PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

epoch
17-06-16, 12:04
Very nice new paper up. Dynamite: Natufians were only half Basal Eurasian and Basal Eurasian appears to have had no Neanderthal! Furthermore, the CHG part of Steppe appears to be made of Caucasian HG and part Iranian Chalcolithic. Fitted mixture proportions are 52.7% EHG, 18.1% CHG, 29.2% Iran_Ch.

Preprint: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
Supp Info: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

The Neanderthal is very interesting as well. O, and Basal is not African. It is buried somewhere in the supp info tables.

EDIT: Y-DNA of Natufians were E1b and some J1. Iran G1a G2a and some J.

Fire Haired14
17-06-16, 12:09
Y DNA results. All but a few Neolithic Levant samples had E1b, no suprise. Most had M123 though not M78(like most E1b in Europe and West Asia today).


Armenia_ChL (Chalcolithic Armenia)

I1407: L1a
I1632: L1a
I1634: L1a


Iran_Mesolithic (Hotu Cave)


I1293: J(xJ2a1b3, J2b2a1a1)


Iran_N


I1945: P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a)


My guess here is that this is R2, and hopefully we shall see when the bam files are released.


I1949: CT


Iran_LN


I1671: G2a1(xG2a1a)


Iran_ChL (Chalcolithic Iran)


I1662: J(xJ1a, J2a1, J2b)
I1674: G1a(xG1a1)


Natufians


I0861: E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
I1072: E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1685: CT
I1690: CT


Levant_N


I0867: H2 (PPNB)
I1414: E(xE2, E1a, E1b1a1a1c2c3b1, E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1b2b) (PPNB)
I1415: E1b1b1 (PPNB)
I1416: CT (PPNB)
I1707: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB)
I1710: E1b1b1(x E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1a1b1, E1b1b1a1b2, E1b1b1b2a1c) (PPNB)
I1727: CT(xE, G, J, LT, R, Q1a, Q1b) (PPNB)
I1700: CT (PPNC)


Levant_BA


I1705: J1(xJ1a)
I1730: J(xJ1, J2a, J2b2a)

epoch
17-06-16, 12:37
The reduced Neanderthal in Basal... It has me thinking. Could that be the cause for the perceived increasing middle-eastern in WHG? It would be a nice way to explain for the slight increase in El Miron. Also, it shows that either Basal wasn't surviving in the Asian part of the Middle-East and thus the Basal Urheimat (I am laughing as I type these words ;.) must have been Egypt, or the Neanderthal admixture took place more north.

bicicleur
17-06-16, 12:50
big surprises in unchartered territory
very interesting but I'll need some time to digest

Fire Haired14
17-06-16, 13:40
The reduced Neanderthal in Basal... It has me thinking. Could that be the cause for the perceived increasing middle-eastern in WHG? It would be a nice way to explain for the slight increase in El Miron. Also, it shows that either Basal wasn't surviving in the Asian part of the Middle-East and thus the Basal Urheimat (I am laughing as I type these words ;.) must have been Egypt, or the Neanderthal admixture took place more north.

Reduced Neanderthal in Basal makes a lot of sense. WHG and El Miron didn't have Basal Eurasian ancestry. East Asians are equally close to them as to earlier Europeans, confirming they don't have Basal Eurasians.

bicicleur
17-06-16, 13:58
Natufians are E-Z830 x(E-M123, M293), TMRCA 19.2 ka
That leaves open 2 possibilities : E-Z830* or E-V42.
That is : Natufians are extinct or surviving in Ethiopia ????

bicicleur
17-06-16, 14:02
no G2a2 found, none
is G2a2 exclusive to Anatolian & European neolithic?

bicicleur
17-06-16, 14:27
Reduced Neanderthal in Basal makes a lot of sense. WHG and El Miron didn't have Basal Eurasian ancestry. East Asians are equally close to them as to earlier Europeans, confirming they don't have Basal Eurasians.

Mota Cave HG E1b1a didn't have Neanderthal, probably Natufian E-Z830 didn't have either before coming to Asia.
It hints at arrival of E-Z830 from Africa.

I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.

Fire Haired14
17-06-16, 14:33
@Angela,

Genetic continuum in Iran from Mesolithic to Neolithic.


The origin of the Neolithic of Iran does not appear to be related to either Anatolia or the Levant, as theNeolithic and Mesolithic of Iran are symmetrically related to either population (Fig. S7.5), providingno evidence for gene flow from either region into the Zagros, but hinting strongly that whatever rolethe exchange of ideas and technology may have played in the emergence of the Neolithic in theZagros, this was not accompanied with any substantial gene flow from other ancient Near EasternNeolithic centers of domestication.


Genetic continuum from Paleolithic to Neolithic Levant.


Among first farmers, those of the Levant trace ~2/3 of their ancestry to people related toNatufian hunter-gatherers and ~1/3 to people related to Anatolian farmers (Supplementary
Information, section 7).

Fire Haired14
17-06-16, 14:36
Anatolia_Neolithic found a brother in Neolithic/Paleo Levant. Also, Neolithic/Paleo Levant clusters in West Eurasia exactly where we expected, just south of Anatolia_Neolithic by modern SouthWest Asians.

Huge Genetic shift in Chalolithic Anatolia.

Our about 6,000 year old genome from Western Turkey(same location as Neolithic Anatolians) is most similar to modern NorthWest Asians. So finally we have an answer as to when Turkey went from EEF to what it is today(for the most part).

Fire Haired14
17-06-16, 15:57
In ADMIXTURE analysis....

>Anatolia Neolithic comes out as a mixture of Natufians and WHG/EHG.
>Armenia Chalolithic and Bronze, Anatolia Chalolithic, come out as Natufian+Iran Neo/CHG+WHG/EHG.
>Levant BA is Natufian+Iran Neo/CHG.

So all of this was expected. None of this is a surprise. For years now we've known "SouthWest Asian"(Natufian) and "Meditreaen"(Anatolia Neolithic) were closely related. We've also known that West Asians are a mixture of "SouthWest Asian" and "Caucasus"(CHG, Iran Neo).

This paper has supported another event we already knew. South Asian's West Eurasian ancestry is a mixture of Iran Neolithic and European/Steppe Bronze age.

Angela
17-06-16, 16:06
I guess I'll call my friend and postpone that walk. :)

Where is Alan? He had it right about there being three farmer populations in the Near East, and without benefit of a leak from an about to be published paper.

I'll be back when I've read it carefully too, Bicicleur.

LeBrok
17-06-16, 16:35
Wow, so many surprises! And it looks really rich in infor, and we have Natufians!!! I'm so excited, I'm skipping job today...., no, can't do that, lol. Cya guys later.
Lol, Natufians are E1b, my first guess before changing my mind to G2a based on EEF samples. Once again we have an example how Y DNA can shift quickly. But let's see where ENF genome comes from, maybe it is not Natufian but from Iranian farmer mostly. Later...

Angela
17-06-16, 17:29
@Maleth,
It appears that the Natufians carry the precursor to E-M34. Thought you'd want to know. :)

epoch
17-06-16, 18:49
In ADMIXTURE analysis....

>Anatolia Neolithic comes out as a mixture of Natufians and WHG/EHG.
>Armenia Chalolithic and Bronze, Anatolia Chalolithic, come out as Natufian+Iran Neo/CHG+WHG/EHG.
>Levant BA is Natufian+Iran Neo/CHG.

So all of this was expected. None of this is a surprise. For years now we've known "SouthWest Asian"(Natufian) and "Meditreaen"(Anatolia Neolithic) were closely related. We've also known that West Asians are a mixture of "SouthWest Asian" and "Caucasus"(CHG, Iran Neo).

This paper has supported another event we already knew. South Asian's West Eurasian ancestry is a mixture of Iran Neolithic and European/Steppe Bronze age.

Furthermore it confirms 25% ANE in WHG, ANE in Han. Although I have a tad problems with the numbers: They seem to change over the papers. Fu 2016 has slightly different numbers if I recall correctly: No ANE in Han or WHG due to no D-stat confirming it when Mal'ta is used.

And the three farmer populations was more or less already known from archaeology. The hotspots of the earliest neolithic transition were, according to archaeology: Zagros mountains, Catal Huyuk and the Levant.

EDIT: Fig. S11.3 models WHG as 7% ANE and 93% Bichon. Damn shame they didn't use the UP samples. Miss Fu worked at both papers, so I don't know exactly why. WHG proper is Loschbour?

epoch
17-06-16, 19:25
More explained: Gedrosia is introduced from Iran to Steppe. Is also interesting to notice that the Caucasus has lot of the mentioned Y-DNA. Shame the paper has no mtDNA. I have a hunch there will be quite some updates.

EDIT: SI has no mtDNA, but supplementary data does. So I was lazy

Angela
17-06-16, 21:52
For ease of reference:

7809

In this Admixture analysis, the Anatolia Neolithic appears to be a mix of Levant Neolithic, as defined as south Levant Neolithic (Jordan/Palestine), Iranian Neolithic, and some WHG.

By the time we get to the Anatolian Chalcolithic, or Copper Age, which some researchers call the Late Neolithic, we have an increase in the Iranian Neolithic, a bit of EHG, and a corresponding slight decrease in the WHG and Levant Neolithic. Yes?

How are we supposed to interpret this in light of the fact that the authors say these are genetically distinct populations? Is it partly a function of the time periods in question?

These are the dates provided in the paper itself for these samples:
"The samples include Epipaleolithic Natufian hunter-gatherers from Raqefet 125 Cave in the Levant (12,000-9,800 BCE); a likely Mesolithic individual from Hotu Cave in the 126 Alborz mountains of Iran (probable date of 9,100-8,600 BCE); Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers 127 from ‘Ain Ghazal and Motza in the southern Levant (8,300-6,700 BCE); and early farmers 128 from Ganj Dareh in the Zagros mountains of western Iran (8,200-7,600 BCE). The samples 129 also include later Neolithic, Chalcolithic (~4,800-3,700 BCE), and Bronze Age (~3,350- 130 1,400 BCE) individuals.

I haven't gotten to the supplement yet. Does anyone know if all the Anatolian samples they used are from about 4800 BCE or later? If they are, there's a few thousand years for some admixture to have already occurred.

I'm not sure what to make of the Armenia Chalcolithic. Yes, they have some EHG and WHG, but so did the even earlier CHG hunter-gatherer. Indeed, so did the Iran_HotuIIIb sample. Then in the Early Bronze Age, the EHG decreases, probably as the result of further movement from the south, only for the EHG to increase again in the Middle Bronze Age.

Far from being a barrier to gene flow, the Caucasus range seems to have been remarkably porous. In that regard, perhaps some of this incoming EHG was by way of bride exchange between the Caucasus and steppe groups? So, no, I hate to dash anyone's fantasies, but probably not he-men steppe cowboys riding into the Caucasus to raid and steal wives.

Speaking of the steppe, this shows not only Iranian Neolithic genes on the steppe in the Early/Middle Bronze Age, but a bit of Levant Neolithic and WHG, which increases in the Middle/Late Bronze Age. So, did the latter two come with the people who came onto the steppe from the West Asian Highlands, or is it being picked up from people moving east from "Old Europe", since European EN here appears to be a three way mix of Iranian Neolithic, Levant Neolithic and WHG?

In Europe, the transition from the MiddleN/Chal to LN/Bronze sees the arrival of EHG, and a corresponding decrease in WHG and Levant Neolithic, but Iranian Neolithic stays the same.

I hate to be greedy when there is such a wealth of information here, but the only place from which we don't have farmer dna is precisely the area from which we know, or think we know, from the archaeology, that farmers set out for Cyprus, and, it was thought, other islands in the Aegean, and that is the area between southeast Anatolia and the northern Levant, approximately the area around northern Syria. I wonder if they would have been intermediate between northwest Anatolian farmers and Levant farmers?

This is probably why the authors are careful to say that there was no direct input from south Levant farmers into Europe. It was mediated by more northerly groups.

"To the west, the 270 early farmers of mainland Europe were descended from a population related to Neolithic northwestern Anatolians8 271 . This is consistent with an Anatolian origin of farming in Europe, 272 but does not reject other sources, since the spatial distribution of the Anatolian/European-like 273 farmer populations is unknown. We can rule out the hypothesis that European farmers stem directly from a population related to the ancient farmers of the southern Levant30,31 274 , however,"

@Epoch,
Maybe they were rushed because the paper had been leaked...

epoch
17-06-16, 21:56
@Angela

Nah. I simply overlooked it. The Anatolians are Mathiesons, IIRC.

Angela
17-06-16, 21:58
@Angela

Nah. I simply overlooked it.

No fair...you guys are six hours ahead. :)

epoch
17-06-16, 22:28
No fair...you guys are six hours ahead. :)

The first issue I have: EHG is modeled as 25% WHG and 75% ANE (Being Afontova Gora2, they didn't use the far better genome of contemporary AG3). However in the admixture image you pasted above EHG is an element as well as WHG. Similar thing with SI table S7.25: Levant_N modeled as 1/3 Natufian and 2/3 Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N modeled as 0.4 Iran_N, 0.3 Levant_N, 1/4 WHG.

EDIT: Life isn't fair ;)

Angela
17-06-16, 22:40
r
no G2a2 found, none
is G2a2 exclusive to Anatolian & European neolithic?

Yes, where was G2a2? Perhaps slightly further north at the intersection of the northern Levant and southeastern Anatolia? Is that the origin though or further east closer to the Iranian Neolithic given the "G" found there? (G2a1 is in the Iranian Neolithic and G1a in the Iranian Chalcolithic.)


I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.


I agree. I'm sure you've seen this by now:
", no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).
The idea of 194 Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also 195 not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations."

The latter is the point we made in our own speculations. Then you add in that they find no affinity in the Natufians to SSA populations. So, maybe those speculations of Dienekes' to the effect that there was an early back migration of "E" to Africa were correct?

So, as we also speculated, there was a refugia closer to the Persian Gulf? That or in North Africa?

While there was continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, there was no continuity from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. By that period at the latest, all these populations were mushed together, as we might have predicted from the archaeology.

"During subsequent millennia, the early farmer populations of the Near East expanded in all 253 directions and mixed, as we can only model populations of the Chalcolithic and subsequent 254 Bronze Age as having ancestry from two or more sources. The Chalcolithic people of western 255 Iran can be modelled as a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and 256 Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG), consistent with their position in the PCA (Fig. 1b).
Admixture from populations related to the Chalcolithic people of western Iran had a wide 258 impact, consistent with contributing ~44% of the ancestry of Levantine Bronze Age 259 populations in the south and ~33% of the ancestry of the Chalcolithic northwest Anatolians in 260 the west. Our analysis show that the ancient populations of the Chalcolithic Iran, Chalcolithic 261 Armenia, Bronze Age Armenia and Chalcolithic Anatolia were all composed of the same 262 ancestral components, albeit in slightly different proportions."

So, the Levant Neolithic people moved around, but at a certain point, there seems to have been a specific movement southwest from the northeast, so much so that this contributes 44% of the Levantine Bronze Age.

I wonder how close this population was to the ancient Hebrews?

Angela
17-06-16, 23:07
As to the "Womb of Nations" idea, here is what they have to say:

"We computed squared allele frequency differentiation between all pairs of ancient West Eurasians29 216 (Methods; Fig. 3; Extended Data Fig. 3), and found that the populations at the 217 four corners of the quadrangle had differentiation of FST=0.08-0.15, comparable to the value 218 of 0.09-0.13 seen between present-day West Eurasians and East Asians (Han) 219 (Supplementary Data Table 3). In contrast, by the Bronze Age, genetic differentiation 220 between pairs of West Eurasian populations had reached its present-day low levels (Fig. 3): 221 today, FST is ≤0.025 for 95% of the pairs of West Eurasian populations and ≤0.046 for all 222 pairs. These results point to a demographic process that established high differentiation 223 across West Eurasia and then reduced this differentiation over time."

"
During subsequent millennia, the early farmer populations of the Near East expanded in all 253 directions and mixed, as we can only model populations of the Chalcolithic and subsequent 254 Bronze Age as having ancestry from two or more sources. "

"Admixture did not only occur within the Near East but extended towards Europe. To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe. The spread of Near Eastern ancestry into the Eurasian steppe was previously inferred7 268 without access to ancient samples, by hypothesizing a population related to present-day Armenians as a source7,8 269 . To the west, the 270 early farmers of mainland Europe were descended from a population related to Neolithic northwestern Anatolians."

Angela
17-06-16, 23:08
The first issue I have: EHG is modeled as 25% WHG and 75% ANE (Being Afontova Gora2, they didn't use the far better genome of contemporary AG3). However in the admixture image you pasted above EHG is an element as well as WHG. Similar thing with SI table S7.25: Levant_N modeled as 1/3 Natufian and 2/3 Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N modeled as 0.4 Iran_N, 0.3 Levant_N, 1/4 WHG.

EDIT: Life isn't fair ;)

I know, Epoch, trust me. :)

That's what I was getting at partly...how "distinct" is distinct? It's going in a circle.

The "glue" or "tie" that binds is Basal Eurasian, yes?

O.K. I have to cook dinner, then dive into the Supplement, then I'll be back, by which time you guys will be asleep. A demain, then.

Alan
17-06-16, 23:33
I guess I'll call my friend and postpone that walk. :)

Where is Alan? He had it right about there being three farmer populations in the Near East, and without benefit of a leak from an about to be published paper.

I'll be back when I've read it carefully too, Bicicleur.thanks for mentioning me. :)

I remember Maciamo giving me a thumps up back than which means he agreed with this already back than.

I wrote allot of things in the other thread.

Here are my posts I wrote in the other thread.


HA I knew it I said it, but some people just jumped on wrong conclusions merely out of the fact that they don't like the idea of Yamna possibly being from Iranian Plateau.

Even the sentence "no direct geneflow" should have made anyone suspecious that they don't exclude indirect geneflow.


It makes archeological 100% sense. Maykop culture is descend of the Layla Tepe culture which according to archeologists derives from the Iranian Plateau.

I always said it

Iranian Plateau => Caucasus=> Steppes.

OR Eastern Iranian Plateau => Central Asia => Steppes.


From the paper Iran_N(Neolithic)
Iran_N

I1945: P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a)


So it seems there was R Haplogroup in Neolithic Iran. Take that all you haters ^^

Edit: I see the guys at Eurogenes are still in denial X)


The paper also perfectly proves my hypothesis that THREE distinct groups were living in the Near East at least by Neolithic.

A Southwestern farmer, A Anatolian farmer and a Iranian Plateau farmer/Herder group.

The Natufians were quite similar to Anatolian_Farmers but had some differences. And it seems that the Caucasian DNA in East Africa came via the Natufians rather than Anatolian_Farmers.


The Natufians were full of E1b1b and CT Haplogroups. Seems like we have found the source of the Egyptian culture in Levant_Neo. The whole Afro_asiatic family seems to be descend from the Levantine Neolithic.

Natufians and Anatolian farmers are very similar but still distinct, while Zagros farmers are significantly different from the former both.

Mesolithic Zagros H&G were more Basal Eurasian than Natufians which indicates that Basal Eurasian in fact derives from further East than South. Possibly Iranian coastle region.

And there seems to be EHG like ancestry in mesolithic Iran.

Mal'ta is modeled as ~28% Iranian Neolithic like, 15% CHG and ~35% WHG like

EHG is modeled as 80% WHG, 7% Iranian Neolithic and 10% CHG like.

