, that only shows the degree of your knowledge.

This was a thought experiment. I was thinking out loud and I already said that I regretted my word choice. The point was that Indo-Iranian must have been closer to Indic that anything else, and I’m not the only one who says this. This also helps to explain the apparent lack of euro genes from Sintashta and Andronovo in ANI. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. Please compare Old Persian to Sanskrit, then look at the Mitanni Indic words.

You get so weird about this stuff. If someone were to tell me that Baltic was less bastardized than English compared to PIE I would be interested, not offended.


You are missing allot I assure you that

How am I the one missing things when I practically explained all of the evidence that you’re ignoring vs. the small minuscule amount of evidence that you take into consideration?



There is nothing of that kind in the paper, all he sees is Armenia Calolthic being more shifted towards EHG (actually towards CHG since it is in the same direction) in comparison to Iran_Neo wich makes geographically sense and he interprets wildly things into it.

The first part is right, the second is not.

holderlin
02-07-16, 18:30
You see and this is the biggest problem with you, you fail to read other peoples comments throughout the thread, therefore miss at least ~50% of the information and come out making bald idiothic statements.

If you even bothered reading the freakin study for once you would have realized that the authors do not see Sintashta as source of the Iranic languages at all but more like a reflection of an early Indo_Iranian culture that got extinct. They point with the finger to Srubna and related cultures.

Sintashta certainly spoke at the very least an Indo-Iranian language. They are genetically very similar (nearly identical) to Scythians and there is archaeological continuity all the way to what we know were Scythian remains. The main genetic variations we're dealing with in this context are levels of euro farmer signals, which can easily be explained by invoking earlier steppe cultures like Abashevo.


Chariots are basically war wagons driven by horse, nothing more and nothing less. Wagons are known throughout Neolithic as well ancient Bronze Age cultures of Western Asia. Kura Araxes had wagons, so did Maykop, inside of the Kurgans.

I don't agree that the spoked wheeled chariot is the same thing as a wagon. Yes, wagons were everywhere by this time, but the spoked wheeled horse drawn chariot is something unique. The ritual and mythology of Iron Age IE speaking peoples attests to this as does the middle bronze age historical record. Not to mention the chariot burials in Sintashta itself.


And about the Horse statement, most of these statements of Sintashta being the first were made in the far past before other cultures were even studied well and the authors of these books made several errors and put even for their time allot of bold lies into it. I made at least several comments about this but since you seem to be too cool to take them into consideration you will always make halfbaked, half informed bold statements.


But in the hope that you see it this time.




And to take any doubts away, that you might have missed it again.

3300 BCE > 2100 BCE

I really try to use only the evidence that isn't hotly disputed as you can see in my posts about the reconstructed language.

Sintashta is the first evidence of spoked wheeld horse drawn chariots. This is a fact. For the origin of horse domestication we go to the Pontic steppe. Until we get new evidence, this isn't disputed in circles of experts.

holderlin
02-07-16, 18:35
@Alan

I’m looking at the PCA and admixture chart in Figure 1. In the PCA chart I’m looking at ancient Iran, then I’m looking at ancient Armenia. Ancient Armenia looked to me like Ancient Iranian peoples who had mixed with Euro-steppe. I understand that this may not be the case, but remember I’m trying to reconcile this with all of the other evidence that I know exists, in the real world. We also see Chalcolithic Anatolia move towards Armenia/Iran, which appears to be resulting from movements from Armenia. So I’m seeing proto-Anatolian moving to its seat in Anatolian whence it pops up in the historic record in around 2000BC on the nose. Then I see that there are favorable D stat comparisons to younger steppe populations with the accompanying euro along with Siberian teeth and hair characteristics alleles or allele frequencies.

We then see an R1b. Where do we find a ton of very ancient R1b? The steppe and Europe.

So I’m saying that the most likely explanation is steppe with a proto-Anatolian language, and I think even you would have to agree, but you don’t, which I think is strange. Anatolian also appears to have evolved alongside a Caucasian language. It just so happens that in the Armenian region, and where IE’s may have passed through in the Caucuses, sits the earliest attested Caucasian languages.

This makes perfect sense to me, and I'm sure to others. I then ask myself how would this change the Yamnaya=PIE model? The most parsimonious is to move PIE back and create a differentiation scheme that’s also consistent.

At the very least you should understand and accept my reasoning because these are all facts that I’m merely conforming a model to. And I believe this model makes the most sense.

MarkoZ
02-07-16, 20:45
We then see an R1b. Where do we find a ton of very ancient R1b? The steppe and Europe.


However, one still has to account for R-M343* in Kurdish and Iranian groups which cannot have come from the Eneolithic Ponto-Caspian. This has a significant implications concerning the vector of R1b's dispersal, linguistic matters aside.

holderlin
02-07-16, 21:49
However, one still has to account for R-M343* in Kurdish and Iranian groups which cannot have come from the Eneolithic Ponto-Caspian. This has a significant implications concerning the vector of R1b's dispersal, linguistic matters aside.

Yes, I know. It's an old subclade. Although we still have the fact that the oldest R1b samples are being found on the steppe and in Europe and we also have an R* in ancient Siberia. So the current data is still hinting at the steppe or europe, bronze age expansions aside.

MOESAN
02-07-16, 23:40
I think as Y-R1 was surely born in Central Asia or not too far, some specific subclades reach Iran and Near-East-South Caucasus through the South Caspian Sea; some gave birth to the famous V88 and yet the precise place of this has to be proved what does not disprove its passage through Near East, others stayed South the Caucasus. But these above mentioned clades are not the ancestors of supposed "steppic" L23 or Z2103 or L51. Just a feeling, not proved at this stage.
It seems the bulk of these last three subclades lived their destiny without too numerous others Y-great haplos among them (R1a, J2 by instance) the R1b-M415 alias L278 of Kura-Araxes Bronze is too poorly defined or of a too "old nature" to tell us too much. Kura-Araxes seems a synthetic culture envolving Uruk people, Caucasians "autochtones" and perhaps some eastern influence of Eastern Caspian, so we are still in balance here.
Concerning EHG genes among CHG, my feeling is that it could be the result of ancient shared ancestral DNA rather than a typical admixture. All the way we see that as time passed the pops drifted and "specialized" or "localized" their auDNA and genuine Iran Neol would have had very little EHG DNA stayed in them, so the new recent EHG DNA has to be come from somewhere else, for I think. But I cannot exclude an other geographical origine than the Pontic Steppes even if it has my preference to date.

Alan
03-07-16, 01:16
Holderin I have no dersire or time to discuss this any further. Just my adivce don't look just at the admixture charts, read the text and even some of the lazaridis tweets. In the text they say Iran_Meso is basically Iran_Neo + something EHG like.

MOESAN
03-07-16, 16:11
Holderin I have no dersire or time to discuss this any further. Just my adivce don't look just at the admixture charts, read the text and even some of the lazaridis tweets. In the text they say Iran_Meso is basically Iran_Neo + something EHG like.

Yes, but Mesoi Iran is not Neol Iran! Either the last ones are not the exact descendants of the former, or they washed their genome after generations (it's a common phenomenon since Palleolithic: specialization and drift); it seems Iran Chalcol was poor in EHG too.. THese Armenian Chalco guys had also some EEFlike or Levant-Anatolianslike DNA, which added to their rather southeastern haplos Y-L1a, show a very puzzling sketche of the elites of the time! AT first sight it doesn't point to a pure Iran pop introgression. But at the difference than others I don't conclude too quickly here what make a boring forumer of mylself: eastern males could have mixed with females come from other horizons in a period of heavy changes and material progresses which could have acted as crossings promotors.
I know, we are looking for simple enough shcemes and realtiy is showing us very more complicated things concerning some individuals who are not by force the most representative of the whole of the pops in cause at those times. And the clannic system of the male elites of those times make my own bets very unsure: my intuitive "pure" Y-R1b-preL23 come only through North Caspian could be parlty an error because some clans (L23>>L51) could have reached the Pontic region through Caucasus as well preserved males clans (# Z2103 ones), spite the melting-pot region they would have crossed!
So, let's wait for even more DNA (famous song).

Alan
04-07-16, 03:30
Yes, I know. It's an old subclade. Although we still have the fact that the oldest R1b samples are being found on the steppe and in Europe and we also have an R* in ancient Siberia. So the current data is still hinting at the steppe or europe, bronze age expansions aside.

Once again no we do not have the oldest subclades in the Steppes. Please stop giving misinformations.

The oldest up to date sampled R1a and R1bs are in the Steppes but they are not the oldest subclades means they are all upstream to basal R1a l62 and R1b m343. Which have been found among Kurds and on the Iranian Plateau. Those therefore can not be explained via Steppes, because EVEN if they were found in Eneolithic Samara they were not part of the Indo European expansion from the Steppes.

Tomenable
04-07-16, 22:32
Coming back to Basal Eurasians, and their original Y-DNA haplogroups:

What do you think about this model (with haplogroup CT splitting into DE and CF before leaving Africa, and then D and E migrating from Africa to Arabia - becoming "Basal Eurasians" later on - while C and F migrating to the Levant, admixing with Neanderthals):

Direct link to map (https://s31.postimg.org/3z2jdt3i3/CT_DE_CF_ekspansje.png)

https://s31.postimg.org/3z2jdt3i3/CT_DE_CF_ekspansje.png

holderlin
04-07-16, 23:30
the oldest R1b samples are being found on the steppe and in Europe and we also have an R* in ancient Siberia. So the current data is still hinting at the steppe or europe, bronze age expansions aside.


Once again no we do not have the oldest subclades in the Steppes. Please stop giving misinformations.

This is what I'm talking about. You're not reading what I wrote. You're just making stuff up. The oldest R1b samples have in fact been found on the steppe and in Europe.

I'm aware of the modern distributions of R1b and R1a subclades.

Tomenable
04-07-16, 23:49
The oldest sample of R1b known so far is from North Italy (Villabruna): 14,180 - 13,780 years old.

The oldest sample of R1a known so far is from Karelia (Red Deer Island): 8,800 - 7,950 years old.

bicicleur
04-07-16, 23:57
Coming back to Basal Eurasians, and their original Y-DNA haplogroups:

What do you think about this model (with haplogroup CT splitting into DE and CF before leaving Africa, and then D and E migrating from Africa to Arabia - becoming "Basal Eurasians" later on - while C and F migrating to the Levant, admixing with Neanderthals):

Direct link to map (https://s31.postimg.org/3z2jdt3i3/CT_DE_CF_ekspansje.png)

https://s31.postimg.org/3z2jdt3i3/CT_DE_CF_ekspansje.png

the Nubyan Complex existed in southern Arabia > 106 ka
these were the ancestors of the modern Eurasians
that was before the BT TMRCA
so this was haplo BT
and haplo B and E are both backmigrations to Africa
the Neanderthal admixture happened 60-55 ka
that was after the DE and CF splits, so not necesarily all 4 clades got Neanderthal admixture
actually 4.5 Mota E in Ethiopia didn't have Neanderthal admix

the humans that lived in the Levant 110-90 ka did admix with Neanderthals, but went extinct
it is their admixed DNA that was found in the Altaï Neanderthals

Tomenable
05-07-16, 00:32
the humans that lived in the Levant 110-90 ka did admix with Neanderthals, but went extinct
it is their admixed DNA that was found in the Altaï Neanderthals

Are you sure that the Nubyan Complex did not end up like this as well ???


the Nubyan Complex existed in southern Arabia > 106 ka
these were the ancestors of the modern Eurasians

See above.

IMO they weren't ancestors of modern Eurasians, but a "failed" population, which got extinct. They were the ones who got slaughtered by Neanderthals or / and by the Toba Eruption 74,000 years ago, alongside with those from the Levant.

Some of them made it to Australia, and remnants of their mtDNA were found near Kow Swamp and Lake Mungo.

It was mtDNA which was not descended from "mitochondrial Eve", but diverged shortly before Eve.

holderlin
05-07-16, 03:22
The oldest sample of R1b known so far is from North Italy (Villabruna): 14,180 - 13,780 years old.

The oldest sample of R1a known so far is from Karelia (Red Deer Island): 8,800 - 7,950 years old.

Yes, thank you.

Not to mention all of the Bronze age R1b/a in Europe and the R1b/a on the steppe spanning from mesolithic to bronze age.