Alan
17-06-16, 23:42
Very nice new paper up. Dynamite: Natufians were only half Basal Eurasian and Basal Eurasian appears to have had no Neanderthal! Furthermore, the CHG part of Steppe appears to be made of Caucasian HG and part Iranian Chalcolithic. Fitted mixture proportions are 52.7% EHG, 18.1% CHG, 29.2% Iran_Ch.

Preprint: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
Supp Info: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

The Neanderthal is very interesting as well. O, and Basal is not African. It is buried somewhere in the supp info tables.

EDIT: Y-DNA of Natufians were E1b and some J1. Iran G1a G2a and some J.


This could mean Basal Eurasian are the proto Eurasian who did not mix yet with Neanderthals. Natufians had E1b and CT as far as I remember. No known J1 among them.

Alan
17-06-16, 23:45
Mota Cave HG E1b1a didn't have Neanderthal, probably Natufian E-Z830 didn't have either before coming to Asia.
It hints at arrival of E-Z830 from Africa.

I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.

The authros don't think Basal Eurasian came from Africa, because Basal Eurasian peaks in Neolithic Iranians.

Maleth
17-06-16, 23:46
@Maleth,
It appears that the Natufians carry the precursor to E-M34. Thought you'd want to know. :)

This is really exciting. And I thought we would never get any results from these regions....but here they are. :smile:

Alan
18-06-16, 02:00
An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a
population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics:



MA1, EHG, SHG, Switzerland_HG are consistent with having no Basal Eurasian ancestry, while at least some such ancestry is inferred for the remaining populations.Neolithic Iran and Natufians could be derived from the same Basal Eurasian population but are genetically closer to EHG and WHG respectively We take the model of Fig. S4.9 and attempt to fit Natufians as a mixture of the same Basal Eurasian population that contributes to Iran_N and any other population of the tree. Several solutions are feasible, and we show the best one (lowest ADMIXTUREGRAPH score) in Fig. S4.10.
We can add both EHG and MA1 as simple branches to the model structure of Fig. S4.10 and show the results in Fig. S4.11. An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two
populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics: suggests
that the singleton individual from Hotu (Iran_HotuIIIb) was shifted towards EHG along the Iran_N/EHG cline, albeit it does not reach |Z|>3. There is uncertainty about the date of Iran_HotuIIIb, as it is not certain that it is of Mesolithic age and thus predates the Neolithic of Iran from Ganj Dareh.
The fact that the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (who are definitely pre-Neolithic) have extra EHG-related ancestry is also supportive of a substantial antiquity of this element in the Caucasus-Iran region. It is not clear whether the hunter-gatherers preceding the Neolithic in Ganj Dareh were similar to Iran_HotuIIIb or the CHG and their EHG affinity was diluted during Neolithization, or whether they are descended from an unsampled hunter-gatherer population that already had this reduced affinity to the EHG....


Thus it is rather the Mesolithic of Iran that shares more alleles with these eastern European groups than the Neolithic. Tentatively, this might suggest that the pre-Neolithic population of Iran had an affinity to the EHG/Ancient North Eurasians that was diluted during the Neolithic, although the lack of negative f4-statistics does not allow us to discern what is the source of this dilution. Alternatively, there was no dilution, but the Neolithic of Iran was descended
from an unsampled Mesolithic population.

Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.

holderlin
18-06-16, 05:18
http://i.imgur.com/SGA6Dsk.gif?1

Angela
18-06-16, 05:39
Just finished the Supplement and then took a look at other sites to see the comments. Some were insightful, some very disappointing. Every person whose pet agenda is at all negatively impacted has pulled out the knives. Without being able to point to anything wrong with the analysis, and without having even looked at the actual samples, one blogger stated outright that he's out to disprove the conclusions of the paper. Very sad. Not, of course, that any group of researchers is necessarily correct 100% of the time, but this particular group has a very good track record, and some of them created the very statistical programs being used. So, we shall see.

Some of the things creating the most controversy are, of course, the blasted "Indo-Europeans". I wonder if there's a genetic predisposition to it? :)

So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

That Iran Chalcolithic is:
13,4 EHG
62,3 Iran_N
20,0 Levant_N
4,3 WHG

How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.

The controversy over the movement south into south central Asia and India is even worse.

This is the statement which caused all the furor...
"While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
(Steppe_MLBA) is not."

The latter is Andronovo and Sintashta apparently. Given all those stats that were produced showing how much genetic impact they had on India, I guess that was upsetting, although I thought there was some retreat from that position. If the paper is correct, those more "European" cultures, including any movement from Srubnaya are a dead end, yes?

However, the complete statement is the following:

"While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
(Steppe_MLBA) is not. Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have beenproposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians9,19, as well as the Srubnaya from easternEurope which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a1b2-Z935. A useful direction of future research is a more comprehensive sampling of ancient DNA from steppe populations, as well as populations of central Asia (east of Iran and south of the steppe), which may reveal more proximate sources of the ANI than the ones considered here, and of South Asia to determine the trajectory of population change in the area directly.

So, this hardly seems cut and dried on their part. Perhaps people should chill out a little.

Rather than accept this formulation, it was stated that the intrusive population to the steppe might be a combination of EHG, CHG and CT or "Old Europe" presumably, and that Lazaridis et al never bother to test that possibility. Well, uh, they did test it, and show the results in the Supplement for a possible admixture of EHG, CHG and Anatolia Neolithic explaining the non-EHG part of Yamnaya, with the latter coming, presumably, from CT. This group is well aware that admixtures can be modeled in different ways, and usually present all of them; it's just that what's put in the body of the paper is their estimate of the better alternative. In order to really pin it down, they need even older samples from the Near East and Central Asia. Again, though, I don't get why admixture from CT would be more acceptable. Maybe it has to do with having so vehemently denied in the past than any Near Eastern farmers went over the Caucasus into the steppe?

I find the argument that the steppe numbers for South Asian populations may be inflated more persuasive. The percentages seem very high for far South Indian groups. Perhaps the numbers are indeed inflated by "EHG like" populations in Central Asia that were absorbed on the move into India? Again, though, they seem very aware that there are more "proximate" populations which need to be sampled.

In that regard, this is the group that has had Caucasus and, I think, perhaps some Central Asian samples for quite a while, yes? So, presumably, they might already have a good idea about that?

Just parenthetically, this need to get more than one paper out of the data they have is totally understandable, but it puts the authors of the papers at something of a disadvantage it seems to me, since they may know much more than they can say. This was part of the problem with the Mathiesen et al paper.

Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)

It looks as if the yDna "J" got to the southern Levant rather late, not until the Bronze Age.

I don't understand the following:
"Northwest Anatolians—with ancestry from a population related to 322 European hunter-gatherers (Supplementary Information, section 7)—are better modelled if 323 this ancestry is taken as more extreme than Bichon (Supplementary Information, section 10)."

Alpenjager
18-06-16, 07:01
Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)

Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.

Fire Haired14
18-06-16, 07:22
Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.

This paper includes lots of Middle Eastern hunter gatherers. They all had Basal Eurasian. In Iran and Levant, the later farming population's were the decendants of previous hunter gatherers in Iran and Levant. Basal Eurasian has nothing to do with farming. pre-farming Iranians were had ANE but weren't ANE-rich, at least compared to EHG and Native Americans.

bicicleur
18-06-16, 07:55
I haven't been able to read the study properly, will do so in a few days. But ..



So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

That Iran Chalcolithic is:
13,4 EHG
62,3 Iran_N
20,0 Levant_N
4,3 WHG

How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.



could that 43 % be the Maykop component?

if I recall well EHG were R1a while I1945 Iran neolithic is P1xQ which is R

Sile
18-06-16, 08:43
Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.

I1707 = T
age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
SNP's = 152234
MtDNA = R0a

I1707
: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
East9
and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
Neolithic of central Europe6.


While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries

T-P322 is mostly found in the Levant , Armenia and Germany

LeBrok
18-06-16, 08:46
The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic. Can someone "in know" look at these clades and explain their relation to Asia and Europe and Bronze Age? I'm not surprised we can find some R1 haplogroups there, but that they were farmers. Next surprise is right after, in LN and beyond they were gone! Why these clades didn't emigrate with Iranian farmers to Anatolia?
I was one of proponents of North-South movement of HG tribes or trans Caucasus movement. But R1 farmers in Iran, that's a surprise.

Can someone explain "Figure 1" from the paper, the PCA distances and chart with colored admixtures. How come Anatolian and European Neolithic is represented by mixture of Natufians and WHGs only? On PCA European Neolithic is exactly between Natufian N and WHGs, while Iranian N is the furthest group away?
Isn't it a contradiction with Figure 4b?

Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.

Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.

Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.

So where G2a EEF came from? Communities in Central/Eastern Turkey or wherever? Looking at always fluent dominant Y haplogroup in Neolithic farmers, it points to the story of many collapses of population, bottleneck, founder effect and natural selection, that favoured one haplogroup over others followed by strong expansion of the "lucky" one. Amazing.

epoch
18-06-16, 09:50
@bicileur

Villabruna was R1b with no sign of any contact with this area: Be it basal admixture of mtDNA. We do have a EHG with J, but we do also have some mtDNA H there.

Coriolan
18-06-16, 09:52
Looks like Maciamo was right about haplogroup T originating with cereal farmers in the Fertile Crescent. The haplogroup page mentions specifically early farmers from the Levant and shows Middle Eastern farmers in the top banner pictures.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

epoch
18-06-16, 09:58
The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic.

I didn't read that. The paper states:


This individual belonged to haplogroup P1 on the basis of mutation P282. It was ancestral for downstream haplogroups Q (F1237.1, FGC4603), R1b1a2 (CTS12478), R1a1a1b1a1b 52 (CTS11962), R1a1a1b1a3a (L448), and R1a1a1b2a2a (Z2123). Thus, it could be designated P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b , R1a1a1b1a3a , R1a1a1b2a2a).




Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.

CHG was paleolithic and mesolithic.


Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.

A very short look at archaeology could have told you that as well.


Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.

No, the 50/50 basis for Yamnaya hasn't changed.

epoch
18-06-16, 10:07
What I find surprising is that we can't seem to find a trace of Cucuteni-Tripolye until Middle Bronze age on the steppe. It was supposed to be of great influence to Sredny Stog. We should see if D-stats have Corded Ware prefer Anatolia over Chalcolithic Iran. If so, Western Yamnaya has different ME admixture than Eastern Yamnaya.

berun
18-06-16, 10:15
The absence of Neanderthal admixture in these populations is logical; the paper statistics don't say 0% but the authors prefer to assume none as it's near the stat error. If the area was more fertile and peopled than cold glaciar Europe, of course the relation Sapiens / Neanderthal will be more leveled in Europe, above all if the Sapiens were better adapted to Near Eastern ecosystems. Also the high Y-DNA diversity in the area points to a high population (more people, more mutations). The Gulf oase would be even "overpopulated" with its big rivers and side rivers coming from the Zagros.

Natufians / PPNB displaying E-Z830 in the right epoch for Afroasiatic language matches quite well with the dispersal of such language family in Africa, above all among Berbers and their E-M81 linage (nephew to Z830 and formed in the time of the Natufians). The back-to-Africa migration related to herders and farmers might have carried there the R1b-V88 and the Chadic subfamily: being R Eurasian, some R1b might live among the Levantines (an European origin is not conceivable if Chadic branches from AA). The stricking case is to see J in Levant_BA, the time of Semithics arriving in the Levant and Mesopotamia... from the south?

epoch
18-06-16, 10:33
The authors don't think Basal Eurasian came from Africa, because Basal Eurasian peaks in Neolithic Iranians.

But while HG's all had Basal, no one was a pure Basal. It clearly is not African - this paper reaffirms that - so how can that be?

It must therefore be something very old and it needs to have happened before the UP. So, Basal remained in ME, admixture with Neanderthals happened in the Caucasus or Anatolia and the latter back migrated. Then diversified.

Alpenjager
18-06-16, 11:37
I1707 = T
age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
SNP's = 152234
MtDNA = R0a

I1707
: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
East9
and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
Neolithic of central Europe6.


While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries

T-P322 is mostly found in the Levant , Armenia and Germany

Ancestral = Negative, He doesn't belong to P322.

Alpenjager
18-06-16, 11:39
This could be a scenario:

The authors found that I1945 belong to P1-P282 but was negative for R1b1a2-CTS12478. This would mean that R1b1a2-M269 is necessarily discarded? NO!

According to YFULL R1b1a2-M269 have been formed 13600ybp BUT TMRCA for all descendants is only 6400ybp!

Anyone knows when CTS12478 appeared? Because between 6400ybp and 10.000ybp there are 3600 years for accumulate new mutations! What if CTS12478 is younger than the sample?

Alan
18-06-16, 13:05
Just finished the Supplement and then took a look at other sites to see the comments. Some were insightful, some very disappointing. Every person whose pet agenda is at all negatively impacted has pulled out the knives. Without being able to point to anything wrong with the analysis, and without having even looked at the actual samples, one blogger stated outright that he's out to disprove the conclusions of the paper. Very sad. Not, of course, that any group of researchers is necessarily correct 100% of the time, but this particular group has a very good track record, and some of them created the very statistical programs being used. So, we shall see.



the "reasonings of this blogger you mean are so pathethic, he doesn't even try to hide his agenda. He always jumps out with a knife when it is about that I1945: P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a) individual and despite knowing nothing, "Assumes" it must be R2 without any reasonable reasoning and his believers who seem to not be able to think for themselves just swallow it ^^
Especially some of those guys on Anthrogenica are the worst. I haven't seen such a bunch of non thinking individuals on one place for long time. You can't even read their coments properly without account as if they are some kind of special organisation but all I see is that roughly 90% of the freakn Forum are too lazy to think for themselves and eat everything out of the hand of him. He doesn't even need to give a reasoning, He could write "it is so because I said so" and several of these individuals including the Admin would give him just out of their "principles" a thumps up. Remember I got blocked there not because I insulted anyone but because I was one of the few who tackled that "prophetic bloggers" words. They blocked me with the reasoning of creating too much "controversy" lol. So you are only allowed to be in this special group if you swallow what a few individuals spit.

When you ask how is that this individual is going to be "R2" ( chance of 1 to possibly 1/4 at least considering how many R1a and R1b subclades are possible) all you get as answer is a "Haha no R1 in ancient Near Eastern. " while the sample is most likely some branch of R1a or R1b. And take in mind where R2 is there shouldn't be R1 far off either.

By so much pathethic ness I just wish R1 is going to be found somewhere in Africa just to piss them off ^^




Now about the EHG in Calcolthic Iran, I think I did write this under this bloggers comments once, We might even find some EHG on the Iranian Plateau because I believe there has to have been something ANE or even Proto EHG like in South_Central Asia. So I believe this EHG indeed might have come from South_Central Asia.
Another possibility is that this is very ancient relationship between the CHG like and EHG like ancestry.

[QUOT]Eather than accept this formulation, it was stated that the intrusive population to the steppe might be a combination of EHG, CHG and CT or "Old Europe" presumably, and that Lazaridis et al never bother to test that possibility. Well, uh, they did test it, and show the results in the Supplement for a possible admixture of EHG, [/QUOTE]

Yup Lazaridis just doesn't know what he is talking about because he didn't test the possibility of EHG, CHG and CT (sarcasm), everything just don't come too close to a possible Iranian Plateau origin of PIE lol.

Alan
18-06-16, 13:19
This paper includes lots of Middle Eastern hunter gatherers. They all had Basal Eurasian. In Iran and Levant, the later farming population's were the decendants of previous hunter gatherers in Iran and Levant. Basal Eurasian has nothing to do with farming. pre-farming Iranians were had ANE but weren't ANE-rich, at least compared to EHG and Native Americans.



Please Fire_Head read the study, above I directly quoted from the study. The Iranian Plateau farmers are rich in ANE, or have rich ANE like ancestry.

The paper clearly showes Mal'ta (Proxy for ANE) being labeled as ~28% Iranian Mesolithic/Neolithic like, 10% CHG like. So the Authors assume that ANE itself has a huge chunk of Iranian related DNA. This is why Iranian Neolithic doesn't show any ANE admixture. What they believe there is ancestry from the Iranian Plateau in ANE and not vica versa.

Alan
18-06-16, 13:26
But while HG's all had Basal, no one was a pure Basal. It clearly is not African - this paper reaffirms that - so how can that be?

It must therefore be something very old and it needs to have happened before the UP. So, Basal remained in ME, admixture with Neanderthals happened in the Caucasus or Anatolia and the latter back migrated. Then diversified.


Yes this ^

Basal Eurasian must have been somewhere where there wasn't much Neanderthal population, let's say somewhere like the coastle area of Iran. While the other non Basal Eurasian, Eurasian people went up into Anatolia, more North of the Iranian Plateau, Caucasus and mixed for the first time with Neanderthals.

Later these Neanderthal mixed people mixed with the Basal Eurasians, and there we have what we call A_Farmer, L_Farmer and I_Farmers, CHG.

The authors even assume that the only difference between Iranian_Farmers and CHG is that the former got effected more by a Basal Eurasian population while the letter less.

And the relationship of Levant Neolithic to Anatolian Neolithic is exactly the same as the relationship of Iranian Neolithic to CHG.

The letter seems to have less Basal Eurasian than the former.

Means Basal Eurasian came and mixed into a WHG like population in the Levant and a ANE like population in the Iranian Plateau.

Now Basal Eurasian could be from anywhere in the coastle Iranian region to Arabia.

Angela
18-06-16, 16:30
I've been looking at the modern PCA in the paper. Does anyone know of a site somewhere where it's explained where the modern samples for this data set were collected? I'm interested, for example, in whether those are all mainland Greek samples. I'd also like to know if the "North Italy" samples include Tuscans. It looks like it to me, but I hesitate to say so without knowing more about the data set.

For ease of reference to the PCA with the ancient samples:
http://i.imgur.com/2fdrZf8.png

Look at what happened to the Anatolian population from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. There's obviously been a lot of gene flow from the Caucasus. I think my brain is overloaded. Is the Anatolian Chalcolithic sample the Kumtepe 6 one just prior to Troy? If so, what some of us saw in the Hofmanova results is correct?

You can definitely see the European samples being dragged over by the WHG admixture over time, but not very much.

I don't know how much weight to put on where they fall versus modern populations. Did anyone notice in the methodology where they described how the projections were done? I just skimmed much of that.

Angela
18-06-16, 16:44
Someone on anthrogenica posted the fst table for Anatolian Neolithic. Interesting, yes?

7813



The actual Middle Eastern populations are much more distant. Surprisingly to me, so are the Ashkenazim. That's just more fodder for the political wars, of course, although the difference is small.

The Canary Islanders keep coming up with a high relationship. Their more "exotic" ancestry is too small, I guess, to pull them very far away.

Of course, the absolute winners are the Adygei, Abkhasians, and Albanians.

I've been thinking about the routes of the Neolithic into Europe. Perhaps what we're seeing here is the Cardial route group having relatively more Levant Neolithic because they took off from further north near modern day northern Syria/southeastern Turkey? The group that went due north quite a bit later perhaps had more CHG? (although the paper models them as being part Levant Neolithic) That might explain the slight differences between the Hungarian Neolithic and the Spanish Neolithic?

MOESAN
18-06-16, 19:29
Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.