Angela
06-07-16, 18:58
Razib Khan has a piece up on the paper. It starts off with some very fulsome praise for Iosif Lazaridis.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-great-human-disruptions/#comment-1480355

"He should frame it; it's quite some accolade. :)

"One can appreciate a work of art on two levels....on some level we acknowledge physical beauty when we see it, before we even think it.*

Another level of appreciation is narrower, and that is one where you have awareness of the ingenuity of technique, the deep virtuosity and fluency of execution. This aspect of understanding aesthetics is naturally delimited to those with equivalent skills, or whose skills aspire toward the plane of the masters...Reading Iosif Lazaridis’ The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only) you can evaluate on both levels. The results are broadly accessible, but the depth of the analysis is clear to anyone who has ever attempted something analogous. These papers coming out of David Reich’s (https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome.html) lab have a certain template, but they are definitely not paint-by-numbers. For those who are interested in technical details, you have to read the supplements (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/16360/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/059311-1.pdf)."

I don't aspire to that plane, but I think I know enough to appreciate it. :)

As to the substance:
"Ancient DNA has revealed that genetic variation in the human past has been characterized by very strong discontinuities, both over time and space."

"It turns out that a majority of the ancestry of modern Europeans is likely exogenous to the continent over the last ~10,000 years. "

"The evidence which is coming back clearly is that pre-modern populations exhibited a great deal of genetic differentiation over even small distances, and, that differentiation could persist for thousands of years."

"Basically, all West Eurasian populations today can be modeled to a first approximation as a mixture of four ancestral groups which flourished on the order of ~10,000 years ago."

I think most people would agree with that. Some of his other claims I could quibble with, such as:

"Between group proportions of variation on the order of 10% of the total variance, what you see between Europeans and Han Chinese, were not atypical for nearby peoples in the past."

As someone pointed out in the comments, the fst between Europeans and Chinese is smaller than that.

"These two groups seem to have stumbled upon agriculture very near to each other at similar times.Where they independent events? I suspect that they weren’t. I’m not implying here cultural diffusion. There is evidence of independent domestication of landraces in the Zagros. Rather, these two populations were part of a broader network of trade connections within a similar ecological landscape. It was not coincidental that both stumbled upon agriculture. Likely there was diffusion between the two of similar cultural precursors to agriculture. Their location in such proximity and emergence onto the world scene can not be coincidence, though the details are to be worked out."

There had to have been cultural diffusion, and after the very early Neolithic some demic diffusion too, or how did the farmers who left for Europe get the full complement of domesticated animals that are the hallmark of the "other" Neolithic. How did Anatolian Neolithic get its Levantine Neolithic, and vice versa. How, also, can the EN be modeled with either some CHG or some Iran Neolithic, at least the Neolithic that wound up in Europe, if not Cardial?

I also don't think they "stumbled" onto it. They were in the right place at the right time, and human ingenuity and perseverance did the rest.

Khan also reiterates once more that all these migrations must have included inter-group conflict. Perhaps, but maybe not always or not to the same extent in each one.

I'm also not sure if he means to say all of yDna Haplo "E" originated in West Eurasia, or just a big chunk of the downstream clades. the ones present in Egypt, the Horn, North Africa, etc. Certainly, it has implications for discussions of Afro-Asiatic.

bicicleur
06-07-16, 20:11
he names 4 cornerstone populations as the paper does, but he replaces the Levantine neolithic by EEF, which acording to the paper is a mixture of Levant N, Iran N and some WHG
the identity of the Anatolian/European farmer remains a mystery to me, it doesn't match Levant N nor Iran N
also, what strikes me : over 60 % of Anatolian/European farmer were G2a2 while none of them have been found in the whole study

I find this interesting : The genetic differentiation began once the expansion phase ceased, and groups began to struggle for existence at the Malthusian limit.

once farmers settle, they stop moving and they become isolated
is this why European farmers were so quickly and easily replaced by the mobile corded ware people?

my opinion on haplo E and Afro-Asiatic is here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32412-Natufian-E1b1b1-spoke-proto-Afroasiatic

Alan
07-07-16, 12:24
Razib Khan has a piece up on the paper. It starts off with some very fulsome praise for Iosif Lazaridis.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-great-human-disruptions/#comment-1480355

"He should frame it; it's quite some accolade. :)

"One can appreciate a work of art on two levels....on some level we acknowledge physical beauty when we see it, before we even think it.*

Another level of appreciation is narrower, and that is one where you have awareness of the ingenuity of technique, the deep virtuosity and fluency of execution. This aspect of understanding aesthetics is naturally delimited to those with equivalent skills, or whose skills aspire toward the plane of the masters...Reading Iosif Lazaridis’ The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only) you can evaluate on both levels. The results are broadly accessible, but the depth of the analysis is clear to anyone who has ever attempted something analogous. These papers coming out of David Reich’s (https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome.html) lab have a certain template, but they are definitely not paint-by-numbers. For those who are interested in technical details, you have to read the supplements (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/16360/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/059311-1.pdf)."

I don't aspire to that plane, but I think I know enough to appreciate it. :)

As to the substance:
"Ancient DNA has revealed that genetic variation in the human past has been characterized by very strong discontinuities, both over time and space."

"It turns out that a majority of the ancestry of modern Europeans is likely exogenous to the continent over the last ~10,000 years. "

"The evidence which is coming back clearly is that pre-modern populations exhibited a great deal of genetic differentiation over even small distances, and, that differentiation could persist for thousands of years."

"Basically, all West Eurasian populations today can be modeled to a first approximation as a mixture of four ancestral groups which flourished on the order of ~10,000 years ago."

I think most people would agree with that. Some of his other claims I could quibble with, such as:

"Between group proportions of variation on the order of 10% of the total variance, what you see between Europeans and Han Chinese, were not atypical for nearby peoples in the past."

As someone pointed out in the comments, the fst between Europeans and Chinese is smaller than that.

"These two groups seem to have stumbled upon agriculture very near to each other at similar times.Where they independent events? I suspect that they weren’t. I’m not implying here cultural diffusion. There is evidence of independent domestication of landraces in the Zagros. Rather, these two populations were part of a broader network of trade connections within a similar ecological landscape. It was not coincidental that both stumbled upon agriculture. Likely there was diffusion between the two of similar cultural precursors to agriculture. Their location in such proximity and emergence onto the world scene can not be coincidence, though the details are to be worked out."

There had to have been cultural diffusion, and after the very early Neolithic some demic diffusion too, or how did the farmers who left for Europe get the full complement of domesticated animals that are the hallmark of the "other" Neolithic. How did Anatolian Neolithic get its Levantine Neolithic, and vice versa. How, also, can the EN be modeled with either some CHG or some Iran Neolithic, at least the Neolithic that wound up in Europe, if not Cardial?

I also don't think they "stumbled" onto it. They were in the right place at the right time, and human ingenuity and perseverance did the rest.

Khan also reiterates once more that all these migrations must have included inter-group conflict. Perhaps, but maybe not always or not to the same extent in each one.

I'm also not sure if he means to say all of yDna Haplo "E" originated in West Eurasia, or just a big chunk of the downstream clades. the ones present in Egypt, the Horn, North Africa, etc. Certainly, it has implications for discussions of Afro-Asiatic.

Network of trade is a key point and I say this implies also to the Indo EUropeans. What we call the PIE were probably a network of cultures in close contact.

Alan
07-07-16, 12:27
he names 4 cornerstone populations as the paper does, but he replaces the Levantine neolithic by EEF, which acording to the paper is a mixture of Levant N, Iran N and some WHGant N nor Iran N
also, what strikes me : over 60 % of Anatolian/European farmer were G2a2 while none
the identity of the Anatolian/European farmer remains a mystery to me, it doesn't match Lev of them have been found in the whole study

I find this interesting : The genetic differentiation began once the expansion phase ceased, and groups began to struggle for existence at the Malthusian limit.

once farmers settle, they stop moving and they become isolated
is this why European farmers were so quickly and easily replaced by the mobile corded ware people?

my opinion on haplo E and Afro-Asiatic is here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32412-Natufian-E1b1b1-spoke-proto-Afroasiatic

Indeed you can't model, West Eurasia just based on these four cornerstones. Levant_N themselves seem to be basically Natufian + some WHG like and Iran_Neo like admixture.

You need to see Anatolian_Neo as it's own cornerstone, because it is decisive to determine the farmer ancestry in Europeans. otherwise you will get flawed results.

We are dealng here with at least three, if not four with CHG, cornerstones in ancient West Asia. Anatolian_Neo, Iran_Neo(+CHG) and Levant_Neo.

bicicleur
07-07-16, 13:58
Indeed you can't model, West Eurasia just based on these four cornerstones. Levant_N themselves seem to be basically Natufian + some WHG like and Iran_Neo like admixture.

You need to see Anatolian_Neo as it's own cornerstone, because it is decisive to determine the farmer ancestry in Europeans. otherwise you will get flawed results.

We are dealng here with at least three cornerstones in ancient West Asia. Anatolian_Neo, Iran_Neo(+CHG) and Levant_Neo.

exactly, that is my perception too

Hauteville
09-07-16, 16:59
When the genetists move to search into South Europe in the next years we can see how much J2 and R1b there were in the very old times. My two cents.

kingjohn
10-02-17, 15:01
nice map :
8476

IronSide
11-12-17, 22:17
Who are the Basal Eurasians ? where did they come from ? what was their original Y-dna ?

Haplogroup E was the obvious suspect given its "basal" position in the Y-tree, but Iran Neolithic didn't have it, and they had more basal than the Natufians.

Haplogroup G can also be considered "basal" on Y-tree, but faces the same problem as E, it hasn't been found in Natufians, but in Iran Neolithic.

So who were they ? if not men .. then maybe women ? mt-Haplogroup N1 is common to many Neolithic cultures in the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup X and R0a can also be considerd "basal" and they were common in east and west.

A crazy thought, those amazon founders of civilization .. the original goddesses, I remembered the 12,000-years-old grave of a significant Natufian female, no wonder all Neolithic deities (if the figurines were intended to be divine) were female.

Is it also a coincidence that both founder Neolithic cultures (Iran and Levant) developed agriculture in such proximity and yet be so different ?

bicicleur
11-12-17, 23:45
Who are the Basal Eurasians ? where did they come from ? what was their original Y-dna ?
Haplogroup E was the obvious suspect given its "basal" position in the Y-tree, but Iran Neolithic didn't have it, and they had more basal than the Natufians.
Haplogroup G can also be considered "basal" on Y-tree, but faces the same problem as E, it hasn't been found in Natufians, but in Iran Neolithic.
So who were they ? if not men .. then maybe women ? mt-Haplogroup N1 is common to many Neolithic cultures in the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup X and R0a can also be considerd "basal" and they were common in east and west.
A crazy thought, those amazon founders of civilization .. the original goddesses, I remembered the 12,000-years-old grave of a significant Natufian female, no wonder all Neolithic deities (if the figurines were intended to be divine) were female.
Is it also a coincidence that both founder Neolithic cultures (Iran and Levant) developed agriculture in such proximity and yet be so different ?
Basal Eurasians, my guess?
A group whose Y and mt DNA went extinct.
Todays Y and mtDNA is from a group of people that expanded from SW Asia into Eurasia 50 ka.
But 125 ka, there were already humans in Jebel Faya. They expanded too. 73 ka in Jwalapuram, India, 80 ka in southern China and 65 ka in Kakadu National Park, Australia.
After the 50 ka expansion from SW Asia, their Y and mtDNA went extinct.
But some of their autosomal survived. Their autosomal was Basal Eurasian.
And haplo G and H2 brought this autosomal back from India to SW Asia during LGM, when the Thar desert expanded.

Iran and the Levant had 2 very different agricultures.
The Levant farmers grew cereals.
The Iran herders had goat, sheep, pigs and cattle, and supplemented that with some pulses.
With PPNB, both blended in the Levant. Y-DNA T and mtDNA X had arrived in the Levant.

IronSide
12-12-17, 00:07
Basal Eurasians, my guess?
A group whose Y and mt DNA went extinct.
Todays Y and mtDNA is from a group of people that expanded from SW Asia into Eurasia 50 ka.
But 125 ka, there were already humans in Jebel Faya. They expanded too. 73 ka in Jwalapuram, India, 80 ka in southern China and 65 ka in Kakadu National Park, Australia.
After the 50 ka expansion from SW Asia, their Y and mtDNA went extinct.
But some of their autosomal survived. Their autosomal was Basal Eurasian.
And haplo G and H2 brought this autosomal back from India to SW Asia during LGM, when the Thar desert expanded.

Iran and the Levant had 2 very different agricultures.
The Levant farmers grew cereals.
The Iran herders had goat, sheep, pigs and cattle, and supplemented that with some pulses.
With PPNB, both blended in the Levant. Y-DNA T and mtDNA X had arrived in the Levant.