What you say seem logical until a certain point (the Basal Eurasian would have been sent by Neolithic southern farmers?); a point seems less certain to me: the "iranian mesolithic" label for EHG; perhaps are you thinking CHG and not EHG? Could you confirm or infirm it?

LeBrok
18-06-16, 20:38
Someone on anthrogenica posted the fst table for Anatolian Neolithic. Interesting, yes?

7812

The actual Middle Eastern populations are much more distant. Surprisingly to me, so are the Ashkenazim. That's just more fodder for the political wars, of course, although the difference is small.

The Canary Islanders keep coming up with a high relationship. Their more "exotic" ancestry is too small, I guess, to pull them very far away.

Of course, the absolute winners are the Adygei, Abkhasians, and Albanians.

I've been thinking about the routes of the Neolithic into Europe. Perhaps what we're seeing here is the Cardial route group having relatively more Levant Neolithic because they took off from further north near modern day northern Syria/southeastern Turkey? The group that went due north quite a bit later perhaps had more CHG? (although the paper models them as being part Levant Neolithic) That might explain the slight differences between the Hungarian Neolithic and the Spanish Neolithic?
Angela, the attachments don't work in both posts.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 20:55
I didn't read that. The paper states:Got it now, thanks for explaining.


CHG was paleolithic and mesolithic.
Yes, but overlapping with Iranian Neolithic as perf figure 1a.

Any idea why Figure 1c is not in tune with Figure 4b? According to 1c Anatolian N is mixture of mostly Natufian/Levant farmer with WHG. According to 4b mostly Iranian N, then Levant N, and some WHG. 1b PCA chart also plots Anatolian and European farmer between position of Natufians and WHG. Iranian N being very far away.



A very short look at archaeology could have told you that as well.Right




No, the 50/50 basis for Yamnaya hasn't changed.Or was it Corded Ware with very small farmer input?

LeBrok
18-06-16, 21:13
For all doubters of Steppe invasion into South Asia and India here is a genetic proof:

In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes avariable amount of the ancestry of South Asians, (Supplementary Information, section 9) (Extended Data Fig. 4). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘IndianCline’ of such ancestry, is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalashof Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans.

Alan
18-06-16, 21:30
For all doubters of Steppe invasion into South Asia and India here is a genetic proof:

There was without a doubt Steppe influx into India the Out of India theory doesn't make much sense so I don't bother, however the figure of 50% for other South Asians is far too high even tribal Indians are shown wth ~18% Steppe admixture which is exactly the reason that brings the authors to the idea that something very EHG like did already exist in the region prior to the Indo_Iranian migration. So not all of the "Steppic" ancestry there is really Steppic but could be even more ancient.

And this would also explain where the ~13% EHG admixture in the mesolithic and calcolthic Iranian samples come from.

A. Papadimitriou
18-06-16, 21:40
For all doubters of Steppe invasion into South Asia and India here is a genetic proof:

In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes avariable amount of the ancestry of South Asians, (Supplementary Information, section 9) (Extended Data Fig. 4). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘IndianCline’ of such ancestry, is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalashof Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans.

If Bronze-Age-Eurasian-steppe-like people were already in North India and early-farmers-of-Western-Iran migrated there we could have the same result.

holderlin
18-06-16, 21:47
This is what we've been waiting for.

I haven't had a chance to read this as an old college buddy passing through town compelled me to compromise my faculties for the past 18 hours.

A couple things.

I while ago I noticed that there was a surged in Teal in steppe EHG prior to any evidence of contact with the Caucuses. On this notion I proposed early contacts with the South East/Iranian Plateau. The evidence of a freakishly early neolithic on the Volga is also consistent with this.

Also I think Basal Eurasian comes from South Asia.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 22:09
If Bronze-Age-Eurasian-steppe-like people were already in North India and early-farmers-of-Western-Iran migrated there we could have the same result.Before bronze age Steppe people had different admixture signature, were genetically different from Bronze age steppe people. I'm sure the authors of this paper would recognize Steppe Bronze signature in Indian population from any other.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 22:16
Any idea why Figure 1c is not in tune with Figure 4b? According to 1c Anatolian N is mixture of mostly Natufian/Levant farmer with WHG. According to 4b mostly Iranian N, then Levant N, and some WHG. 1b PCA chart also plots Anatolian and European farmer between position of Natufians and WHG. Iranian N being very far away.


There seems to be a serious discrepancy with prediction model and actual samples for Anatolian Neolithic. Look at Extended Data Figure 5, top of the page in the middle. The prediction model is much closer in agreement to what Figure 4 represents (Iranian N/Levant N/WHG), while actual data agrees more with Figure 1c (Levant/WHG). Is Figure 4 from some sort of prediction, and Figure 1c is actual data?
What am I missing here?

LeBrok
18-06-16, 22:18
.

Also I think Basal Eurasian comes from South Asia.
Yep, as Alan said and I agree, it most likely comes from Arabian peninsula.

Angela
18-06-16, 22:20
LeBrok, can you try the fst chart? It works for me.

Angela
18-06-16, 22:34
I don't think there's any way of knowing at this stage where the Basal Eurasian was hiding, but one of the points against an Arabian refugia is that Levant Neolithic has less of it than Iranian hunter-gatherer (44% to 64%). On the other hand, both Levant Neolithic and Iranian Neolithic have about the same amount-44%-so the argument could be made that Basal was diluted in the west by something WHG like and in the east by something EHG or maybe ANE like.

The other alternative often mentioned is a Persian Gulf refugia, which is actually I think what Alan said?

@Holderlin,
I've considered that too. It would certainly explain why we haven't stumbled upon it yet, given that we have nothing really old from that region.

@Alan,
That makes sense to me, and I think the statements in the paper alluding to perhaps more "proximate" contacts was included. So, not that there wasn't actual steppe movement to India, but that there are older processes which may be inflating the figures.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 22:45
LeBrok, can you try the fst chart? It works for me.Both work now.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 22:51
http://i.imgur.com/2fdrZf8.png
It is interesting that Jews plot with Neolithic Levant and Palestinians with Bronze Age Levant. Like Jews were sheltered from Bronze Age genetic influence. Well, they really must have hidden in a desert, not for 40 but 1,000 years. ;) Bedouins and Saudis are closer to Natufians though.

LeBrok
18-06-16, 23:14
Looking at PCA, post above, it is interesting how Steppe Late Neolithic/Early Bronze is composed pretty much of two elements the EHG and Iranian N/Chl (Steppe EMBA). No EEF farmer input what so ever. Also in Extended figure 5.
By mid Bronze Age the Steppe group is strongly influenced only by Anatolian/European Neolithic farmer genetics at strong 30% level, Steppe MLBA. Strong EEF genetic flow. I'm assuming this could have been done by mixing heavily with Cucuteni farmers in West Yamnaya. Or EMBA was East Yamnaya and MLBA West Yamnaya. If I understood the paper this latter MLBA became dominant in the Steppe. However there is still this IA sample which is much closer to the EMBA population. I guess stepp was mixed and varied by cultures.

epoch
18-06-16, 23:25
Any idea why Figure 1c is not in tune with Figure 4b? According to 1c Anatolian N is mixture of mostly Natufian/Levant farmer with WHG. According to 4b mostly Iranian N, then Levant N, and some WHG. 1b PCA chart also plots Anatolian and European farmer between position of Natufians and WHG. Iranian N being very far away.


If I understand it all correctly ADMIXTURE takes a whole lot of f3 stats and plots them. If it finds some samples clustering (i.e. a number of instances all with very low different f3 stats) it will consider it a population and measure the "distance" of others towards it as admixture proportions. You can imagine that for very old samples this will not work. They will have contributed for instance to population A as well as population B and C. The old samples will also have their own - lost - drift. This will be calculated as a mixture of A, B and C even if it is not.

ADMIXTURE will try to find a new cluster each step it takes.

So as long as Levant_N and Anatolia_N aren't considered different populations 1c is valid. As soon as both are considered separate populations 4b. In other words: 1c means K=11, 4b means K>11.

Maciamo
18-06-16, 23:28
I have been busy and only saw this paper now. Finally some Natufian and Early Levantine Neolithic genomes! That's great news. I haven't had time to read the paper yet. Only the comments posted here and quickly browsing through the Y-DNA and mtDNA results.

I am surprised like most of you not to find any trace of Y-haplogroup G among the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantines, but I am pleased that we finally have some Y-DNA T and that it was indeed as I thought found among the earliest farmers. Note that the Mesolithic Natufians appear to belong exclusively to CT and E1b1b, while early pre-pottery farmers also have H2 and T. So it could be that H2 and T colonised the southern Levant from further north (e.g. northern Mesopotamia or Syria).

I do expect to find G2a among Early Farmers further north though, either in Syria or southern Turkey. They had to come from somewhere, and it is extremely unlikely that cereal farming spread almost exclusively through diffusion from the southern Levant to Anatolia while it spread almost exclusively by migration from Anatolia to all Europe. That wouldn't make any sense. Anyway it is sure that some T and H2 people were among the predominantly G2a Early European Farmers, but it's somewhat odd that only one T and no E-M123 have been found in Neolithic Europe or Anatolia to date. H2 looks like the strongest unifier of Near Eastern and European Neolithic people, which makes even less sense as it is almost extinct everywhere today.

Just as I expected there was no R1b, J1 or J2 in the Levant at the time. R1b-V88 would have arrived from the northern Fertile Crescent with cattle herders a bit later in the Neolithic, with J1 and J2 could have come with some goat herders in the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic. More of them certainly came during the great Bronze Age expansions of the Indo-Europeans (R1a, R1b) and of the Kura-Araxes culture (J1, J2, G2a).

I wasn't sure about when E-M123 had entered the Levant from Africa. We now know that it was at least since the Mesolithic with the Natufians. That's interesting because it would mean that E-M123 wasn't brought by Proto-Semitic people during the Chalcolithic. Or else perhaps Proto-Semitic did really arrive in the Chalolithic but with a different wave of E-M34 people. In that case the E-M123 or other E1b1b would only be distantly related and all/most of these Natufian E1b1b lineages are now extinct, just like CT. This second hypothesis seems the most likely.

It's a bit disappointing that they only managed to test a single Natufian mtDNA sample. It's hard to believe that they couldn't sequence any when mtDNA is the easiest part of the genome to sequence. It turns out to belong to haplogroup N1b, which is almost exclusively found in the Middle East today.

The mtDNA from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant is K1a4b, R0a and T1a2, three almost exclusively Middle Eastern lineages today (K1a4b is found chiefly among the Druzes). This, combined with the Y-DNA results, strongly suggests that the Levantine Neolithic is not the source of any European Neolithic culture.

Early Iranian Neolithic samples only yielded mt-haplogroup X2 (found all over Europe today) and J1c10, (found nowadays in central and western Europe, continental Italy, Sardinia and Morocco). Both were found among European Neolithic farmers.

Therefore, based on the (very scarce) Y-DNA and mtDNA data, it looks like European farmers came from Anatolia and Iran, or more probably a common source in the northern Fertile Crescent around modern Kurdistan, but not from the Levant.

Iranian Chalcolithic samples belonged to I1c, K1a12a (2x), H29, U3a'c and U7a, the Armenian Chalcolithic belonged to K1a8 (2x), H2a1 and U4a, while the Anatolian Chalcolithic had just one K1a17. Those lineages are still typical of the northern Middle East today and are much rarer in Europe than the Neolithic mtDNA from Anatolia and Iran. The only exceptions are I1c, H2a1 and U4a, which are found especially in central and eastern Europe today, but did not show up in Europe until the Indo-European invasions with the Corded Ware culture. It is highly interesting that these were found in Chalcolithic Armenia and Iran, as it appears to confirm that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in that region before crossing the Caucasus to found the Yamna culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. More intriguing still, these three lineages (H2a1, I1c and U4a) are actually linked to the R1a-dominant Corded Ware and Catacomb cultures, not the R1b-dominant Yamna culture. We still have to determine what could be the link between Armenia-Iran and the northern forest steppe of Russia. It could be the same population that brought CHG admixture to both Yamna and Corded Ware and it does appear to have been maternally mediated, as clearly Chalcolithic Armenians and Iranians had completed different Y-DNA from Steppe people (L1a, G1, G2a and J vs R1a and R1b).

Angela
18-06-16, 23:37
Looking at PCA, post above, it is interesting how Steppe Late Neolithic/Early Bronze is composed pretty much of two elements the EHG and Iranian N/Chl (Steppe EMBA). No EEF farmer input what so ever. Also in Extended figure 5.
By mid Bronze Age the Steppe group is strongly influenced only by Anatolian/European Neolithic farmer genetics at strong 30% level, Steppe MLBA. Strong EEF genetic flow. I'm assuming this could have been done by mixing heavily with Cucuteni farmers in West Yamnaya. Or EMBA was East Yamnaya and MLBA West Yamnaya. If I understood the paper this latter MLBA became dominant in the Steppe.

That's how I read it as well. We don't have any yDna from West Yamnaya, correct? Maybe that's where R1b L51+ has been hiding.

Angela
18-06-16, 23:46
@LeBrok,
Do you mean the Ashkenazim? They don't plot near ancient Levantine farmers from what I can see. They plot right near the Sicilians and Maltese. If I'm reading the modern PCA correctly, it's parallel to the Anatolian Chalcolithc sample. It's true though that a lot of Jews carry E-M123, but so do some Palestinians, I think.

Another handy graphic:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

Sile
18-06-16, 23:51
Ancestral = Negative, He doesn't belong to P322.

yes , you are correct................so there in no link between the T (i1707) in the levant and the 2 early neolitihc T found in germany.

It means the German T's came from another area.


currently the highest % of T in this area apart from the kurds are the syrian who declare themselves assyrian in ethnicity

epoch
19-06-16, 00:07
It's a bit disappointing that thy didn't test (or didn't report yet?) any Natufian mtDNA. It's hard to believe that they couldn't sequence any when mtDNA is the easiest part of the genome to sequence.

Perhaps it will follow. IIRC other pre-print papers added more data as well. Possibly they will update the Y-DNA P1(Xa whole lot) as well.

Angela
19-06-16, 01:28
Some of you may have seen this tweet from Lazaridis already:
Iosif Lazaridis ‏@iosif_lazaridis
I1635 (Armenia_EBA) is R1b1-M415(xM269). We'll be sure to include in the revision. Thanks to the person who noticed!

This is Kura Araxas.

Alan
19-06-16, 01:50
Some of you may have seen this tweet from Lazaridis already:
Iosif Lazaridis ‏@iosif_lazaridis
I1635 (Armenia_EBA) is R1b1-M415(xM269). We'll be sure to include in the revision. Thanks to the person who noticed!

This is Kura Araxas. HA antoher one, I know I sound selfish and like a broken recorder but I pointed out the similarities between Kura Araxes and Steppic folks. I did point out Kura Araxes had both Kurgan and pit graves and horses there predate horses in Sintashta by several hundred years.

So far Kura Araxes period Haplogroups are L1a and R1b.

LeBrok
19-06-16, 02:19
@LeBrok,
Do you mean the Ashkenazim? They don't plot near ancient Levantine farmers from what I can see. They plot right near the Sicilians and Maltese. If I'm reading the modern PCA correctly, it's parallel to the Anatolian Chalcolithc sample. It's true though that a lot of Jews carry E-M123, but so do some Palestinians, I think.

Another handy graphic:

Nope, all the other Jews in the area, especially the Libyan and Tunisian Jews. Look at modern population PCA in Extended Figure 1. Compare it to PCA Figure 1b

Alan
19-06-16, 02:25
Imo if Kura Araxes had R1b, than Maykop which is roughly from the same timeframe further North had it too.

LeBrok
19-06-16, 03:07
Just as I expected there was no R1b, J1 or J2 in the Levant at the time. R1b-V88 would have arrived from the northern Fertile Crescent with cattle herders a bit later in the Neolithic, with J1 and J2 could have come with some goat herders in the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic. More of them certainly came during the great Bronze Age expansions of the Indo-Europeans (R1a, R1b) and of the Kura-Araxes culture (J1, J2, G2a).

I wasn't sure about when E-M123 had entered the Levant from Africa. We now know that it was at least since the Mesolithic with the Natufians. That's interesting because it would mean that E-M123 wasn't brought by Proto-Semitic people during the Chalcolithic. Or else perhaps Proto-Semitic did really arrive in the Chalolithic but with a different wave of E-M34 people. In that case the E-M123 or other E1b1b would only be distantly related and all/most of these Natufian E1b1b lineages are now extinct, just like CT. This second hypothesis seems the most likely.

It's a bit disappointing that they only managed to test a single Natufian mtDNA sample. It's hard to believe that they couldn't sequence any when mtDNA is the easiest part of the genome to sequence. It turns out to belong to haplogroup N1b, which is almost exclusively found in the Middle East today.

The mtDNA from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant is K1a4b, R0a and T1a2, three almost exclusively Middle Eastern lineages today (K1a4b is found chiefly among the Druzes). This, combined with the Y-DNA results, strongly suggests that the Levantine Neolithic is not the source of any European Neolithic culture.Early Iranian Neolithic samples only yielded mt-haplogroup X2 (found all over Europe today) and J1c10, (found nowadays in central and western Europe, continental Italy, Sardinia and Morocco). Both were found among European Neolithic farmers.

Therefore, based on the (very scarce) Y-DNA and mtDNA data, it looks like European farmers came from Anatolia and Iran, or more probably a common source in the northern Fertile Crescent around modern Kurdistan, but not from the Levant.
The only squeaky wheel in it is that Anatolian farmers have 34% of autosomal Levant Neolithic in them. I see two possibilities to explain. Either Levant Y and mtDNA got deleted by better fit Iranian and local types uniparental DNA, which is not impossible knowing how fast they can bloom and die due to bottlenecking (8.2k event) and other evolutionary forcings. Second solution is that 34% of what appears to be Levant DNA is actually from a group of very related to them HGs in Central Anatolia, possibly carriers of G2a. Therefore all farmers genes come from Iranian Farmers, the rest from local hunters. That's quite a twist to what we assumed just days ago, but it is what it is. Well, possible by now, till dust settles.


samples belonged to I1c, K1a12a (2x), H29, U3a'c and U7a, the Armenian Chalcolithic belonged to K1a8 (2x), H2a1 and U4a, while the Anatolian Chalcolithic had just one K1a17. Those lineages are still typical of the northern Middle East today and are much rarer in Europe than the Neolithic mtDNA from Anatolia and Iran. The only exceptions are I1c, H2a1 and U4a, which are found especially in central and eastern Europe today, but did not show up in Europe until the Indo-European invasions with the Corded Ware culture. It is highly interesting that these were found in Chalcolithic Armenia and Iran, as it appears to confirm that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in that region before crossing the Caucasus to found the Yamna culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. More intriguing still, these three lineages (H2a1, I1c and U4a) are actually linked to the R1a-dominant Corded Ware and Catacomb cultures, not the R1b-dominant Yamna culture. We still have to determine what could be the link between Armenia-Iran and the northern forest steppe of Russia. It could be the same population that brought CHG admixture to both Yamna and Corded Ware and it does appear to have been maternally mediated, as clearly Chalcolithic Armenians and Iranians had completed different Y-DNA from Steppe people (L1a, G1, G2a and J vs R1a and R1b).
Well, if we assume that proto IE is actually Iranian Neolithic, which fed Anatolian Neolithic, which fed European Neolithic, it makes European Neolithic proto IE too. Meaning all old Europe spoke proto IE language, plus half of Middle East. It makes irrelevant whichever farmers, Maykop or Cucuteni, taught language to Steppe people via farming and mingling, it was all proto IE. Actually it would make it easier to understand why the steppe invaders were so successful teaching all Europe and half Asia to speak their language. It was already very similar to local languages.
Well, one of possibilities at the moment.