Interesting theory, may be true, but you've got to admit mine is more romantic :) heroic wise amazons hahahaha

Angela
12-12-17, 02:45
Basal Eurasians, my guess?
A group whose Y and mt DNA went extinct.
Todays Y and mtDNA is from a group of people that expanded from SW Asia into Eurasia 50 ka.
But 125 ka, there were already humans in Jebel Faya. They expanded too. 73 ka in Jwalapuram, India, 80 ka in southern China and 65 ka in Kakadu National Park, Australia.
After the 50 ka expansion from SW Asia, their Y and mtDNA went extinct.
But some of their autosomal survived. Their autosomal was Basal Eurasian.
And haplo G and H2 brought this autosomal back from India to SW Asia during LGM, when the Thar desert expanded.

Iran and the Levant had 2 very different agricultures.
The Levant farmers grew cereals.
The Iran herders had goat, sheep, pigs and cattle, and supplemented that with some pulses.
With PPNB, both blended in the Levant. Y-DNA T and mtDNA X had arrived in the Levant.

I think that's probably right, but I'd like to believe in Ironside's version. :) I do believe that it was women who first started experimenting with farming, the grains and pulses part if not the animal domestication, but maybe the animal domestication part too.

If you're the one who has to go foraging for miles, then have to bend over with a digging stick for hours, I think you'd be the one to remember where the good stands of these plants were, and later you might try to plant them closer to "home" and see if they'd take. With the goats and sheep and cows I don't know. I know in Italy the men usually took care of the transhumance part. Even when they were closer to home, it was usually the young boys who moved the goats and sheep around, making sure they didn't eat the grass down to the roots. They made cheese out in the mountain pastures during the summer too, while sleeping in little stone huts.

This is the first one that came up...it's from Croatia.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/F0AEKP/istria-croatia-a-kazun-kaun-a-traditional-dry-stone-circular-stone-F0AEKP.jpg
I don't know how they did it out there. They must have had to bring some rennet or a substitute, a cauldron of some sort; by the 19th century they were of copper. I have a dim memory of some shepherd boys coming through town with little cheeses in baskets lined with chestnut leaves. They had to make their own baskets too. Those days are over; thank God. Those boys were like slaves. In our area there wasn't enough pasture for cows, not like my father's area where there were more cows than people. Usually there was only one or two cows, a small herd at the most, and the women milked them and made butter and cheese.

elghund
12-12-17, 04:38
nice map :
8476

I figure R1b-M269 ought to be slapped right next to G2a on there.

Ygorcs
12-12-17, 05:06
nice map :
8476

Can someone explain why the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic economic revolutions seem (for now) to have virtually bypassed the Fertile Crescent/Mesopotamia? The Neolithic revolution surrounded it, but didn't people living in Mesopotamia take any part in those developments? We have Levant Neolithic near the Mediterranean, Anatolian Neolithic just some kilometers north of the high Tigris & Euphrates, in the highlands, and the Iranian Neolithic just east of the Mesopotamian plains. I find it so strange.

Angela
12-12-17, 07:16
I think it's because of the terrain and the plant and animal life it could sustain or not sustain.

"The rivers usually are discussed in three parts: their upper, middle, and lower courses. The upper courses are restricted to the valleys and gorges of eastern Anatolia (https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia), through which the rivers descend from their sources, lying 6,000 to 10,000 feet (1,800 to 3,000 metres) above sea level (https://www.britannica.com/science/sea-level)."

"Their middle courses gradually approach each other, bounding a triangle of mainly barren limestone desert known as Al-Jazīrah (https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Jazirah-region-Middle-East) (Arabic: “The Island”) in eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and extreme northeastern Syria. There the rivers have cut deep and permanent beds in the rock, so that their courses have undergone only minor changes since prehistoric times. Along the northeastern edge of Al-Jazīrah, the Tigris drains the rain-fed heart of ancient Assyria (https://www.britannica.com/place/Assyria), while along the southwestern limit the Euphrates crosses true desert."

The farming that developed was tied to wild grains and pulses and medium sized animals. They wouldn't have been found in that kind of landscape. They were found in the gentler, more northern landscapes.

Eventually, once they had learned about irrigation, they were able to settle the southern alluvial plain.

We don't have any ancient dna from there so I don't know what they would have been like.

http://www.archatlas.org/ObsidianRoutes/Slide3.jpg



This is the range of wild cereals:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dorian_Fuller/publication/51774812/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Fig-1-Map-of-the-Near-Eastern-early-Neolithic-sites-with-archaeobotanical-evidence-in.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dorian_Fuller/publication/234128695/figure/fig2/AS:[email protected]/Fig-3-The-Fertile-Crescent%27%27-defined-in-terms-of-wild-progenitors-of-crops-selected.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLeP-_qUwAQ6PZy.png:large

http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/img/P1B.jpg

http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/download/radiocarbon_CONTEXT_database_map_P2A.png

http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/download/radiocarbon_CONTEXT_database_map_P2B.png

http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/img/P3A.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tbLaDVs87ls/U5GOUPKjllI/AAAAAAAACrg/hod1iXEk3zA/s1600/middle-PPNB-coastal-route-Thessaly.jpg

http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/download/radiocarbon_CONTEXT_database_map_P4B.png

You can see it starting to move southeast here:
http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/download/radiocarbon_CONTEXT_database_map_P4A.png

It looks to me like it was moving into the Aegean and beyond before there was much going on in the alluvial plains.
http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/download/radiocarbon_CONTEXT_database_map_P4B.png

If I had to guess I would say that a lot of the ancestry of those people came from Iran Neolithic like people moving down, and also some came from Anatolia itself.

So far as I know, the first agricultural settlers of the alluvial plain were from the Ubaid culture, which is dated to around 5900 BC. They had to know how to irrigate their crops before they could use the land, because the rivers cut through desert. I think it was like the Nile. I haven't read about this for a long time, so I had to refresh my memory. It lasted for a long time, until about 3800 BC, when the Uruk culture took over. I remember being surprised how relatively young most of the famous cultures of the actual southern Tigris and Euphrates were...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Map_Ubaid_culture-en.svg/1200px-Map_Ubaid_culture-en.svg.png

bicicleur
12-12-17, 14:27
the herding was a consequence of hunt management
17 ka each autumn epigravettian hunters (hunters like Satsurblia and Kotias Klde) came to the valleys below lake Sevan in Armenia to hunt the goats that came down from their summer pastures
but they only hunted adult male bucks, no youngsters and no female goats
that made sure the goats would never go extinxt around Lake Sevan

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Sevan_Armenia_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%9 0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.jpeg
Lake Sevan, Armenia, 1914 meter above sea level.

13 ka near Zawi Chemi, central Zagros Mts goat hunters did the same, and they probably gained the trust of the female flock, whom they protected against predators
they used the female goats as decoy to attrackt male bucks whom they would kill, but never the females and their youngsters
during youngest dryas Zawi Chemi area was abandonned, and these people moved south to Louristan and north to Upper Tigris, Hallan Cemi
Hallan Cemi was a permanent settlement and the hunters went from there on hunting expeditions lasting several days, they butchered and cut their prey on the killing site and brought only the prime meat parts back to their Hallan Cemi settlements
Hallan Cemi people collected pulses, but no cereals
they also domesticated the pig
they had some central 'ritual hut' with objects reminiscent to the Göbekli Tepe temple, 80 km east of Upper Euphrates
these were the people that domesticated the goats and later also sheep and cattle
it didn't happen overnight, it was a very long and gradual progress from selective hunting to herding

about Ubaid, their origin would be Samarra, near present Baghdad area
it is not a coincidence that Ubaid started after the 8.2 ka climate event, which must have been very challenging to the farmers in SW Asia, they had to find new techniques in order to survive

Brennos
23-12-17, 14:51
Wow! Those German R1bs are R1b-V88!!!!

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/y-snp-calls-from-neolithic-europe/

bicicleur
23-12-17, 14:54
they are the prime example of HG who converted to farming
they converted quite late, but spread very fast in all directions
they had a talent for adapting to new lifestyles

bicicleur
23-12-17, 15:16
Can someone explain why the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic economic revolutions seem (for now) to have virtually bypassed the Fertile Crescent/Mesopotamia? The Neolithic revolution surrounded it, but didn't people living in Mesopotamia take any part in those developments? We have Levant Neolithic near the Mediterranean, Anatolian Neolithic just some kilometers north of the high Tigris & Euphrates, in the highlands, and the Iranian Neolithic just east of the Mesopotamian plains. I find it so strange.

the hills were more interesting
they didn't need the Mesopotamian plain
that developped only after the 8.2 ka climate event, when the farmers were challenged and started trying irrigations

epoch
27-12-17, 17:05
Basal Eurasians, my guess?
A group whose Y and mt DNA went extinct.
Todays Y and mtDNA is from a group of people that expanded from SW Asia into Eurasia 50 ka.
But 125 ka, there were already humans in Jebel Faya. They expanded too. 73 ka in Jwalapuram, India, 80 ka in southern China and 65 ka in Kakadu National Park, Australia.
After the 50 ka expansion from SW Asia, their Y and mtDNA went extinct.
But some of their autosomal survived. Their autosomal was Basal Eurasian.
And haplo G and H2 brought this autosomal back from India to SW Asia during LGM, when the Thar desert expanded.


Kuhlwilm et al had human admixture in Altaic Neanderthals and placed them basal to both Bushmen and Yoruba, which means they can't have been basal Eurasians:


We find that a population that diverged early from other modern humans in Africa contributed genetically to the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains roughly 100,000 years ago.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16544


“The modern human sequences in the Altai Neanderthal appear to derive from a group of modern human ancestors from Africa that separated early from other humans, about the time present-day African populations diverged from one another, around 200,000 years ago.”
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/neanderthals-mated-with-humans-3640.html

So maybe the earliest Jebel Faya was related to that, and maybe also to the Skhul and Qafzeh remains. Also, there were Neanderthals found in layers above the Skhul and Qafzeh so maybe the suggested lack of Neanderthal in Basal Eurasian is also evidence against this scenario. Although it certainly not impossible that groups never admixted but lived alongside each other.

bicicleur
27-12-17, 17:44
Kuhlwilm et al had human admixture in Altaic Neanderthals and placed them basal to both Bushmen and Yoruba, which means they can't have been basal Eurasians:


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16544


http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/neanderthals-mated-with-humans-3640.html

So maybe the earliest Jebel Faya was related to that, and maybe also to the Skhul and Qafzeh remains. Also, there were Neanderthals found in layers above the Skhul and Qafzeh so maybe the suggested lack of Neanderthal in Basal Eurasian is also evidence against this scenario. Although it certainly not impossible that groups never admixted but lived alongside each other.

I would think the admixture happened between the Skhul and Qafzeh and the Neanderthals related to the ones in the layer on top of them.

epoch
28-12-17, 10:41
I would think the admixture happened between the Skhul and Qafzeh and the Neanderthals related to the ones in the layer on top of them.

Hm.

Vindija and Mezmaiskaya don't have the admixture. One would expect Mezmaiskaya to have *more*. There is a presentation somewhere on the internet of Ofer Bar-Yoseph were he considered some lithic assemblages in Uzbek caves to be evidence of anatomical modern humans and I have read that some Neanderthal remains found at a Uzbek cave had some strikingly anatomical modern features.

https://anthropology.net/2008/05/26/new-hominin-remains-from-uzbekistan-are-kinda-sorta-neandertal-like/


The Obi-Rakhmat remains are thought to be single child, aged 9-12 years old, represented by the specimen name OR-1. The morphology of OR-1 dentition suggest this kid was a Neandertal. The first molar exhibits a skewed occlusal surface, the premolars exhibit some Neandertal traits. The cranial fragments, such as the relatively thick parietal of OR-1 further suggest that it was a Neandertal. Some other cranial fragments, such as the presence of a foramen in the parietal are seen in at least 37% of modern human. Neandertals, such as Amud 1, Shanidar 1, Tabun 1, Skhul 4, 5, and 9 lack such a foramen.

Mind you, this all is speculation, so it doesn't really disprove what you said. But we need anatomical modern humans far more north and west for that admixture and signs of an expansion 125.000 years ago does fit the bill nicely.

There was an attempt by three groups to independently see if an old AMH admixture exists is humans, i.e. if the latest expansion picked up gene flow from an earlier expansion. Two of three found nothing, but a third found some 2% admixture in Papua's. That is interesting as it looks that both Denisovan *and* first wave humans admixture seemed to have survived only east of the Wallace line.