Greying Wanderer
19-06-16, 03:37
@Maciamo


I do expect to find G2a among Early Farmers further north though, either in Syria or southern Turkey. They had to come from somewhere, and it is extremely unlikely that cereal farming spread almost exclusively through diffusion from the southern Levant to Anatolia while it spread almost exclusively by migration from Anatolia to all Europe.

The model i have in my head is multiple farmer groups in the region expanding out from their start point until they bump into each other and with none stronger than the others they create an equilibrium - so in this interior regions crops and animals diffuse across the borders by trade.

It is their expansion *away* from each other where they are competing with HGs which happens by migration.

#

@Holderlin


Also I think Basal Eurasian comes from South Asia.

Flooded Persian Gulf is my current guess.

#

edit: example of first point

say the start points were
- aegean (G?)
- nile delta (E?)
- persian gulf (BE?)
- south caspian (J?)

and then they all expanded they'd bump into each other in the middle

but their outward expansion would be over HGs

Fire Haired14
19-06-16, 04:29
Everything you need to know about the mtDNA results are here. (http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/)

LeBrok
19-06-16, 06:06
If I understand it all correctly ADMIXTURE takes a whole lot of f3 stats and plots them. If it finds some samples clustering (i.e. a number of instances all with very low different f3 stats) it will consider it a population and measure the "distance" of others towards it as admixture proportions. You can imagine that for very old samples this will not work. They will have contributed for instance to population A as well as population B and C. The old samples will also have their own - lost - drift. This will be calculated as a mixture of A, B and C even if it is not.Thanks I have to look into f3 stats to understand better.

ADMIXTURE will try to find a new cluster each step it takes.

So as long as Levant_N and Anatolia_N aren't considered different populations 1c is valid. As soon as both are considered separate populations 4b. In other words: 1c means K=11, 4b means K>11.Hmmm, in 1c figure 1 they distinguish Iranian N by green colour, as distinct admixture. I think if you enlarge the chart you should see a little squares of green in Anatolian Neolithic. Anyway, Iranian Ch contains both Levant and Iranian N, blue and green. Why wouldn't Anatolian then?
Check this latest paper:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32371-The-genetic-structure-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-farmers?p=482077#post482077
Figure C, GD13A represents Iranian Neolithic, Anatolian Neolithic has maybe 5% of it.

I think there is some disagreement here in calculation of influence of Iranian Neolithic in Anatolia, perhaps in what they call prediction.

Maciamo
19-06-16, 09:17
The only squeaky wheel in it is that Anatolian farmers have 34% of autosomal Levant Neolithic in them. I see two possibilities to explain. Either Levant Y and mtDNA got deleted by better fit Iranian and local types uniparental DNA, which is not impossible knowing how fast they can bloom and die due to bottlenecking (8.2k event) and other evolutionary forcings. Second solution is that 34% of what appears to be Levant DNA is actually from a group of very related to them HGs in Central Anatolia, possibly carriers of G2a. Therefore all farmers genes come from Iranian Farmers, the rest from local hunters. That's quite a twist to what we assumed just days ago, but it is what it is. Well, possible by now, till dust settles.

Admixtures are not as reliable as haplogroups. Admixtures are only simulation based on a researcher's selection and comparison of specific alleles. You should be especially careful about the naming of admixtures, as they can be misleading. If you collect ancient samples haphazardly from various sites in different regions, how are you supposed to know where one admixture originated. In most cases it will be with an ancient population that hasn't been sampled yet.

In the case of Basal Eurasian admixture, we have no idea if it matches exactly a specific Mesolithic or Early Neolithic population, or if it represents an admixture that was already widely distributed and blended with other admixtures in the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic Near East. It is dangerous to assume that Basal Eurasian necessarily represents the very first farmers. Then how do we know that there was only one ethnic group of original farmer? Wheat, barley, oats, flax, lentils, peas and chickpeas, the so-called Neolithic founder crops, could very well have been domesticated each by a different Mesolithic tribe. That is why we see Early Neolithic farmers belonging to a variety of Y-haplogroups like CT, C1a2, E1b1b, G1, G2a1, G2a2, H2, T, which would most likely have been distinct tribes (i.e. extended families) during the Mesolithic. But farmers doesn't only mean cereal and legume farmers, but also goat, sheep, pig and cattle herders, and all the evidence at present suggest that these were domesticated by yet other tribes - R1b for cattle, J1 or J2 for goats and sheep, and possibly one of the above, like G2a, for pigs.

The way I see it now is that many independent tribes inhabiting the Fertile Crescent in the Mesolithic domesticated various crops. It took there centuries, or even millennia of trading and intermarriages to progressively merge with one another, but leaving large regional disparities. H2 and T may have been domesticating Emmer wheat and barley in modern Syria, while CT and E1b1b domesticated legumes around modern Israel/Palestine and Jordan, G2a domesticated Einkorn wheat pigs in the Taurus, and R1b rounded up the first cow herds just south of the Taurus. If that kind of scenario took place, which population matches the "pure" Basal Eurasian? Or to phrase it another way, isn't Basal Eurasian the result of the merger of several of these tribes already? Shouldn't we have separate admixtures for each group? After all at first there was only one Mesolithic European admixture, but we now clearly distinguish between WHG and EHG, and there could be a third distinct one in the Balkans or Italy for all we know.




Well, if we assume that proto IE is actually Iranian Neolithic, which fed Anatolian Neolithic, which fed European Neolithic, it makes European Neolithic proto IE too. Meaning all old Europe spoke proto IE language, plus half of Middle East. It makes irrelevant whichever farmers, Maykop or Cucuteni, taught language to Steppe people via farming and mingling, it was all proto IE. Actually it would make it easier to understand why the steppe invaders were so successful teaching all Europe and half Asia to speak their language. It was already very similar to local languages.
Well, one of possibilities at the moment.

That's the point. H2a1, U4 and I1c were not found in the European Neolithic, nor in the Anatolian or Iranian Neolithic. The only pre-Bronze Age samples we have are from Chalcolithic eastern/central Europe, Armenia and Iran.

berun
19-06-16, 11:01
@Gravetto-Danubian

I have also something like that in my head, the first different tribes involved in agriculture and herdering would have reached a population density high enough as to need more land; there were two solutions left: fight for land agaisnt their farmer neighbours (already with a dense population also), or the easy solution, to occupy lands of the neighbour HG, almost empty.

@Maciamo

If you suggest that R1b was carrying PIE from Iran... it would have similar problems as the IE from Anatolia: what to do then with the hundreds of no-IE languages left in the Caucasus? Why the way what this new R1b guy does is in fact is adding up another signal for a "yellow alarm", in this case one that may give with more data the final game over to R1b / IE; if the paper puts clear that peoples from Iran arrived to the steppes, it was through Armenia / Caucasus, and there we find now (again before any IE expansion) a R1b person, in this case under a stone kurgan from a developed culture that expanded over a region that the first language known in the area was non-IE Hurrian (and then the related Urartian). Once the Urartian kingdom was beaten by the Assyrians the IE Armenians were able to profit the kaos to get in from the west in the VI BC. Other R1b's remained there, as in the sample of 1800 BC (a R1b-ht35 Hurrian) and 1000 BC (a R1b-Z2013 Uratian) as to continue with actual R1b Armenians being of the same R1b clade as their Urartian ancestors. But the worst with that is that the first clade is the same found in 1 Yamnayan and the "son" clade is found in 10 Yamnayans... so what to do? to think that R1b was added up to the northwards expansion with metals and wheels reaching Yamnaya, or to figure out that the same R1b Yamnayans clades came back to where they came? (and only such R1b specific clade among those that is supposed to have Yamnayans). As the new Armenian sample is xM269 it is reasonable to think that he was M73? The case is that M73 are now in the area that spans from Samara to Kabul, peaking in Bashkirs, is so another possible case of a clade carried northwards to add up? So the yellow alarm is that there are enough data to point that a bunch of R1b clades came to the steppe from the south... but it is doubtful that they were speaking IE when settled there.

MOESAN
19-06-16, 13:22
I don't think there's any way of knowing at this stage where the Basal Eurasian was hiding, but one of the points against an Arabian refugia is that Levant Neolithic has less of it than Iranian hunter-gatherer (44% to 64%). On the other hand, both Levant Neolithic and Iranian Neolithic have about the same amount-44%-so the argument could be made that Basal was diluted in the west by something WHG like and in the east by something EHG or maybe ANE like.

The other alternative often mentioned is a Persian Gulf refugia, which is actually I think what Alan said?

@Holderlin,
I've considered that too. It would certainly explain why we haven't stumbled upon it yet, given that we have nothing really old from that region.

@Alan,
That makes sense to me, and I think the statements in the paper alluding to perhaps more "proximate" contacts was included. So, not that there wasn't actual steppe movement to India, but that there are older processes which may be inflating the figures.


My poor old brain.All these simulations! Everyone of them is based upon human choice. No divine revelation helas as always in autosomes evluations.
I' ve to read and read again before synthetize. But yes I think (it's almost evident) exchanges of genes occurred between CHG ancient people and EHG of Steppes, even before Neolithic without speaking of an ancient common "ANE" or/and "proto-partly-gedrosia" anterior layer of old genes common all over central Asia. What is from deepcommon ancestry, what is from newly admixtures? We are sometimes speaking as if the genes states were a stable and "frozen" thing.
admixtures simulations are simulations (I repat myself, the age!), we need other tools as IBS, IBD things and what more?...
Concerning Basal Eurasian, seemingly Arabia is not the best choice; maybe as you say something around Persic Gulf?
By the way concerning Koweit people and surroundings, Coon said they presented some 'veddoid' traits more than central Arabs. In admixture we have South-Asian (for the worth it has) too. Here too, same problem: Is the ASI found among Near-Eastern Iranian Hindu Kush people the result of recent events linked to Harrapan introgression, or to gradual osmosis after Iranian/South Caucasus introgressions into ex-Harappa (Neolithoc, BA?) or for a part to deep ancestry? Perhaps no links with true (recent it's true) ASI but B-E could be linked to Elamits of Southern Iran (dravidian speaking)? All that is very complicated for me.
I would like to have the supposed 'basal-eurasian' estimations for Southern India.

&: apart: diverse papers I red always show a slight but ever present taste of Northern European in Hindu Kush and surroundings regions. WHat depth???

LeBrok
19-06-16, 16:10
@Gravetto-Danubian

I have also something like that in my head, the first different tribes involved in agriculture and herdering would have reached a population density high enough as to need more land; there were two solutions left: fight for land agaisnt their farmer neighbours (already with a dense population also), or the easy solution, to occupy lands of the neighbour HG, almost empty.

@Maciamo

If you suggest that R1b was carrying PIE from Iran... it would have similar problems as the IE from Anatolia: what to do then with the hundreds of no-IE languages left in the Caucasus? Why the way what this new R1b guy does is in fact is adding up another signal for a "yellow alarm", in this case one that may give with more data the final game over to R1b / IE; if the paper puts clear that peoples from Iran arrived to the steppes, it was through Armenia / Caucasus, and there we find now (again before any IE expansion) a R1b person, in this case under a stone kurgan from a developed culture that expanded over a region that the first language known in the area was non-IE Hurrian (and then the related Urartian). Once the Urartian kingdom was beaten by the Assyrians the IE Armenians were able to profit the kaos to get in from the west in the VI BC. Other R1b's remained there, as in the sample of 1800 BC (a R1b-ht35 Hurrian) and 1000 BC (a R1b-Z2013 Uratian) as to continue with actual R1b Armenians being of the same R1b clade as their Urartian ancestors. But the worst with that is that the first clade is the same found in 1 Yamnayan and the "son" clade is found in 10 Yamnayans... so what to do? to think that R1b was added up to the northwards expansion with metals and wheels reaching Yamnaya, or to figure out that the same R1b Yamnayans clades came back to where they came? (and only such R1b specific clade among those that is supposed to have Yamnayans). As the new Armenian sample is xM269 it is reasonable to think that he was M73? The case is that M73 are now in the area that spans from Samara to Kabul, peaking in Bashkirs, is so another possible case of a clade carried northwards to add up? So the yellow alarm is that there are enough data to point that a bunch of R1b clades came to the steppe from the south... but it is doubtful that they were speaking IE when settled there.
Good point, we fall into known shortcomings of Anatolian origin of IE hypothesis, likewise there are too many ancient non-IE languages in the area, Caucasus, Minoans, Etruscans, Sumerians to make Iranian and Anatolian farmers IEs. There is no evidence of IE language till late Bronze Age. It could indeed be a language of Steppe herders/HGs and expended with them in Bronze Age.

LeBrok
19-06-16, 16:23
Admixtures are not as reliable as haplogroups. Admixtures are only simulation based on a researcher's selection and comparison of specific alleles. You should be especially careful about the naming of admixtures, as they can be misleading. If you collect ancient samples haphazardly from various sites in different regions, how are you supposed to know where one admixture originated. In most cases it will be with an ancient population that hasn't been sampled yet.

In the case of Basal Eurasian admixture, we have no idea if it matches exactly a specific Mesolithic or Early Neolithic population, or if it represents an admixture that was already widely distributed and blended with other admixtures in the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic Near East. It is dangerous to assume that Basal Eurasian necessarily represents the very first farmers. Then how do we know that there was only one ethnic group of original farmer? Wheat, barley, oats, flax, lentils, peas and chickpeas, the so-called Neolithic founder crops, could very well have been domesticated each by a different Mesolithic tribe. That is why we see Early Neolithic farmers belonging to a variety of Y-haplogroups like CT, C1a2, E1b1b, G1, G2a1, G2a2, H2, T, which would most likely have been distinct tribes (i.e. extended families) during the Mesolithic. But farmers doesn't only mean cereal and legume farmers, but also goat, sheep, pig and cattle herders, and all the evidence at present suggest that these were domesticated by yet other tribes - R1b for cattle, J1 or J2 for goats and sheep, and possibly one of the above, like G2a, for pigs.

The way I see it now is that many independent tribes inhabiting the Fertile Crescent in the Mesolithic domesticated various crops. It took there centuries, or even millennia of trading and intermarriages to progressively merge with one another, but leaving large regional disparities. H2 and T may have been domesticating Emmer wheat and barley in modern Syria, while CT and E1b1b domesticated legumes around modern Israel/Palestine and Jordan, G2a domesticated Einkorn wheat pigs in the Taurus, and R1b rounded up the first cow herds just south of the Taurus. If that kind of scenario took place, which population matches the "pure" Basal Eurasian? Or to phrase it another way, isn't Basal Eurasian the result of the merger of several of these tribes already? Shouldn't we have separate admixtures for each group? After all at first there was only one Mesolithic European admixture, but we now clearly distinguish between WHG and EHG, and there could be a third distinct one in the Balkans or Italy for all we know.I'm not sure if I can buy such narrow farming specialization, to make every haplogroup farm or herd something different than others. Once you domesticate one plant or one animal, you understand the concept and develop genetic inclinations to farming, the rest should snowball into domestication whatever grows and walks and is tasty in the area. Having said that, the genetic picture shows that many independent groups survived LGM there and developed farming/herding independently. At least two, Natufians and Iran_N, possibly third one in Anatolia. The picture is still muddy, and as you mentioned at the beginning, we can't trust the admixture calculators too much yet.

Alan
19-06-16, 17:01
Good point, we fall into known shortcomings of Anatolian origin of IE hypothesis, likewise there are too many ancient non-IE languages in the area, Caucasus, Minoans, Etruscans, Sumerians to make Iranian and Anatolian farmers IEs. There is no evidence of IE language till late Bronze Age. It could indeed be a language of Steppe herders/HGs and expended with them in Bronze Age.



We don't know what kind of language Sumerians, Elamites etc spoke for that matter all we know it could be isolated, but also Indo European related. Yet what people seem to miss out, Those Steppes were populated by Uralic speaking people too. In fact EHG peaks in Uralic speakers, not Indo European speakers.

If we believe EHG is simply WHG+ANE, which part of their ancestry brought the PIE language? Was ist WHG or was it ANE? ANE isn't exclusive to Indo Europeans, and I doubt WHG was Indo European.

So the argument that the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia had too many non IE languages (well I can't think of any attested Bronze Age language from the Iranian Plateau anyways beside Elamite which imo is more connected to South Mesopotamia than Iranian Plateau). Can be used for the Steppes too.

The best hypothesis so far is, that one PIE language or culture didn't exist but we deal with several creol languages which emerged out of similar propotions of admixture.

Having Hittite samples would be great, and could bring all this debate more towards the end. If the Hittites who are the oldest most archaic Indo Europeans turn out with significantly higher percentages EHG than calcolthic/mesolithic Iranian Plateau and West Asian highland samples, and we have pre Neolithic South_Central Asian samples which do not appear EHG like, than we can conclude the Indo European language definitely evolved in the Steppes.

But I am very convinced as I pointed out in the past that PIE was more of a network of cultures, being all around the Black and Caspian Sea (North, south, East and West of it).

And something tells me Kura Araxes or Maykop will turn out as the origin of Hittite, since the appearance of Hittites fits with the Kura Araxes collapse.

Angela
19-06-16, 17:25
Nope, all the other Jews in the area, especially the Libyan and Tunisian Jews. Look at modern population PCA in Extended Figure 1. Compare it to PCA Figure 1b

Yes, if the projected ancient samples from the Levant Neolithic are accurately placed in relationship to the modern samples, the Levant Neolithic clusters right in between the Palestinians and Jordanians to their right, and at the top left corner to the North African Jews.

The answer as to why is rather unclear to me. I think maybe the more likely scenario is that the Jews of the Bronze Age, like the Canaanites, were probably like ancient Bronze Age Levant samples, and the "Western" Jews are being pulled away by European and North African admixture. The North African ones are closer because they have less of the European gene flow. From my recollection, North African Jews are very structured by area because of endogamy as well as slightly different gene flow, but they all have a segment of ancient Jewish ancestry from colonies that existed along the coast for millennia, a Berber component of converted Jews who would have had a big chunk of Levant Neolithic, and then influx directly from Sephardim from Spain, and European Jews from Italy and other regions.

An interesting point that is once again made is the incredible variation among the "Jewish" populations. Look at the span from the Ashkenazim to the Libyan Jews, and then beyond that to the Iranian "Eastern" Jews, to the "Southern" Yemenite Jews.

Or, an alternative would be that their stay in Egypt made them different from the Canaanites, less Iranian Chalcolithic like, and they kept that difference because of all the prophets fulminating against admixture with "foreign" women. :)

None of this is going to be resolved without ancient samples of Jews from the Levant, imo.

Exactly what gene flow into the Ashkenazim made them so different is still a mystery to me. There they are again right next to the Sicilians, and yet IBD analysis shows no sharing between them at least from the Classical Era forward, or at least no sharing any higher than with any other group.

MOESAN
19-06-16, 17:54
Exactly what gene flow into the Ashkenazim made them so different is still a mystery to me. There they are again right next to the Sicilians, and yet IBD analysis shows no sharing between them at least from the Classical Era forward, or at least no sharing any higher than with any other group.