PS: Although, to support your side, the Aterian is said to have existed in North-Africa *and* Oman.

bicicleur
28-12-17, 10:52
it is my understanding that Neanderthals were north of the Hindu Kush, in the corridor toward the Altaï Mts ca 87 ka
and modern humans arrived there ca 48 ka

if I recall well Ofer Bar-Yoseph noticed the Caucasus was a boundary for Neanderthals (discontunuity between the Georgia caves and Mezmaiskaya), but not for modern humans

unfortunatly I don't have a link

modern humans seem to have arrived at the Georgia caves ca 42 ka and in the Mezmaiskaya area 39 ka

Megalophias
28-12-17, 22:31
Vindija and Mezmaiskaya don't have the admixture. One would expect Mezmaiskaya to have *more*.
Vindija turns out to have the same admixture signal now that it has been sequenced with better quality: "A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655.full
So probably Mezmaiskaya will have it too.

epoch
29-12-17, 10:45
Vindija turns out to have the same admixture signal now that it has been sequenced with better quality: "A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655.full
So probably Mezmaiskaya will have it too.

Yes you are right. Completely missed that. So the admixture indeed could have been picked up elsewhere. However, it must have been a while before the admixture of neanderthals in humans as this paper estimates the age of the Altai sample at 122 ky.

IronSide
13-04-18, 18:17
A weird result from Extended Data Table 2:


Admixture f3-statistics. We show the lowest Z-score of the statistic f3(Test; Reference1, Refrence2) for every ancient Test population with at least 2 individuals and every pair (Reference1, Refrence2) of ancient or present-day source populations. Z-scores lower than -3 are highlighted and indicate that the Test population is admixed from sources related to (but not identical to) the reference populations. Z-scores greater than -3 are consistent with the population either being admixed or not.

is this one f3(WHG; Switzerland_HG, Saudi) = -0.01562 , Z-score = -7.7

that means the WHG is admixed from sources related to Switzerland_HG and Saudi, but not be identical to them.

This is weird, we don't usually think of the WHG as a mixed population, because we often see them in ADMIXTURE as this solid bar that contributes to other populations, but they are, and in this paper it clearly shows that the EHG is one population that contributes to WHG.

And Saudis, if this f3 test is just picking the whatever amount of EHG Saudis have (via CHG), why didn't they use the EHG or a European population or Mal'ta ?

Villabruna cluster is different from other European HG populations in having an affinity to Near Easterners

http://abload.de/img/asgjb6.png

So what are Saudis?

from the ADMIXTURE analysis of the Ancient Egyptian paper, we see Saudis composed of three populations:

50% Natufian
30% CHG
15% Anatolia_N

and I would add 5% East African HG. of course, these proportions may not be perfectly accurate.

the first three have Basal and we know the WHG don't have that, CHG contains EHG, so maybe it was picking that signal? and certainly not the East African.

In the supplementary section of WHG, we see that all Ancient West Eurasians, like Natufians and Levant_N, share more mutations with WHG that Switzerland_HG(I'm presuming this is Bichon) doesn't have, shouldn't this mean that some ghost population contributed ancestry to both WHG and Natufians but not Bichon? f4(Switzerland_HG, WHG; A, Chimp). when A=Levant_N, Natufian, Anatolia_N and other populations.

So here is my guess, UHG contributed some ancestry to WHG and is causing this affinity to Near Easterners, UHG is the theoretical non-Basal part of Natufians.

an interesting post on another site http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-hunter-gatherer-r1b-qiaomei.html


So the first interesting thing is that Villabruna man's body proportions are intermediate between modern Europeans and Africans. In fact, he generally clusters with North Africans on several skeletal metrics, although facially he is Caucasian. This doesn't mean he is <North African> and it doesn't mean mixed, but it does suggest some meaningfully deep ancestry in a sufficiently warm climate, possibly the Southern Near East(?).

Genetically, he and his cluster represent a shift towards the Near East from earlier Europeans, and really from the earlier 'true' Gravettians in Eastern Europe. When looking at his physical proportions, Vercellotti et al (2008) seemed to suggest that his long-limbed features were a relict of early AMH or possibly some sort of new response to a warming climate. It now seems migration offers the most plausible explanation for his body type in light of DNA. To be clear though, his cluster extends all over Western Europe even though his unique lineage is so far only seen in Italy.

Parafarne
26-04-19, 23:21
look could haplogroup CT be source of Basal Eurasians+their Mtdna. half of Natufian ydna was CT+T+H so yes they could be the source of basal eurasians. IMO Natufians were like modern egyptians half eurasians+ africans until arrival of J2, J1, G made the levant region more caucasoid looking like today in late neolithic, early bronze period.

Megalophias
26-04-19, 23:26
look could haplogroup CT be source of Basal Eurasians+their Mtdna. half of Natufian ydna was CT+T+H
All of Natufian Y DNA was CT. All non-Sub-Saharan African ancient Y DNA everywhere has been CT.

Corrado
27-04-19, 06:02
Yes you are right. Completely missed that. So the admixture indeed could have been picked up elsewhere. However, it must have been a while before the admixture of neanderthals in humans as this paper estimates the age of the Altai sample at 122 ky.


In some ways the fact modern human DNA found in Altai (and I guess Vindija too, didn't know about that one) pre-dating even Basal Eurasian just makes things even more interesting. If the humans that admixed into these Neanderthals 130,000+ years ago were basal to San and Yoruba, diverging over 200,000 years ago, that just goes to show how deeply rooted modern humans were and are in Eurasia going back hundreds of thousands of years. People talk about Out of Africa a lot, and that's perfectly fine, but I think Eurasia is going to be just as important for understanding homo sapiens evolution in the last several hundred thousand years, with deeply rooted populations establishing themselves there and not just mixing with other Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals, but more than likely interacting with African populations too.

MOESAN
27-04-19, 14:27
look could haplogroup CT be source of Basal Eurasians+their Mtdna. half of Natufian ydna was CT+T+H so yes they could be the source of basal eurasians. IMO Natufians were like modern egyptians half eurasians+ africans until arrival of J2, J1, G made the levant region more caucasoid looking like today in late neolithic, early bronze period.

Where did you see modern Egyptians are half Africans (it depends what "african" signifies for you? "north-african"?) - They are very more on the 'caucasoid' side, and since long time ago! And do keep in mind that since a long time paleo- and mesolithic people of North-Africa were rather on the 'caucasoid' side, roughly said.

Parafarne
27-04-19, 16:22
Where did you see modern Egyptians are half Africans (it depends what "african" signifies for you? "north-african"?) - They are very more on the 'caucasoid' side, and since long time ago! And do keep in mind that since a long time paleo- and mesolithic people of North-Africa were rather on the 'caucasoid' side, roughly said.

oh yes I meant n.african, but if today you mix half hg E+ half eurasian hg then why you get people with very dark complexions then why since ancient times n.africans were on caucasoid side in your view?how they don't look like ethiopians for example? Sudanese has more eurasian hg than say morocco(85% E) so please explain why sudanese don't look like algerians?

Parafarne
27-04-19, 16:28
All of Natufian Y DNA was CT. All non-Sub-Saharan African ancient Y DNA everywhere has been CT.

There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.

kingjohn
27-04-19, 16:42
There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.

they might be T and H among the natufians in addition to e-z830
i doubt they were J and R but who knows i might be wrong

Megalophias
27-04-19, 17:59
There was one T one H from same geogrpahy same time yet different research my dear! plus two were CT which could be F, D, C too not just E.
Both Natufian CTs were E1b1b according to Genetiker (could be wrong but probably not). The T and H2 are from Pre-Pottery Neolithic thousands of years later and with more Anatolian-type ancestry. At present we don't know whether the Natufians had T and H2 or not.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear, what I was trying to ask is do you mean CT is Basal Eurasian, or part of CT Is Basal and part is Crown Eurasian, or what?

MOESAN
27-04-19, 19:29
oh yes I meant n.african, but if today you mix half hg E+ half eurasian hg then why you get people with very dark complexions then why since ancient times n.africans were on caucasoid side in your view?how they don't look like ethiopians for example? Sudanese has more eurasian hg than say morocco(85% E) so please explain why sudanese don't look like algerians?

Sorry but I'm a bit confused by this last post of yours: what is 'hg E' for you? The Y-haplogroup one? if the haplo, it cannot be compared to "half eurasian" (global autosomals). Otherwise, 1- modern Egyptians are not very dark concerning skin, as a whole - 2 -
classification doesn't depend only on skin colour, bones structures and other traits are more important concerning DNA weight -
and the paleo N-Africans showed very few common features with Ethiopians, and even Egyptians of the 3000 BC were a bit different from Ethiopians. BTW I'm not sure there are not sustructures concerning types among today Ethiopians. You produce comparisons and %'s that are a bit unbased, according to me.No offense.

Parafarne
29-04-19, 13:31
Both Natufian CTs were E1b1b according to Genetiker (could be wrong but probably not). The T and H2 are from Pre-Pottery Neolithic thousands of years later and with more Anatolian-type ancestry. At present we don't know whether the Natufians had T and H2 or not.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear, what I was trying to ask is do you mean CT is Basal Eurasian, or part of CT Is Basal and part is Crown Eurasian, or what?

IMO CT, natufians were half bEU half african.

Parafarne
29-04-19, 13:41
Sorry but I'm a bit confused by this last post of yours: what is 'hg E' for you? The Y-haplogroup one? if the haplo, it cannot be compared to "half eurasian" (global autosomals). Otherwise, 1- modern Egyptians are not very dark concerning skin, as a whole - 2 -
classification doesn't depend only on skin colour, bones structures and other traits are more important concerning DNA weight -
and the paleo N-Africans showed very few common features with Ethiopians, and even Egyptians of the 3000 BC were a bit different from Ethiopians. BTW I'm not sure there are not sustructures concerning types among today Ethiopians. You produce comparisons and %'s that are a bit unbased, according to me.No offense.

lol look haplogroup e1b1b1 origin is in ethiopia or not? at some point they looked more sub saharan or not? so then they mixed with eurasians to make natufian culture, n.african cultures(mesolithic) so I was discussing how, when this process happened in this region. megalopolis is saying complete natufian ydna were Hg E1b1b so I then said how come they looked eurasian which group is resposible for their caucasoid looks today bEU or some other group?

markod
29-04-19, 14:28
lol look haplogroup e1b1b1 origin is in ethiopia or not? at some point they looked more sub saharan or not? so then they mixed with eurasians to make natufian culture, n.african cultures(mesolithic) so I was discussing how, when this process happened in this region. megalopolis is saying complete natufian ydna were Hg E1b1b so I then said how come they looked eurasian which group is resposible for their caucasoid looks today bEU or some other group?

Mesolithic East Africans more often than not tend to be Caucasoid, like Mesolithic North Africans:

http://i45.tinypic.com/28au8t5.jpg

Megalophias
29-04-19, 21:36
The Taforalt men (Morocco 14-15 000 years ago) all had E-M35 and they were modelled as about half (maybe less) Ancestral North African and half (maybe more) West Eurasian. A likely scenario is that E-M35 came with the African side and the mt DNA (M1, U6) with the West Eurasian side. In the same model Natufians had modest Taforalt-related ancestry, so the Ancestral North African element was minor and likely already diluted.

Just because 5 male Natufians from Rafeqet Cave were (probably) all E-M35 doesn't mean all Natufians everywhere must have been, and even if they were it doesn't mean they had to have half their autosomal ancestry from the original source of the E.

Estimates of proportions of Basal Eurasian ancestry vary wildly, and I'm still not sure it even existed, but certainly they aren't half Basal and half East African or anything like that. Natufians hardly show any detectable Sub-Saharan African affinity at all.

Corrado
30-04-19, 01:24
Taforalt is a very interesting population. The Dzudzuana pre-print (hopefully the full study gets published relatively soon) explicitly stated they had no SSA ancestry, but they seem very diverged from all other Eurasian populations, and on PCA they plot basically like contemporary North Africans, though whether that's an artifact of projection bias I don't know. I don't really make too much of them being modeled as "Ancestral North African" and West Eurasian for now. I think they probably do have some very diverged African ancestry from the Aterian period, but that's going to be too old to tie back to E-M35.

Parafarne
30-04-19, 08:16
So n.africans, e.africans must have been thouroughly eurasianized in levant before let them populate africa in prehistory, I thought its very recent phenomena.

Parafarne
30-04-19, 12:01
Important findings regarding origin of basal eurasians, well they were the southern group of old lineages like hg g, f togather with n.african hg e, but the question is why they hadn't had neanderthal mixture? well because they lived in proxemity to hot desert of s.levant and neanderthals after living 700,000 years in cold northern climate regions could not settle in bEU areas because of allergy to hot clime so these groups didn't intremingle with eachother. after thousands of years bEU moved north\westward to form part of middle eastern mixture we see nowadays. africans too lived in hot climates so they didn't have neanderthal mixture.

Parafarne
30-04-19, 18:04
I have found some Natufian skull reconstructions, and yes you are so right they look very Eurasian, Levantine early farmer like.
10987


10988

10989
the last one is from Egyptian kid
IMO EEF, WHG were too like Levantine natufians.