Possible amateurish explanation:
Askhenaze picked along history, by more than an event, "european" (non-near-eastern) admixtures; that push them closer to Sicilians as global admixture levels, but the shared non-near-eastern genes were not inherited through unique sicilian admixture; their shared ancestry traces back farther in past so the IBD?I think. I red in Middle Ages, massive enough conversion to Judaism took place in Poland (it was no more the case at the dawn of the LMWar, helas)

davef
19-06-16, 18:12
Yes, if the projected ancient samples from the Levant Neolithic are accurately placed in relationship to the modern samples, the Levant Neolithic clusters right in between the Palestinians and Jordanians to their right, and at the top left corner to the North African Jews.

The answer as to why is rather unclear to me. I think maybe the more likely scenario is that the Jews of the Bronze Age, like the Canaanites, were probably like ancient Bronze Age Levant samples, and the "Western" Jews are being pulled away by European and North African admixture. The North African ones are closer because they have less of the European gene flow. From my recollection, North African Jews are very structured by area because of endogamy as well as slightly different gene flow, but they all have a segment of ancient Jewish ancestry from colonies that existed along the coast for millennia, a Berber component of converted Jews who would have had a big chunk of Levant Neolithic, and then influx directly from Sephardim from Spain, and European Jews from Italy and other regions.

An interesting point that is once again made is the incredible variation among the "Jewish" populations. Look at the span from the Ashkenazim to the Libyan Jews, and then beyond that to the Iranian "Eastern" Jews, to the "Southern" Yemenite Jews.

Or, an alternative would be that their stay in Egypt made them different from the Canaanites, less Iranian Chalcolithic like, and they kept that difference because of all the prophets fulminating against admixture with "foreign" women. :)

None of this is going to be resolved without ancient samples of Jews from the Levant, imo.

Exactly what gene flow into the Ashkenazim made them so different is still a mystery to me. There they are again right next to the Sicilians, and yet IBD analysis shows no sharing between them at least from the Classical Era forward, or at least no sharing any higher than with any other group.

This always drives me crazy! Every time a genetic study is done that includes Ashkenazim, Sicilians, and Southern Italians, they are always ganged up with each other! This happens consistantly and reliably; yet Ashkenazim weren't made in Italy so to speak with IBD being low (I'll admit my rudimentary genetics is a bit weak, IBD is when longer segments match, right? Fell asleep in genetics class when I was gettin bored of biology but I digress).

As mentioned, I'm close to a total novice when it comes to this so bear with me. Now, FST is another way to measure genetic relatedness between populations with lower numbers suggesting higher relatedness, correct? If so, why is it that Southern Italians are about just as close to the anatolian neolithic farmers in the map as ashkenazim and sicilians yet their fst from anatolian neolithic farmers is .030?

Also, why is it that Southern Italians are insanely far removed from everybody at all? It seems based on that chart that even the English are closer to the Greeks than the Southern Italians.

Am I misunderstanding what these values are actually telling us?

LeBrok
19-06-16, 18:44
An interesting point that is once again made is the incredible variation among the "Jewish" populations. Look at the span from the Ashkenazim to the Libyan Jews, and then beyond that to the Iranian "Eastern" Jews, to the "Southern" Yemenite Jews.

Or, an alternative would be that their stay in Egypt made them different from the Canaanites, less Iranian Chalcolithic like, and they kept that difference because of all the prophets fulminating against admixture with "foreign" women. :)
.Might as well be the case. I wonder how close they will relate to Phoenicians once we get their samples?

Angela
19-06-16, 20:00
This always drives me crazy! Every time a genetic study is done that includes Ashkenazim, Sicilians, and Southern Italians, they are always ganged up with each other! This happens consistantly and reliably; yet Ashkenazim weren't made in Italy so to speak with IBD being low (I'll admit my rudimentary genetics is a bit weak, IBD is when longer segments match, right? Fell asleep in genetics class when I was gettin bored of biology but I digress).

As mentioned, I'm close to a total novice when it comes to this so bear with me. Now, FST is another way to measure genetic relatedness between populations with lower numbers suggesting higher relatedness, correct? If so, why is it that Southern Italians are about just as close to the anatolian neolithic farmers in the map as ashkenazim and sicilians yet their fst from anatolian neolithic farmers is .030?

Also, why is it that Southern Italians are insanely far removed from everybody at all? It seems based on that chart that even the English are closer to the Greeks than the Southern Italians.

Am I misunderstanding what these values are actually telling us?

Whether or not it drives us crazy trying to explain it, the relationship is what it is...:)

You're right, though, about IBD analysis and what it shows, or doesn't show. So, either there was gene flow from a population similar to the Sicilians that went into the proto-Ashkenazi population very early, too early to be captured by current IBD analysis, or it's just happenstance. This is one of the limitations of PCAs and Admixture. If you take a person who is half Chinese and half British, they're going to plot with Uighers, and probably come out Uigher in Oracle. That doesn't mean they have any relationship in terms of gene flow or history with Uighers at all; it's just the admixture of similar ancient populations. The problem with these programs is that they don't come with a time stamp.

The South Italians aren't far from everyone else in this PCA. They cluster with the Sicilians, the Ashkenazim, and one is drifting toward the Greeks. That's about where I would expect them to be.

Where are you getting that .030 figure? I just took a look at Supplementary Data Table 3, and they all seem the same, .000 or .001, if I'm reading it correctly.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

However, you're right in that FST and this PCA don't correlate perfectly because everyone in Europe is very close to Anatolia Neolithic if you use just FST values. Of course, that's just one measure.

Fire Haired14
19-06-16, 21:16
Accidentally posted this at another thread.

Anatolia_Neolithic might have some CHG/Iran admixture but it doesn't have a lot. Table S7.8 shows that Anatolia_Neolithic can't be explained as a mixture of our the ancient genomes sampled so far. Modelling it as Iran_N+Levant_N+WHG barely works and the result is probably pretty inaccurate. Instead Anatolia_Neolithic is like a brother to Natufians. They're very closely related and this needs to have a lot of emphasis put on it. Also it's important to notice that Levant_Neolithic is significantly closer to Anatolia_Neolithic than Natufians were, so there was gene flow between the two regions maybe because of the spread of farming.

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

The most important detail from this paper is that in the Stone age there were two distinct races in the Middle East. One in Iran and Caucasus and one in Levant and Anatolia. Metal Age Middle Easterners can nicely be explained as a mixture of these two races, with minor exotic admixture(EHG in Armenia). Modern Middle Easterns will certainly also come out mostly as a mixture of these two races, but many also have exotic ancestry(African, South Asian, European, and Siberian ancestry).

Exactly what the relationship between these two races or what they're a mixture of can't be discerned. We need more ancient DNA to find out. Members in each race weren't exactly the same but they were very similar. The two races weren't completed distinct they were both a mix of Basal Eurasian and West Eurasian and shared Middle Eastern-specific ancestry that Paleo North Eurasians did not have, this ancestry includes Basal Eurasian but might include more. Their relationship between Paleo North Eurasians isn't the same. Iran/Caucasus is equally close to MA1/WHG while Levant/Anatolia is significantly closer to WHG than to MA1. Both are closer to WHG than to earlier Europeans.

Figure S4.10 models Iran_N as 38% Basal, 12.4% brother of WHG, 49.6% pre-K14 split(ANE?) and Natufian as 45% Basal, 55% cousin of WHG. These are similar to the results we've been getting with D-stats for the last 6 months. This model doesn't work though because we lack the right ancient genomes.

Fire Haired14
19-06-16, 21:17
The highlight of the paper is Table S7.25, where they give a list of qpADM results they got for ancient West Eurasians. Here are results for Metal Age Middle Easterners. They make a lot of sense.


Iran_Chl: 20.2% South(Levant_N), 79.8% North(63.1% CHG, 16.7% Iran_N)
Anatolia_ChL: 67.1% South(Anatolia_N), 32,9% Iran_Chl
Armenia_Chl: 52.5% Anatolia_N, 29.2% Iran_N, 18.3% EHG.


Armenia_EBA: 60.3% CHG, 39.7% Anatolia_N
Armenia_MBA: 55.3% CHG, 34.4% Anatolia_N, 10.4% EHG
Levant_BA: 55.7% Levant_N, 44.3% Iran_Chl.


For the most part there's population continuum in Iran from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic. There's also lots of population continum in Armenia from Chalcolithic to Middle Bronze age. The Bronze age Armenian genomes we already have are very similar to modern Georgians and I think the news ones are to. IMO, Anatolia_Chl will turn out most similar to modern Cypriots and Turkish. I don't think Iran_Chl will turn out very similar to Iranians though. IMO, Iranians have a lot more "Southern" admixture(Levant_N, Anatolia_N related).


Once these ancient Middle Eastern genomes are made available and we imitate some of the techniques used in the study we'll learn a lot more about West Eurasian. An important detail I think we'll learn is who the Middle Eastern people who moved into Southern Europe after the Neolithic were. I think they came mostly from around Turkey, so similar to our Chalcolithic Turkish genome.

davef
19-06-16, 23:09
Whether or not it drives us crazy trying to explain it, the relationship is what it is...:)

You're right, though, about IBD analysis and what it shows, or doesn't show. So, either there was gene flow from a population similar to the Sicilians that went into the proto-Ashkenazi population very early, too early to be captured by current IBD analysis, or it's just happenstance. This is one of the limitations of PCAs and Admixture. If you take a person who is half Chinese and half British, they're going to plot with Uighers, and probably come out Uigher in Oracle. That doesn't mean they have any relationship in terms of gene flow or history with Uighers at all; it's just the admixture of similar ancient populations. The problem with these programs is that they don't come with a time stamp.

The South Italians aren't far from everyone else in this PCA. They cluster with the Sicilians, the Ashkenazim, and one is drifting toward the Greeks. That's about where I would expect them to be.

Where are you getting that .030 figure? I just took a look at Supplementary Data Table 3, and they all seem the same, .000 or .001, if I'm reading it correctly.


However, you're right in that FST and this PCA don't correlate perfectly because everyone in Europe is very close to Anatolia Neolithic if you use just FST values. Of course, that's just one measure.

That's right, it drives us crazy but at least it isn't bent to make people happy.

I agree with you in that ashkenazim likely formed from populations similar to Sicilians and any connection is ancient and old. Was the Mid-East itself more "Sicilian" like during this time?

Weird that a half n' half Brit/Chinese would come out that way, but I have read quite a few results from customers who used gedmatch calculators and I have seen half East Asian half North Euro get Uigher as a top match, but luckily there is a value after each item in the single population sharing list which tells how far apart you actually are from that population, and most of whom I seen with that admixture (note I've only seen a few) get a really really high value (like 15 or over) which means that that person isn't anywhere near that population genetically. I think under 5 means you're pretty warm.

As for South Italy getting .030, you'll find it in the row marked "Italian_South", column "Anatolia_N". Those are the coordinates where you'll find it. And because of that, its possible that either the PCA is wrong or the fst chart is wrong; but then again this could be due to a lack of knowledge of genetics and/or the article on my part.

Here's the link so you won't have to run back to your post and click it. I'm not allowed to post links yet due to not having enough posts.
biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

Maciamo
19-06-16, 23:13
I'm not sure if I can buy such narrow farming specialization, to make every haplogroup farm or herd something different than others. Once you domesticate one plant or one animal, you understand the concept and develop genetic inclinations to farming, the rest should snowball into domestication whatever grows and walks and is tasty in the area. Having said that, the genetic picture shows that many independent groups survived LGM there and developed farming/herding independently. At least two, Natufians and Iran_N, possibly third one in Anatolia. The picture is still muddy, and as you mentioned at the beginning, we can't trust the admixture calculators too much yet.

I am pretty sure that plant or animal domestication were not concept that came easily to the mind of these prehistoric people. If, as you said, there was a snowballing effect from one crop to another, then how comes it took many millennia to domesticate plants beyond the three Neolithic founder crops? It is also pretty clear from what we know from both archaeology and population genetics that cereal farmers, goat herders and cow herders were distinct peoples in the Early Neolithic. Steppe PIE were cow herders; they practically didn't cultivate cereals, nor herd goats or pigs (although they had sheep) despite being in contact with farmers who did.

Angela
20-06-16, 00:17
That's right, it drives us crazy but at least it isn't bent to make people happy.

I agree with you in that ashkenazim likely formed from populations similar to Sicilians and any connection is ancient and old. Was the Mid-East itself more "Sicilian" like during this time?

Weird that a half n' half Brit/Chinese would come out that way, but I have read quite a few results from customers who used gedmatch calculators and I have seen half East Asian half North Euro get Uigher as a top match, but luckily there is a value after each item in the single population sharing list which tells how far apart you actually are from that population, and most of whom I seen with that admixture (note I've only seen a few) get a really really high value (like 15 or over) which means that that person isn't anywhere near that population genetically. I think under 5 means you're pretty warm.

As for South Italy getting .030, you'll find it in the row marked "Italian_South", column "Anatolia_N". Those are the coordinates where you'll find it. And because of that, its possible that either the PCA is wrong or the fst chart is wrong; but then again this could be due to a lack of knowledge of genetics and/or the article on my part.

Here's the link so you won't have to run back to your post and click it. I'm not allowed to post links yet due to not having enough posts.
biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

Thanks for your courtesy but I have an excel spreadsheet open for it...

I think you should check again:

Anatolia N is row 8 and Southern Italians get .001 for it, just like practically everyone else.

Levant Bronze, for which they get .031 is row 61.

The .030 they get is for Steppe Middle/Late Bronze from what I can see, which is row 86.

By the way, the "South Italian" here is not the Calabria sample that some people use. This is a different data set altogether, a more balanced one from the reputation, than some of the others being used out there.

As you can see from the PCA, the Southern Italians and the Sicilians land right next to each other.


The "bending" of the results, in so far as I can tell, is being done by people on forums like theapricity who are virtually certifiable, in my opinion. It seems to be their mission in life to make Sicilians, and now, lately, southern Italians, non-European and Jews in disguise. It appears to be the result of a weird amalgam of the nordicist Spanish perspective on southern Europeans with unresolved family issues and virulent anti-semitism. Indeed, the prime proponent has a history of anti-Jewish activity, from what I've been told. Also, from what I've heard, some of the examples he uses are fraudulent, even extending to mislabeling people's identity and photo-shopping pictures.

Much better for your mental health if you stay away. There's nothing of value being posted there anyway.

davef
20-06-16, 04:58
Thanks for your courtesy but I have an excel spreadsheet open for it...

I think you should check again:

Anatolia N is row 8 and Southern Italians get .001 for it, just like practically everyone else.

Levant Bronze, for which they get .031 is row 61.

The .030 they get is for Steppe Middle/Late Bronze from what I can see, which is row 86.

By the way, the "South Italian" here is not the Calabria sample that some people use. This is a different data set altogether, a more balanced one from the reputation, than some of the others being used out there.

As you can see from the PCA, the Southern Italians and the Sicilians land right next to each other.


The "bending" of the results, in so far as I can tell, is being done by people on forums like theapricity who are virtually certifiable, in my opinion. It seems to be their mission in life to make Sicilians, and now, lately, southern Italians, non-European and Jews in disguise. It appears to be the result of a weird amalgam of the nordicist Spanish perspective on southern Europeans with unresolved family issues and virulent anti-semitism. Indeed, the prime proponent has a history of anti-Jewish activity, from what I've been told. Also, from what I've heard, some of the examples he uses are fraudulent, even extending to mislabeling people's identity and photo-shopping pictures.

Much better for your mental health if you stay away. There's nothing of value being posted there anyway.


You're very welcome!

Sorry, but you'll have to navigate back to supplement 3 and check out row 46 (Italian_South) column E (Anatolia_N) and you'll see the .030 value. I'll bet my soul you'll find it using those coordinates. Then again, I do have macular degeneration and my eyes are weakening by the minute even though I'm a young buck.

Look at how much closer the Poles and the Scots are to the neolithics in comparison to the South Italians. Something is wrong here!! This is what kills me when it comes to reading about population genetics! There's too much contradiction. Luckily my expertise is software programming with my background being computer science. I only need to deal with pure logic as opposed to uncertainty and chaos. That Lazaridis fellow is on my team. He's another programmer with a background in computer science. Wonder how he feels about all of this.

And LOL to their "mission in life". So their "mission in life" is to desperately claim that sicilians and ("now lately"-as you claimed, aka a NEW BREAKTHROUGH in BIGOTRY) South Italians non-European and JEWS in disguise. I don't care. If they want to label South Italians like myself as non-European then go ahead. South Italians in these United States as well as Ashkenazy Jews are making a ton of money. I'm not saying that they are the "Master Race" I'm just pointing out that success doesn't require one to be be related to Brits or Germans.

I don't take bigots seriously. If bigots want to attack South Italians, or anyone else who score high "east med" in gedmatch I digest their insults. The KKK is still active in America and I'm lynching material. My background is south italian, jewish and irish (italians, jews, and irish fell prety to the kkk, not just Aftrican Americans) and I'll tell that to their faces. Then again, they aren't as violent. TBH I take bigots as seriously as some random guy who lets out a rancid fart just to annoy me. I don't take offense, I just know that he's just an idiot being an idiot.

Promenade
20-06-16, 13:51
I wonder how these ancient groups in Iran compared to the people of the Indus Valley Civilizations of Harrapa and Mohenjo Daro. People are always claiming a connection, yet I haven't heard of any ancient genetic material from the region being examined.

Does anyone know of any past genetic tests from the area or tests still underway?

bicicleur
20-06-16, 15:56
I wonder how these ancient groups in Iran compared to the people of the Indus Valley Civilizations of Harrapa and Mohenjo Daro. People are always claiming a connection, yet I haven't heard of any ancient genetic material from the region being examined.

Does anyone know of any past genetic tests from the area or tests still underway?

no, but check this

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32377-Early-Neolithic-Pastoralist-from-the-Zagros-Iran

bicicleur
20-06-16, 16:34
just thinking loud ..

Basal Eurasian had virtualy no Neanderthal admixture ..
Natufians and Levant Neo and Iran Neo have the most Basal Eurasian .. , it was absent in pre-Neo Europe
did Basal Eurasian get into Anatolian Neo (and EEF) via Levant Neo and Iran Neo ?
Natufians is a mixture of African E1b1 and Basal Eurasian which was allready present in the southern Levant before arrival of E1b1 ?
There were at least 3 neolithic populations in SW Asia : Natufian, Iran Neolithic and the common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neolithic (based on mainly G2a2)
Natufian spread to African Neo, Iran Neo spread to Central and South Asia Neo.

Figure 4a
Iran Chl is 63 % CHG, 20 % Levant Neo and 17 % Iran Neo
The Iran Chl spread into Anatolia, the Levant and the steppe
Armenia Chl and Europe Chl seem independent from Iran Chl, but Armenia EBA seems CHG
so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?
steppe EMBA (R1a/R1b) is EHG (R1a/R1b) and Iran Chl (Maykop?)
steppe MLBA is 68 % steppe EMBA + 32 % Europe MNChl : admixture of Old Europe through Cucuteni into the steppe IE ?

the spread of metallurgy in SW Asia (and Maykop?) seems heavily related with haplo J coming from Iran or Georgia (CHG)

epoch
20-06-16, 17:29
We don't know what kind of language Sumerians, Elamites etc spoke for that matter all we know it could be isolated, but also Indo European related. Yet what people seem to miss out, Those Steppes were populated by Uralic speaking people too. In fact EHG peaks in Uralic speakers, not Indo European speakers.

Proto-Uralic has had a large influence on PIE and vice versa. A large number of linguistics think it is possibly of the same origin as PIE. Take a look at what exactly is related, it seems very deep.


If we believe EHG is simply WHG+ANE, which part of their ancestry brought the PIE language? Was ist WHG or was it ANE? ANE isn't exclusive to Indo Europeans

First, ANE brought forth a number of languages, some of which were isolates: The American-Indian languages. Secondly, we don't know how languages originated. Take for instance New Guinea where Papua's speak over 850 languages, with large families as well as dozens (!) of isolates. Some larger families have ties with the world around them.


and I doubt WHG was Indo European.

On the basis of what exactly do you exclude WHG as source?


So the argument that the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia had too many non IE languages (well I can't think of any attested Bronze Age language from the Iranian Plateau anyways beside Elamite which imo is more connected to South Mesopotamia than Iranian Plateau). Can be used for the Steppes too.

But the relation between PIE and proto-Uralic runs very, very deep. Read about it.


The best hypothesis so far is, that one PIE language or culture didn't exist but we deal with several creol languages which emerged out of similar propotions of admixture.

No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.

Apart from that: PIE was not a creole language, as these are simplified languages: i.e. non-speakers adapt a simplified version and make it their own. PIE was highly complicated indicating it originated from native speakers.


Having Hittite samples would be great, and could bring all this debate more towards the end. If the Hittites who are the oldest most archaic Indo Europeans turn out with significantly higher percentages EHG than calcolthic/mesolithic Iranian Plateau and West Asian highland samples, and we have pre Neolithic South_Central Asian samples which do not appear EHG like, than we can conclude the Indo European language definitely evolved in the Steppes.

But I am very convinced as I pointed out in the past that PIE was more of a network of cultures, being all around the Black and Caspian Sea (North, south, East and West of it).

And something tells me Kura Araxes or Maykop will turn out as the origin of Hittite, since the appearance of Hittites fits with the Kura Araxes collapse.

bicicleur
20-06-16, 17:58
something else : 'Anatolian' is actually NW Anatolian, 'Sea of Marmara' would be a better label
we are missing the 'central Anatolian' DNA, i.e. DNA from Asikli Hoyuk or Catal Hoyuk, which I think is different from 'Anatolian' and from Levantine
Asikli Hoyuk Neolithic was very early, ca 11 ka and allready before it was the most important source of obsidian for the Natufians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9F%C4%B1kl%C4%B1_H%C3%B6y%C3%BCk
furthermore central Anatolians were one of the early adopters of metallurgy

'Anatolian' and European neolithic are just ca 8.4 ka (starting ca 9 ka with some few settlements, but ca 8.4 ka new farmers arrived who were responsible for start of the expansion)

Angela
20-06-16, 19:20
something else : 'Anatolian' is actually NW Anatolian, 'Sea of Marmara' would be a better label
we are missing the 'central Anatolian' DNA, i.e. DNA from Asikli Hoyuk or Catal Hoyuk, which I think is different from 'Anatolian' and from Levantine
Asikli Hoyuk Neolithic was very early, ca 11 ka and allready before it was the most important source of obsidian for the Natufians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9F%C4%B1kl%C4%B1_H%C3%B6y%C3%BCk
furthermore central Anatolians were one of the early adopters of metallurgy

'Anatolian' and European neolithic are just ca 8.4 ka (starting ca 9 ka with some few settlements, but ca 8.4 ka new farmers arrived who were responsible for start of the expansion)

Is it possible it's an admixture of Levantine Neolithic and some Iranian Neolithic and that's how the CHG starting reaching Northwest Anatolia?

As we discussed on another thread, the archaeology does point to influences on northwest Anatolia from Central Anatolia.


Basal Eurasian had virtualy no Neanderthal admixture ..
Natufians and Levant Neo and Iran Neo have the most Basal Eurasian .. , it was absent in pre-Neo Europe
did Basal Eurasian get into Anatolian Neo (and EEF) via Levant Neo and Iran Neo ?

I think the Iranian hunter-gatherer had the most; I think it was something close to 66%. I think Basal did get into NWAnatolia and then EEF via the other two Neolithic groups. The question, as we've been discussing, is where is the source? It would seem it diffused from the south, but given there's more to the east, perhaps not from Arabia.


Natufians is a mixture of African E1b1 and Basal Eurasian which was allready present in the southern Levant before arrival of E1b1 ?




I'm not sure about this one. At first I thought E1b1 might be the Basal lineage, but it is an African lineage and there seems to be no connection between Basal and SSA, contrary to what was vociferously championed by a lot of people. If "E" were actually Eurasian and all that "E" in Africa were the result of a back migration, that would solve that problem, but the authors of the paper maintain that basal "E" is African. Of course, the Natufians carry it and there's no SSA in them, which just goes to show again how disconnected yDna can become from autosomal signatures. If this is correct, so much for all those videos showing "African" looking people as Natufians. :)

So, I don't know...maybe G2a? Or could it be "H"?


Natufian spread to African Neo

According to the authors, not precisely Natufian, but rather Levant Neolithic, yes?






ran Chl is 63 % CHG, 20 % Levant Neo and 17 % Iran Neo
The Iran Chl spread into Anatolia, the Levant and the steppe
Armenia Chl and Europe Chl seem independent from Iran Chl, but Armenia EBA seems CHG
so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?
steppe EMBA (R1a/R1b) is EHG (R1a/R1b) and Iran Chl (Maykop?)
steppe MLBA is 68 % steppe EMBA + 32 % Europe MNChl : admixture of Old Europe through Cucuteni into the steppe IE ?

the spread of metallurgy in SW Asia (and Maykop?) seems heavily related with haplo J coming from Iran or Georgia (CHG)



It seems like it to me, except I'm not sure about the bolded part. That's where you get into direction of movement across the Caucasus. It certainly doesn't seem like a barrier to migration...and I think the migration did go both ways.

johen
20-06-16, 19:52
No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.
.
i have one question. Is there a culture difference between proto-Uralic and original steppe people?

I think both of them were based upon siberian shamanism, especially sun.

arvistro
20-06-16, 20:12
i have one question. Is there a culture difference between proto-Uralic and original steppe people?

I think both of them were based upon siberian shamanism, especially sun.
Culturally there are differences. World tree is Uralic. Also world egg. Sun, Sky God. Those are common. Although not sure if World Tree goes back to PIE or is regional feature.
But then there is layer which seems absent in proto-Uralic. Culture heroes (Loki, Prometeus,..), Bulls, Chariots, (Horse) Twins... I am not sure if proto-Uralic featured any of this.

Alan
20-06-16, 21:04
no, but check this

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32377-Early-Neolithic-Pastoralist-from-the-Zagros-Iran

As far as I remember there were some leaks that Harrapans have been already sampled and the leak says those Harrapans had some R1a z93 prior to the known Indo_Aryan invasion which made some people speculate that even earlier some Iranic tribes might have reached the Indus Valley from Afghanistan.

Alan
20-06-16, 21:08
something else : 'Anatolian' is actually NW Anatolian, 'Sea of Marmara' would be a better label
we are missing the 'central Anatolian' DNA, i.e. DNA from Asikli Hoyuk or Catal Hoyuk, which I think is different from 'Anatolian' and from Levantine
Asikli Hoyuk Neolithic was very early, ca 11 ka and allready before it was the most important source of obsidian for the Natufians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9F%C4%B1kl%C4%B1_H%C3%B6y%C3%BCk
furthermore central Anatolians were one of the early adopters of metallurgy

'Anatolian' and European neolithic are just ca 8.4 ka (starting ca 9 ka with some few settlements, but ca 8.4 ka new farmers arrived who were responsible for start of the expansion)

Actually no, there were some leaks and even a study as far as I remember that Catal Hoyuk has been sampled and those almost identical to EEF.

bicicleur
20-06-16, 21:13
Is it possible it's an admixture of Levantine Neolithic and some Iranian Neolithic and that's how the CHG starting reaching Northwest Anatolia?

As we discussed on another thread, the archaeology does point to influences on northwest Anatolia from Central Anatolia.

I think central Anatolian is an admixture like you suggest.
But the common ancestor of NW Anatolian and European (starting in Greece) neolithic did not come from central Anatolia.
That is at least what I get from this paper.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099845
The common ancestor came along the sea.
And that both NW Anatolian and European neolithic are very related genectically, you can see in PCA charts.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0099845.g001
this map actually shows 2 migrations to NW Anatolia ca 6500 BC
one overseas with ovicaprids
one overland via Catal Hoyuk with cattle (Bos)
and onother with pig ca 5800 BC ; I've read somewhere these were cardial ware people

the 'Anatolian Neolithic' samples have only 2 sources : Barcin and Mentese
and are all from a narrow period, 6500-6200 BC

this study says clearly epipaleolithic people were present before the first farmers arrived
https://www.academia.edu/1581680/The_Emergence_of_Neolithic_Life_in_South_and_East_ Marmara_Region
I take it these epipaleolithic people account for the haplogroup I found

bicicleur
20-06-16, 21:16
Actually no, there were some leaks and even a study as far as I remember that Catal Hoyuk has been sampled and those almost identical to EEF.

If you can recall which leaks and study, let me know.

Alan
20-06-16, 21:17
Proto-Uralic has had a large influence on PIE and vice versa. A large number of linguistics think it is possibly of the same origin as PIE. Take a look at what exactly is related, it seems very deep.


So has Kartvelian on PIE. Also the influence of Proto Uralic and vica versa seems to be mainly on the Indo_Iranian branch, I haven't heard much of an influence on other subgroups.



First, ANE brought forth a number of languages, some of which were isolates: The American-Indian languages. Secondly, we don't know how languages originated. Take for instance New Guinea where Papua's speak over 850 languages, with large families as well as dozens (!) of isolates. Some larger families have ties with the world around them.


Good and if ANE could have brought multiple languages, why shouldn't this be the case with CHG like or even AF? Just food for thoughts.



On the basis of what exactly do you exclude WHG as source?

What all Indo Europeans have in common is a ANE like admixture, be it through CHG, Iranian Neolithic or EHG admixture. Of course we can't exclude WHG as source but it just doesn't seem that plausible to me.




But the relation between PIE and proto-Uralic runs very, very deep. Read about it.

I have red a bit about it and most similarities between Uralic and Indo European seem to be with the Indo_Iranian group. For example I don't know of any Uralic type influence on Hititte, which is the most archaic known Indo European language.




No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.


As I have already said, I believe the Steppes could be the origin of the merging point, but the Steppes could as well be just a second homeland for a large part of the Indo European subgroups. But than we can't even be sure were Kartvelian and Uralic originated. Kartvelian for example seems to be rather Anatolian_Farmer derived tongue. While Uralic could as well originate in South_Central Asia, based on the origin of N Haplogroup.


Apart from that: PIE was not a creole language, as these are simplified languages: i.e. non-speakers adapt a simplified version and make it their own. PIE was highly complicated indicating it originated from native speakers.


Every language family in this world started as a creole of two or many other imo. But let's agree to disagree. Maybe it wasn't a creol language true.

bicicleur
20-06-16, 21:39
I think the Iranian hunter-gatherer had the most; I think it was something close to 66%. I think Basal did get into NWAnatolia and then EEF via the other two Neolithic groups. The question, as we've been discussing, is where is the source? It would seem it diffused from the south, but given there's more to the east, perhaps not from Arabia.



I'm not sure about this one. At first I thought E1b1 might be the Basal lineage, but it is an African lineage and there seems to be no connection between Basal and SSA, contrary to what was vociferously championed by a lot of people. If "E" were actually Eurasian and all that "E" in Africa were the result of a back migration, that would solve that problem, but the authors of the paper maintain that basal "E" is African. Of course, the Natufians carry it and there's no SSA in them, which just goes to show again how disconnected yDna can become from autosomal signatures. If this is correct, so much for all those videos showing "African" looking people as Natufians. :)

So, I don't know...maybe G2a? Or could it be "H"?



According to the authors, not precisely Natufian, but rather Levant Neolithic, yes?



It seems like it to me, except I'm not sure about the bolded part. That's where you get into direction of movement across the Caucasus. It certainly doesn't seem like a barrier to migration...and I think the migration did go both ways. [/INDENT]

[/LIST]


according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG (which was probably native along the Marmara Sea shores)
now I think there was another important unknown component which I refer to as 'the common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo'
this common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo has a lot of G2a2 which has nowhere been found in this study

I think it is clear that E is African, E2, E1a, E1b2 and E1b1a (Mota and Bantu) all are, the Natufian E1b1 or it's suclade E1b1b1b2 must have arrived from Africa
E1b1 has the right TRMCA for that.

I'm starting to think the same, Basal Eurasians were G people or it came from India with that H2 which appears in both Levant, Anatolian and European Neo.

And yes, I'm imprecise, it is Levant Neo that brought African Neo.
It meant a backmigration to Africa of some of the E1b1.

so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?

it looks like that, but I put a question mark behind
I find this study very intersting, but these are the first samples in this area, so probably these samples are not representative enough to make conclusions about the whole picture
I guess when more DNA will become available we'll be in for some more surprises
it's a very nice start though, and I like doing some speculations

bicicleur
20-06-16, 21:52
As far as I remember there were some leaks that Harrapans have been already sampled and the leak says those Harrapans had some R1a z93 prior to the known Indo_Aryan invasion which made some people speculate that even earlier some Iranic tribes might have reached the Indus Valley from Afghanistan.

If I remember well, we can expect some DNA from that area as well.
But if there is such leak, I'd take it with a big pinch of salt.
There may have been some R1a-Z93 in India prior to Indo-Aryans, but I don't expect any of that at the source of the Indus civilization.
If so, it will be the biggest surprise of the year, and there have allready been a few now.

I think R1a-Z93 is a bit to young for the roots of the Indus civilization.
If there is one scenario which has been confirmed by DNA till now, it is about the origin of IE.
It is not compatible with R1a-Z93 at the roots of the Indus civilization.

epoch
20-06-16, 21:59
So has Kartvelian on PIE. Also the influence of Proto Uralic and vica versa seems to be mainly on the Indo_Iranian branch, I haven't heard much of an influence on other subgroups.

Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages#Some_possible_cognates

Furthermore, the theory for instance linguists such as Kortlandt are pushing (http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf) is that PIE is derived from a common Indo-Uralic stem, on a Caucasian substrate. Almost all serious scenario's have two major influences: Uralic and Caucasian. Hence the positioning of the original Urheimat roughly in between these.


Good and if ANE could have brought multiple languages, why shouldn't this be the case with CHG like or even AF? Just food for thoughts.

It probably would. But for a non-steppe origin of PIE you have to make the case for that, not just beg the question.


What all Indo Europeans have in common is a ANE like admixture, be it through CHG, Iranian Neolithic or EHG admixture. Of course we can't exclude WHG as source but it just doesn't seem that plausible to me.

EHG is partly WHG, so maybe that was a vector. Frankly, I don't have a clue. But I wouldn't connect ANE that strictly to a language group if I were you. Proto-Uralic is not connected to all American Indian languages for that matter.


I have red a bit about it and most similarities between Uralic and Indo European seem to be with the Indo_Iranian group. For example I don't know of any Uralic type influence on Hititte, which is the most archaic known Indo European language.

"Watar", ne- for negation, "me" for I, me, etc. See the list above.


As I have already said, I believe the Steppes could be the origin of the merging point, but the Steppes could as well be just a second homeland for a large part of the Indo European subgroups. But than we can't even be sure were Kartvelian and Uralic originated. Kartvelian for example seems to be rather Anatolian_Farmer derived tongue. While Uralic could as well originate in South_Central Asia, based on the origin of N Haplogroup.

Haplogroups are not languages, even as they sometimes, or even often, have a relationship. Furthermore, if you want to propose a different origin, make the case for it.


Every language family in this world started as a creole of two or many other imo. But let's agree to disagree. Maybe it wasn't a creol language true.

As I said, nobody has much of a clue how new languages come about, especially isolates. However, creole languages are an exception to that.

A. Papadimitriou
20-06-16, 23:30
Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages#Some_possible_cognates

Furthermore, the theory for instance linguists such as Kortlandt are pushing (http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf) is that PIE is derived from a common Indo-Uralic stem, on a Caucasian substrate. Almost all serious scenario's have two major influences: Uralic and Caucasian. Hence the positioning of the original Urheimat roughly in between these.



I believe it's political. In the first table the 'locative singular' and 'locative plural' in the Greek examples are 'datives'. It is said that locative, dative and instumental merged in Greek and probably he considers that the case ending of the greek 'dative' was originally that of the 'instrumental' but he doesn't say anything about that and it's most likely wrong. There where suffixes like -then, -ze / -de. They are not considered cases but functioned like it Athenathen = from Athens, Athenaze = to Athens, oikode= to home. The greek dative had other uses apart from the typical one. It was used as instrumental too for example quite often. En + dative (e.g. en Athenais) indicated location but the case wansn't locative. Below other uses of the case he labels 'locative'.

From Wikipedia:
Ancient[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dative_case&action=edit&section=9)]In addition to its main function as the dativus, the dative case has other functions in Classical Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language):[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case#cite_note-7) (The chart below uses the Latin names for the types of dative; the Greek name for the dative is δωτική πτώση, like its Latin equivalent, derived from the verb "to give"; in Ancient Greek, δίδωμι.)


Dativus finalis: The dativus finalis, or the 'dative of purpose', is when the dative is used to denote the purpose of a certain action. For example:

"τῷ βασιλεῖ μάχομαι"

"I fight for the king".


"θνῄσκω τῇ τιμῇ"

"I die for honour".



Dativus commŏdi (incommodi): The dativus commodi sive incommodi, or the 'dative of benefit (or harm)' is the dative that expresses the advantage or disadvantage of something for someone. For example:

For the benefit of: "πᾶς ἀνὴρ αὑτῷ πονεῖ" (Sophocles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophocles), Ajax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(Sophocles)) 1366).

"Every man toils for himself".


For the harm or disadvantage of: "ἥδε ἡ ἡμέρα τοῖς Ἕλλησι μεγάλων κακῶν ἄρξει." (Thucydides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides) 2.12.4).

"This day will be the beginning of great sorrows for the Greeks (i.e., for their disadvantage)".



Dativus possessivus: The dativus possessivus, or the 'dative of possession' is the dative used to denote the possessor of a certain object or objects. For example:

"ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί." (Thucycdides 1.86.3).

"For others have a lot of money and ships and horses, but we have good allies (i.e., To others there is a lot of money..)".



Dativus ethicus: The dativus ethicus, or the 'ethic or polite dative,' is when the dative is used to signify that the person or thing spoken of is regarded with interest by someone. This dative is mostly, if not exclusively, used in pronouns. As such, it is also called the "dative of pronouns." For example:

"τούτῳ πάνυ μοι προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν." (Demosthenes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosthenes) 18.178).

"Pay close attention to this, I beg you (i.e., please pay..)".


"ὦ μῆτερ, ὡς καλός μοι ὁ πάππος." (Xenophon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon), Cyropaedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyropaedia) 18.178).

"Oh, mother, how handsome grandpa is (I've just realized!)".



Dativus auctoris: The dativus auctoris, or the 'dative of agent,' is the dative used to denote the doer of an action. Note, however, that in Classical Greek, the agent is usually in the genitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case) after ὑπό (by, at the hands of). The agent is in the dative only with theperfect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar)) and pluperfect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluperfect) passive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice), and after the verbal adjective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective) in -τέος. For example:

"πολλαὶ θεραπεῖαι τοῖς ἰατροῖς εὕρηνται." (Isocrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocrates) 8.39)

"Many cures have been discovered by doctors."



Dativus instrumenti: The dativus instrumenti, or the 'dative of instrument,' is when the dative is used to denote an instrument or means of a certain action (or, more accurately, as the instrumental case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case)). For example:

"με κτείνει δόλῳ." (Homer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer), Odyssey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey) 9.407)

"He kills me with a bait (i.e., by means of a bait)."



Dativus modi: The dativus modi, or the 'dative of manner,' is the dative used to describe the manner or way by which something happened. For example:

"νόσῳ ὕστερον ἀποθανόντα." (Thucydides 8.84)

"having died of (from) a disease."



Dativus mensurae: The dativus mensurae, or the 'dative of measurement,' is the dative used to denote the measurement of difference. For example:

"τῇ κεφαλῇ μείζονα." (Plato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato), Phaedo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo) 101a)

"taller by a head."


"μακρῷ ἄριστος." (Plato, Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_(Plato)) 729d)

"by far the best."

Sile
21-06-16, 00:02
on T ( i1707 )

Haplogroup T is found among the Late MPPNB inhabitants from 'Ain Ghazal but was not found among the early and middle MPPNB populations. Is thought that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B poplutation is mostly composed of two different populations, the Natufians which trace their origins to the Earlier Natufian and a second population coming through a northerly influx from the region of northeastern Anatolia. Natufians have been found to belong mostly to the E1b1b1b2 lineage, which is found among 60% of the whole PPNB population and 75% of the 'Ain Ghazal population, being present in all three MPPNB stages. The complete abscence of T-PF7466 among Natufians and the earlier MPPNB stages could mean that haplogroup T arrived later with the northerly influx.

As previously found in the early Neolithic settlement from Karsdorf, a mtDNA R0 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R0_%28mtDNA%29) descendant have been found together with Y-DNA T.


Ain Ghazal T
Ghazal-I


ID
I1707 AG83_5 Poz-81097


Y DNA
T-PF7466 (xT1a1-FGC3945.2, T1a2a1-P322)

Angela
21-06-16, 02:51
@Alan,

Is this the study to which you were referring?

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

It was discussed in this eupedia thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31981-New-study-about-Central-Anatolian-farmers?highlight=Paschou


"Based on material culture studies, it has been suggested that Neolithic culture first spread from Central Anatolia to the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, by cultural diffusion.

Unfortunately it seems to have been withdrawn. The reason isn't given.

Fwiw, this is the abstract, Mehmet Somel et al:

"Sedentism, farming, and herding in West Eurasia first started in the Fertile Crescent around 11,500 BP. From there, Neolithic culture spread into Central Anatolia and the East Mediterranean, and eventually, reached Southwestern Europe. The demographic dynamics behind these processes has long been of interest. Recent archaeogenomics studies showed that the arrival of farming in West Europe happened through migrating Neolithic populations. But where had these migrations themselves initiated? Based on material culture studies, it has been suggested that Neolithic culture first spread from Central Anatolia to the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, by cultural diffusion. But this hypothesis has not yet been tested by genetic data.from different Neolithic sites (10,000-8,000 BP). Four of these were sequenced to >0.1X cover Here we address this question by screening the genomes of 15 Central Anatolian individuals age, and the data was combined with published Neolithic genomes. Our results indicate that Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals genetically resembled the first migrant Neolithic populations found in Europe, rather than modern-day Anatolians. At the same time, Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals appear to cluster together, to the exclusion of other Neolithic populations. Using simulations, we evaluate demographic models that could explain these patterns. Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis. We discuss our results in the context of material cultural exchange patterns of the Neolithic period."

I don't know how much weight to put on any of this given that it's been withdrawn, but at any rate, resemble European farmers is different from being identical to them, as I said in the eupedia thread about this abstract, and they are picking up that there are different clusters, and the central Anatolian cluster is somewhat distinct from the others, which is in line with the information from the Lazaridis and LLorente papers.

I hope Bicicleur doesn't mind, but this comment he made on that thread is very apropos of our discussion:

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

LeBrok
21-06-16, 03:52
I'm not sure about this one. At first I thought E1b1 might be the Basal lineage, but it is an African lineage and there seems to be no connection between Basal and SSA, contrary to what was vociferously championed by a lot of people. If "E" were actually Eurasian and all that "E" in Africa were the result of a back migration, that would solve that problem, but the authors of the paper maintain that basal "E" is African. Of course, the Natufians carry it and there's no SSA in them, which just goes to show again how disconnected yDna can become from autosomal signatures. If this is correct, so much for all those videos showing "African" looking people as Natufians. :)
One of a big surprises for me was to learn how "transferable" and "mobile" Y DNA can be giving couple of thousands of years. It is like it has an independent life and history within our genome.

Angela
21-06-16, 04:04
according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG (which was probably native along the Marmara Sea shores)
now I think there was another important unknown component which I refer to as 'the common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo'
this common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo has a lot of G2a2 which has nowhere been found in this study


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0099845 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099845)
The common ancestor came along the sea.
And that both NW Anatolian and European neolithic are very related genectically, you can see in PCA charts.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0099845.g001
this map actually shows 2 migrations to NW Anatolia ca 6500 BC
one overseas with ovicaprids
one overland via Catal Hoyuk with cattle (Bos)
and onother with pig ca 5800 BC ; I've read somewhere these were cardial ware people

the 'Anatolian Neolithic' samples have only 2 sources : Barcin and Mentese
and are all from a narrow period, 6500-6200 BC

this study says clearly epipaleolithic people were present before the first farmers arrived
https://www.academia.edu/1581680/The...Marmara_Region (https://www.academia.edu/1581680/The_Emergence_of_Neolithic_Life_in_South_and_East_ Marmara_Region)
I take it these epipaleolithic people account for the haplogroup I found

This is what I think some of the commentary about this paper has been missing. I think there's also some unwarranted conclusions being drawn, in my opinion. The Paschou et al paper was criticized in some quarters because it was only based on modern mtDna, but it did trace some of this movement up the coast, which is partially highlighted in your map, and I think it may turn out that it had some insights to offer about the timing of the early movements into the Aegean, which were earlier in some cases than the settlements around the Sea of Marmara. Whether they were correct about there being a movement into the Islands and then a bifurcation either by sea west or into the Balkans, or whether there was also some movement directly from Anatolia north is another issue.

An agricultural "package" of all these animals, pulses, and grains as well moved north along the coast from that juncture point between the northern Levant and southeastern Anatolia. From there, indeed, there was some early movement into Cyprus before some of the animals were actually domesticated. That is one of the places in Anatolia from which we have as yet no ancient dna. I think it may turn out that not only do we see a rather "complete package" at that point and by that time, but the "admixtures", or most of them, may have already taken place.

Perhaps that is where we will find G2a, or at least some of it? Perhaps the G2a came from further in the interior of Anatolia? Maybe they were more "Iranian Neolithic like", or at least had some influence from them. As per Bicicleur's comment in the prior post, there seems to have been movement of Natufians to near by areas. Some "G" went to the Caucasus, but some of them may have mingled with Natufians. Maybe they were just very adventurous, or maybe there was conflict with "E" heavy populations and they moved up the coast and then at some point took to the sea, eventually moving extraordinarily long distances all the way to Iberia. Ancient dna will have to give us the answers.

That leaves the WHG to be explained. I agree about the Epipaleolithic people in that area probably being yDna "I", but I think they may have been more widespread, or it may have diffused further. Or, as the agriculturalists moved north along the coast, they may have absorbed more "WHG Like" people.

As I said at the time the Paschou paper came out, it may be that far from being the source of the "Anatolian Neolithic" in Europe, the Marmara region people actually were on the receiving end of that migration, which got to them at about the same time it arrived at some places in the Aegean. Of course, further migration into Europe could have taken off from that point later.

Here is the Eupedia thread on Paschou et al, where much of this is discussed:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30129-The-Mediterranean-route-into-Europe-(Paschou-et-al-2014)?highlight=Paschou

Post number 17 has a map of the sea currents in the Mediterranean, which show how a good part of the agriculturalists might have navigated the Mediterranean to head farther west.

These maps show some of the dating for these sites although they seem to change periodically...
http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

This site has some interesting information on the Greek Neolithic:
http://armchairprehistory.com/2015/11/02/the-greek-early-neolithic-following-the-ophiolite-trail-west/

This map is interesting as well as it shows the narrow band in which they moved, which makes sense because their agricultural package was adapted to this kind of climate.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kavita_Gangal/publication/262147801/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Figure-1-The-Early-Neolithic-sites-10000-BCE-to-3800-BCE-used-in-our-analysis-Sites.png

Neolithic Shelter Catal Hoyuk:
http://www.mitchellteachers.net/WorldHistory/MrMEarlyHumansProject/Images/paleovneolithic/Shelter2.jpg

Fire Haired14
21-06-16, 07:09
according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG

That model had high standard errors and is therefore not a realistic model for Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N doesn't fit well as a mixture of other ancient genomes. We need more ancient genomes to learn who the ancestors of Anatolia_N were. It probably has some Iran_Neolithic ancestry but not a lot, definitely not 34%. Anatolia_N is also definitely not 27% WHG. Anatolia_N appears to be a brother to Levant_N.



so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?


Iran Chl is a mixture of CHG(or Iran Neolithic. Both were similar) and Levant_Neolithic. Armenia_EBA is a mixture of CHG, Levant_Neolithic(or Anatolila_Neolithic. Both were similar), and EHG.

bicicleur
21-06-16, 08:36
That model had high standard errors and is therefore not a realistic model for Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N doesn't fit well as a mixture of other ancient genomes. We need more ancient genomes to learn who the ancestors of Anatolia_N were. It probably has some Iran_Neolithic ancestry but not a lot, definitely not 34%. Anatolia_N is also definitely not 27% WHG. Anatolia_N appears to be a brother to Levant_N.


yes the number of samples is to small to make overall conclusions
furthermore I believe a component is missing, it is the common ancestor to NW Anatolian and European Neo.

bicicleur
21-06-16, 08:39
so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?




Iran Chl is a mixture of CHG(or Iran Neolithic. Both were similar) and Levant_Neolithic. Armenia_EBA is a mixture of CHG, Levant_Neolithic(or Anatolila_Neolithic. Both were similar), and EHG.

I mean CHG may be the source of metallurgy

bicicleur
21-06-16, 08:50
Perhaps that is where we will find G2a, or at least some of it? Perhaps the G2a came from further in the interior of Anatolia? Maybe they were more "Iranian Neolithic like", or at least had some influence from them. As per Bicicleur's comment in the prior post, there seems to have been movement of Natufians to near by areas. Some "G" went to the Caucasus, but some of them may have mingled with Natufians. Maybe they were just very adventurous, or maybe there was conflict with "E" heavy populations and they moved up the coast and then at some point took to the sea, eventually moving extraordinarily long distances all the way to Iberia. Ancient dna will have to give us the answers.

That leaves the WHG to be explained. I agree about the Epipaleolithic people in that area probably being yDna "I", but I think they may have been more widespread, or it may have diffused further. Or, as the agriculturalists moved north along the coast, they may have absorbed more "WHG Like" people.



As for WHG, Gravettian seems to have spread till Karain cave, NW of Antalia.
I guess there were paleo/meso I living along the Anatolian coast all the way till Antalia. From there on they could be picked up by farmers.

I have a theory about G2a2 as well, but there is no DNA proof for that, because we have no samples from there.
13 ka (1000 years after the Villabruanans) obsidian from Melos arrived in Franchtii cave along with pulse seeds and pistacho nuts from Anatolia. It would have been brought by tuna fishers in the Aegean.
12.5 ka Cyprus was discovered by HG and abondonned again soon after, to be recolonised 10.8 ka by the first farmers.
9.5 ka first fish arrived in grotta dell'Uzo in Sicily.
Appearently there were some seafaring fishermen active along southern Anatolia, the Aegean and later also southern Italy. They were also doing some horticulutre with pulse seeds.
This may be the source of G2a2.
Few of these G2a2 may have picked up cereal farming and domesticates somewhere along the Levantine coast ca 8.5 ka.
The G2a2 split up in three branches +/- 8.5 ka : NW Anatolia, Eastern Greek peninsula and Carded/Impressed ware, Corfoe.
In PCA charts all 3 populations* are close to each other, but NW Anatolia and Eastern Greek peninsula are closer to each other than to Carded/Impressed ware.

* we have no DNA from Eastern Greek peninsula Neo, but we have Sarcevo-Koros and LBK DNA

Fire Haired14
21-06-16, 11:58
yes the number of samples is to small to make overall conclusions
furthermore I believe a component is missing, it is the common ancestor to NW Anatolian and European Neo.

European Neolithic is descended of NW Anatolian Neolithic.

Voyager
21-06-16, 14:18
in the doc. I am reading
Supplementary Information 9
Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians

While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
(Steppe_MLBA) is not.
Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have been
proposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians as well as the Srubnaya from eastern
Europe which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup
R1a1a1b2-Z935.

Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha & Andronovo Cultures (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and some of them are R1a but obviously it is not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.

Also the extended data fig 4 shows that all regions of india, from North to South have similar admixture of Steppe_EMBA meaning that this admixture is not relevant to Indo-Aryan populations, the Indo-European linguistic group in India.

LeBrok
21-06-16, 16:01
in the doc. I am reading
Supplementary Information 9
Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians


Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha Culture (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and most of them are R1a but obviously they are not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.
The difference between Steppe EMBA and MLBA is that the latter contains some Anatolian/Natufian Neolithic, but EMBA only Iranian Neolithic. Check figure 1c. Perhaps MLBA tribes, coming from West with European farmer admixture, pushed out EMBA tribes out of the Steppe, some of them went south and conquered North India.

Also interesting is that they model Iberain BA with no Steppe input. Just half Anatolian/Natufian Neolithic and half WHG.

bicicleur
21-06-16, 16:17
European Neolithic is descended of NW Anatolian Neolithic.

and why do you think so ?

LeBrok
21-06-16, 16:28
and why do you think so ? Why would you think otherwise? All the recent papers Lazaridis and Lorente says so, by admixtures, numbers, PCA and graphs, and even literally:

farmers related to those of Anatolia spread
westward into Europe

Now, all samples of Anatolian Neolithic came from NW Anatolia. Let's connect the dots.

bicicleur
21-06-16, 16:38
in the doc. I am reading
Supplementary Information 9
Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians


Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha & Andronovo Cultures (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and some of them are R1a but obviously it is not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.

Also the extended data fig 4 shows that all regions of india, from North to South have similar admixture of Steppe_EMBA meaning that this admixture is not relevant to Indo-Aryan populations, the Indo-European linguistic group in India.

as far as I can tell from figure 1a and 1b steppe eneolithic is Khvalynsk, steppe EMBA is Yamna/Afanasievo and steppe MLBA is Sintashta/Andronovo

this is strange, it doesn't make sense

bicicleur
21-06-16, 16:39
Why would you think otherwise? All the recent papers Lazaridis and Lorente says so, by admixtures, numbers, PCA and graphs, and even literally:

Now, all samples of Anatolian Neolithic came from NW Anatolia. Let's connect the dots.

well, read again, it's not the same

LeBrok
21-06-16, 16:47
well, read again, it's not the same Wow, read again what FH said. If you are nit picking, it's never the same. Population can change genetically in time even without mixing with others, right?

holderlin
21-06-16, 17:11
When I said South Asian origin of Basal Eurasian I meant India or thereabouts and I think @Bicicleur posted the same thing for the same reasons.

People are mixing up dates and associating unrelated characteristic. Basal Eurasian predates farming by tens of thousands of years. To speak of the arrival of basal Eurasian farmers makes no sense.

Everything actually makes very good sense though. We see EHG start to pop up in Iran and the Zagros around the chalcolithic, which is when we started to see the Teal increase in Steppe samples. Not surprised to see R1b in bronze age Armenia as it comes with some EHG and is the perfect spot and time for the arrival of the Anatolian languages, keeping in mind that neolithic Armenia was all L2(?) Kura axes however is highly unlikely to be IE. Probably Hurrian or Caucasian or ancestral to those languages. Also as we move to the late Bronze age in Armenia we see a shift towards the steppe, which is consistent with ever increasing steppe influence as we move through the bronze age.

We'll have to see what the P* in neolithic Iran is. If it's R1b that could be a surprise to some, but it shouldn't be. R2 at this point would make more sense.

Also, as I understand it CHG/Neolithic Iranian doesn't have EHG, but indeterminate "euro"-HG. There's a difference. They say this before they throw in EHG/WHG as a proxy. This would indicate an earlier mixing with "euro" HGs, I think, which makes sense.

In rush, I could be overlooking things.

holderlin
21-06-16, 17:16
And actually, the admixture in ANI might make linguistic sense. Iranian actually appears to be a bastardized version of Indic that was passed down through oral tradition more so than written. So Indic being associated perhaps with earlier (less admixed?) steppe makes sense.

There's a reason the details of this particular subject are elusive. Maybe this is why. Yamnaya like came with Indic making a more direct (unadulterated) migration into India and Sintasha/Andronovo and the like represent either a later group, or the group that hung around and mixed resulting in Iranian. So Indo-Iranian would have been more Indic like that anything else.

Also, many archaeologists maintain that Yamnaya only needs to be the origin of Indo-Iranian, archaeologically speaking. Perhaps they were onto something?

holderlin
21-06-16, 19:48
as far as I can tell from figure 1a and 1b steppe eneolithic is Khvalynsk, steppe EMBA is Yamna/Afanasievo and steppe MLBA is Sintashta/Andronovo

this is strange, it doesn't make sense

How is this strange?

*EDIT* I get it, you mean it's strange that ANI doesn't appear to have MLBA Steppe. Yes this was unexpected, but I think the explanations offered work just fine.

Sile
21-06-16, 19:56
As for WHG, Gravettian seems to have spread till Karain cave, NW of Antalia.
I guess there were paleo/meso I living along the Anatolian coast all the way till Antalia. From there on they could be picked up by farmers.

I have a theory about G2a2 as well, but there is no DNA proof for that, because we have no samples from there.
13 ka (1000 years after the Villabruanans) obsidian from Melos arrived in Franchtii cave along with pulse seeds and pistacho nuts from Anatolia. It would have been brought by tuna fishers in the Aegean.
12.5 ka Cyprus was discovered by HG and abondonned again soon after, to be recolonised 10.8 ka by the first farmers.
9.5 ka first fish arrived in grotta dell'Uzo in Sicily.
Appearently there were some seafaring fishermen active along southern Anatolia, the Aegean and later also southern Italy. They were also doing some horticulutre with pulse seeds.
This may be the source of G2a2.
Few of these G2a2 may have picked up cereal farming and domesticates somewhere along the Levantine coast ca 8.5 ka.
The G2a2 split up in three branches +/- 8.5 ka : NW Anatolia, Eastern Greek peninsula and Carded/Impressed ware, Corfoe.
In PCA charts all 3 populations* are close to each other, but NW Anatolia and Eastern Greek peninsula are closer to each other than to Carded/Impressed ware.

* we have no DNA from Eastern Greek peninsula Neo, but we have Sarcevo-Koros and LBK DNA

There was not that much need for ships crossing from anatolia into europe
The black sea first entered/penetrated into the sea of Marmara in 9.2 ka

The sediments and fauna record the Black Sea outflow beginning at 9.2 ka BP and the subsequent water column stratification as Marmara Sea established its two-layer circulation.

A. Papadimitriou
21-06-16, 20:09
When I said South Asian origin of Basal Eurasian I meant India or thereabouts and I think @Bicicleur posted the same thing for the same reasons.

People are mixing up dates and associating unrelated characteristic. Basal Eurasian predates farming by tens of thousands of years. To speak of the arrival of basal Eurasian farmers makes no sense.

Everything actually makes very good sense though. We see EHG start to pop up in Iran and the Zagros around the chalcolithic, which is when we started to see the Teal increase in Steppe samples. Not surprised to see R1b in bronze age Armenia as it comes with some EHG and is the perfect spot and time for the arrival of the Anatolian languages, keeping in mind that neolithic Armenia was all L2(?) Kura axes however is highly unlikely to be IE. Probably Hurrian or Caucasian or ancestral to those languages. Also as we move to the late Bronze age in Armenia we see a shift towards the steppe, which is consistent with ever increasing steppe influence as we move through the bronze age.

We'll have to see what the P* in neolithic Iran is. If it's R1b that could be a surprise to some, but it shouldn't be. R2 at this point would make more sense.

Also, as I understand it CHG/Neolithic Iranian doesn't have EHG, but indeterminate "euro"-HG. There's a difference. They say this before they throw in EHG/WHG as a proxy. This would indicate an earlier mixing with "euro" HGs, I think, which makes sense.

In rush, I could be overlooking things.

If Kura-Araxes was not IE which is correct imo, I guess you expect that if we get more samples from Armenia EBA R1b will not be the haplogroup of the majority. And I guess you expect that R1b (this particular subclade too) will be found a little later in Central and Western Anatolia.
Is that correct?

Also, that 'indeterminate "euro"-HG', assuming that it is not EHG, can it have common origin with EHG? Could these people have had common ancestral populations? I guess yes but I don't know much. If not, why?

bicicleur
21-06-16, 20:25
And actually, the admixture in ANI might make linguistic sense. Iranian actually appears to be a bastardized version of Indic that was passed down through oral tradition more so than written. So Indic being associated perhaps with earlier (less admixed?) steppe makes sense.

There's a reason the details of this particular subject are elusive. Maybe this is why. Yamnaya like came with Indic making a more direct (unadulterated) migration into India and Sintasha/Andronovo and the like represent either a later group, or the group that hung around and mixed resulting in Iranian. So Indo-Iranian would have been more Indic like that anything else.

Also, many archaeologists maintain that Yamnaya only needs to be the origin of Indo-Iranian, archaeologically speaking. Perhaps they were onto something?

do you mean Sintasha/Andronovo Vedic migration to India ca 3.7 ka was preceded by a Yamnaya migration to India
or do you mean the Vedic migration to India was actually a Yamnaya migration?

bicicleur
21-06-16, 20:28
Wow, read again what FH said. If you are nit picking, it's never the same. Population can change genetically in time even without mixing with others, right?

I adressed a question to Fire Haired. The idea is to discuss and learn from it. Please don't interfere.

bicicleur
21-06-16, 20:29
There was not that much need for ships crossing from anatolia into europe
The black sea first entered/penetrated into the sea of Marmara in 9.2 ka

The sediments and fauna record the Black Sea outflow beginning at 9.2 ka BP and the subsequent water column stratification as Marmara Sea established its two-layer circulation.

indeed sea levels were still rising
not much from these people will be found back in the archeological record

holderlin
21-06-16, 20:46
If Kura-Araxes was not IE which is correct imo, I guess you expect that if we get more samples from Armenia EBA R1b will not be the haplogroup of the majority. And I guess you expect that R1b (this particular subclade too) will be found a little later in Central and Western Anatolia.
Is that correct?

We already see a lack of R1b in neolithic Armenia, then it's appearance as we move into the bronze age. So yes, I would expect this to continue until we see distributions resembling what we see today. We're only missing the intermediate.


Also, that 'indeterminate "euro"-HG', assuming that it is not EHG, can it have common origin with EHG? Could these people have had common ancestral populations? I guess yes but I don't know much. If not, why?

Well it would depend on how far back you go, of course. But I do not believe we have basal eurasian in MA-1, AG3, and AG2. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

holderlin
21-06-16, 20:51
do you mean Sintasha/Andronovo Vedic migration to India ca 3.7 ka was preceded by a Yamnaya migration to India
or do you mean the Vedic migration to India was actually a Yamnaya migration?

The latter, but we may be overplaying this result. Who knows what more data will tell. I believe that the only missing thing is EEF admixture.

It's late to really be Yamnaya proper, but the population would have been genetically Yamnaya in my model. And it would have began earlier than we all estimate.

berun
21-06-16, 21:10
The difference between Steppe EMBA and MLBA is that the latter contains some Anatolian/Natufian Neolithic, but EMBA only Iranian Neolithic. Check figure 1c. Perhaps MLBA tribes, coming from West with European farmer admixture, pushed out EMBA tribes out of the Steppe, some of them went south and conquered North India.

Quite funny. If so it could be thought that the later EMBA cultures were "Cordedwareized" and "R1aized"?

Well, let's add another yellow alarm.

Angela
21-06-16, 22:08
I guess one person's "nitpicking" is another person's attempt at clarity and trying to get even the details right. We're all different in how we approach the material.

I came across some posts by RK at eurogenes that might clarify things. :) I hope that RK doesn't mind my lifting part of his posts. It's a compliment. :) This relates to the "ethnogenesis" of the "Anatolian Neolithic" group.

"There's some complexity with regard to 'circular admixture' between Levant_N, Natufian and Anatolia_Neolithic, and also Iran_N, CHG, and Iran_Chalcolithic, but the qpWave rank indicates that there really isn't much more complexity left once we use Levant_N and Iran_N as the bottom two corners. Anatolia_Neolithic still requires a currently unsampled population slightly further west than WHG on the WHG-EHG cline to get represented accurately, but not much else seems missing."

"Matt" made an interesting response to this:

"Less EHG ancestry than Switzerland_HG, which is modelled as having less than Loschbour. (Or conversely, less close to the WHG who are ancestral to EHG, I guess?). I don't think this will actually prove to be necessary though, and that this will all depend on what they find when they rerun and republish with the dataset from Fu et al."

I think it makes sense if we remember that the population in Anatolia was "WHG like", but not WHG.

Also,
"About Anatolia_Neolithic, I think the proportions are probably incorrect, but the source populations are probably correct. I agree that the proximate population source for EEF is Anatolia_Neolithic, but I expect some extra Iran_N would probably fit in the Danubian Neolithic on top of Anatolia_N if we tried."

He's talking about a mix of Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic (plus some "WHG like") admixture.

In my opinion, the specific, proximate source for at least Cardial might not yet have been sampled, i.e. it's in the Aegean or eastern mainland Greek Neolithic, and the Marmara samples are a bit different. Until we get them though I don't think there's any problem with using the ANF's as our best source so far.

As I have pointed out as well, although these early farming people were pretty homogeneous, they weren't identical.

"Previously there was a strange but very consistent tendency for all steppe groups, including yamnaya and Khvalynsk, to favour some EEF groups over others; Iceman was always the EEF pop closest to the steppe. Also some C European EEF groups were more 'Caucasus' than others, where 'Caucasus' is an ADMIXTURE component that is not very ANE-shifted despite centering there. Now that EEF is seen to be a mix of Iran_N and Levant_N, there is probably slight variation in the proportions depending on location, with Cardial farmers more Levantine and Danubian more Iran_N, I would bet."

That could be because the Danubian might derive more of its ancestry from the northwest Anatolia samples, and the Cardial ones from the Aegean group.

As to the comment about the Basal Eurasians, I don't recall mixing up dates or saying that the original Basal Eurasians were always farmers. No group was "always farmers". All groups were originally hunter gatherers. What I was speculating is that the group or groups which developed agriculture had very high Basal Eurasian percentages.

On a related note, again from RK:
"But they do get consensus figures from matching qpAdm, f4s and ADMIXTUREGRAPH, so I am inclined to trust the higher figures. We would probably need a >>80% Basal Eurasian genome to settle the figures very well, probably from the Persian Gulf or Arabia."

As to the spread of farming:
" My guess is that, as small groups of humans passed through the Neolithic 'cultural bottleneck', the deformation of both genes and memes was so strong, and the resulting society so difficult for H-G societies to replicate, that all instances of highly developed agropastoral lifestyle involved at least some vertical genetic and memetic transmission, and accompanying demographic change in the ancestry stream at some point. "

"I expect that, once the preceding middle Eastern HGs are compared against the neolithic successors, extremely strong signs of recent selection will emerge. There are sharp boundaries in the presence of small %s of Basal ancestry in reindeer herders vs Siberian HGs, which seem to suggest some pre-adaptation is necessary for sustained agropastoralism in closed cultural groups, even today."

So I and LeBrok have been saying for a couple of years.

On the migration to the north into the steppe groups:
"the proximate contributor is probably an agricultural population on the Iran_N Levant_N clinal crescent that diffused into the Caucasus and further northwards, thus tying the Basal ancestry in pre-IEs to agropastoral groups, instead of an older diffusion from Kotias HGs only."

So, it may not be Iran Chalcolithic, but it's not Kotias CHG hunter-gatherer. It's a later farming group, not a very early hunter-gatherer group.

On why Kotias is sometimes a better fit:
"Later populations favouring Kotias over Ganj Dareh in Llorente et al. is probably an artifact caused by Kotias being a mix of Iranian+EHG/WHG+Levantine ancestry, which will have the effect of pulling Kotias away from the Iran_N corner towards the centre of the cloud of populations, where most later groups lie."

This I'm not sure about, but it seems reasonable.

As to why the models don't work with M/L steppe groups like Sintashta, Andronovo, or even Srubnaya related groups he doesn't really opine much that I can find.

One reason might be that we don't yet have the genome of the proximate but related source (related to Andronovo or Sintashta, I mean). Or perhaps they have it but aren't yet ready to release it. The answers might also be clearer once we have a genome from BMAC and IVC.

"The existence of a Basal-EHG admixed population deep into Iran also makes a very old ANE presence in Central Asia somewhat more likely, especially if the Basal ancestry peters out as one moves deeper into the North and East. My guess is that the IVC will be Iran_N+Onge and BMAC will be Iran_N+ANE/EHG, reflecting admixture from the prior HG populations in each location. "

He also dives into the controversy over Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Again, I've always thought it probably moved with Levantine people south rather than the other direction, perhaps from the Sinai with even more Natufian like people.

I do think that the "steppe" proportions in even southern South Asian tribals has to do partly with pre-existing "ANE like" ancestry.

Fire Haired14
21-06-16, 22:22
As to the comment about the Basal Eurasians, I don't recall mixing up dates or saying that the original Basal Eurasians were always farmers. No group was "always farmers". All groups were originally hunter gatherers. What I was speculating is that the group or groups which developed agriculture had very high Basal Eurasian percentages.

On a related note, again from RK:
"But they do get consensus figures from matching qpAdm, f4s and ADMIXTUREGRAPH, so I am inclined to trust the higher figures. We would probably need a >>80% Basal Eurasian genome to settle the figures very well, probably from the Persian Gulf or Arabia."

As to the spread of farming:
" My guess is that, as small groups of humans passed through the Neolithic 'cultural bottleneck', the deformation of both genes and memes was so strong, and the resulting society so difficult for H-G societies to replicate, that all instances of highly developed agropastoral lifestyle involved at least some vertical genetic and memetic transmission, and accompanying demographic change in the ancestry stream at some point. "

"I expect that, once the preceding middle Eastern HGs are compared against the neolithic successors, extremely strong signs of recent selection will emerge. There are sharp boundaries in the presence of small %s of Basal ancestry in reindeer herders vs Siberian HGs, which seem to suggest some pre-adaptation is necessary for sustained agropastoralism in closed cultural groups, even today."

So I and LeBrok have been saying for a couple of years.


It makes sense that farming spreads with genes but in the Middle East there's no evidence that it did. Basal Eurasian was prevalent before farming and didn't rise in frequency once people started to farm because of natural selection.

berun
21-06-16, 23:32
Not surprised to see R1b in bronze age Armenia as it comes with some EHG and is the perfect spot and time for the arrival of the Anatolian languages, keeping in mind that neolithic Armenia was all L2(?) Kura axes however is highly unlikely to be IE. Probably Hurrian or Caucasian or ancestral to those languages. Also as we move to the late Bronze age in Armenia we see a shift towards the steppe, which is consistent with ever increasing steppe influence as we move through the bronze age.

We'll have to see what the P* in neolithic Iran is. If it's R1b that could be a surprise to some, but it shouldn't be. R2 at this point would make more sense.

No surprise to see in Armenia the same clade that appear among yamnayans two hundred years after? In a culture (Kura-Araxes) related to Maykop? And knowing that what we know by sure now is that there was a migration northwards? By simple chance the presence of R1b in Yamnaya is debt to such migration instead of EHG going south: because the demographical difference is high enough and the expansive nature of the neolithic are giving more numbers.

Kurgans appear in Anatolia around 2000 BC, the time for Anatolian languages... so to late for that.

Another (big) problem doing this R1b clade being a paleolithic migrant is that its TMRCA is after Armenia was already populated by Neolithics...

Garrick
22-06-16, 01:09
So has Kartvelian on PIE. Also the influence of Proto Uralic and vica versa seems to be mainly on the Indo_Iranian branch, I haven't heard much of an influence on other subgroups.

Good and if ANE could have brought multiple languages, why shouldn't this be the case with CHG like or even AF? Just food for thoughts.

What all Indo Europeans have in common is a ANE like admixture, be it through CHG, Iranian Neolithic or EHG admixture. Of course we can't exclude WHG as source but it just doesn't seem that plausible to me.

I have red a bit about it and most similarities between Uralic and Indo European seem to be with the Indo_Iranian group. For example I don't know of any Uralic type influence on Hititte, which is the most archaic known Indo European language.

As I have already said, I believe the Steppes could be the origin of the merging point, but the Steppes could as well be just a second homeland for a large part of the Indo European subgroups. But than we can't even be sure were Kartvelian and Uralic originated. Kartvelian for example seems to be rather Anatolian_Farmer derived tongue. While Uralic could as well originate in South_Central Asia, based on the origin of N Haplogroup.

Every language family in this world started as a creole of two or many other imo. But let's agree to disagree. Maybe it wasn't a creol language true.


Proto-Uralic has had a large influence on PIE and vice versa. A large number of linguistics think it is possibly of the same origin as PIE. Take a look at what exactly is related, it seems very deep.

First, ANE brought forth a number of languages, some of which were isolates: The American-Indian languages. Secondly, we don't know how languages originated. Take for instance New Guinea where Papua's speak over 850 languages, with large families as well as dozens (!) of isolates. Some larger families have ties with the world around them.

On the basis of what exactly do you exclude WHG as source?

But the relation between PIE and proto-Uralic runs very, very deep. Read about it.

No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.

Apart from that: PIE was not a creole language, as these are simplified languages: i.e. non-speakers adapt a simplified version and make it their own. PIE was highly complicated indicating it originated from native speakers.

Interesting discussion. Of course things are not black or white, matter is very complex.

It can be of significance for this discussion that ancient DNA samples relating Kurgan Bronze age have the closest link with today's living Komi-Zyrians, Udmurts, Chuvash and Tatars in the Volga-Ural area, nobody of which speak an Indo-European language (Komi-Zytian and Udmut languages belong Uralic family; Chuvash and Volga-Tatar languges belong Turkic family).

holderlin
22-06-16, 01:14
No surprise to see in Armenia the same clade that appear among yamnayans two hundred years after? In a culture (Kura-Araxes) related to Maykop?

No not at all, nor do I care one way or another. Remember that in particular.

There's older R1b all over the steppe thousands of years before Kura Axes. Not to mention among the oldest WHG in Italy too. These earlier steppe cultures are no doubt precursors to Yamnaya and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this on deaf ears. By archaeological standards there is remarkable continuity from Samara to Yamnaya. No one is making this shit up. Keep in mind Neolithic Armenia was L2, and it's not until bronze age that this R1b shows up, along with a pull towards the steppe. This is consistent with the apparent steppe/Iranian diffusion beginning in the chalcolithic.


And knowing that what we know by sure now is that there was a migration northwards?

Yes, even still.


By simple chance the presence of R1b in Yamnaya is debt to such migration instead of EHG going south: because the demographical difference is high enough and the expansive nature of the neolithic are giving more numbers.

I don't know what you're saying here, but no I don't think Yamnaya R1b came from Iranian Chalcolithic for all the same reasons I've already stated. If we see a large set of R1b in Maykop or something like that then I'll change my tune, but I think we'll see J as expected.


Kurgans appear in Anatolia around 2000 BC, the time for Anatolian languages... so to late for that.

Hittite actually needed to separate from PIE waaaaaaaaay before 2000BC for anything to make sense so the simple Kurgans in Anatolia = Anatolian languages was never adequate. The gradual infiltration of archaic IE much earlier actually makes perfect sense, which is exactly what we're seeing in BA Armenia.

Tomenable
22-06-16, 02:52
you see we have 4 starts of cultivate plants

Rather more than 4. For example, you forgot about New Guinean start:

"Was Papua New Guinea an Early Agriculture Pioneer?":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html

Tomenable
22-06-16, 02:55
Even in the Middle East alone, there could be few independent starts:

"Farming invented twice in Middle East, genomes study reveals":

http://www.nature.com/news/farming-invented-twice-in-middle-east-genomes-study-reveals-1.20119

Tomenable
22-06-16, 02:59
the bottom map in reference to Xiaohe are 12 ydna of which 11 are R1a1a and one T1a1 ((K-M9(xN, O, P))
( as noted by chinese docos)

I initially thought it was L

Thanks for this info! Are you sure that the Non-R1a sample from Xiaohe was indeed T1a1+?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184

Tomenable
22-06-16, 03:19
K-M9(xN,O,P) could indeed be T, but it could also be L, M, S, or some basal form of K.

L and T are most probable, but L would suggest a Middle Eastern or South Asian origin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L-M20

LeBrok
22-06-16, 04:18
Quite funny. If so it could be thought that the later EMBA cultures were "Cordedwareized" and "R1aized"?

Well, let's add another yellow alarm. Why? We don't know all the history of migration from Yamnaya to India. If you notice we are just learning and exploring. We don't even know what was the population of West Yamnaya or North-West Yamnaya. What is obvious that we have Steppe input into India and Europe but we don't have Indian input into Steppe and Europe.

Fire Haired14
22-06-16, 04:27
No surprise to see in Armenia the same clade that appear among yamnayans two hundred years after? In a culture (Kura-Araxes) related to Maykop? And knowing that what we know by sure now is that there was a migration northwards? By simple chance the presence of R1b in Yamnaya is debt to such migration instead of EHG going south: because the demographical difference is high enough and the expansive nature of the neolithic are giving more numbers.

Kurgans appear in Anatolia around 2000 BC, the time for Anatolian languages... so to late for that.

Another (big) problem doing this R1b clade being a paleolithic migrant is that its TMRCA is after Armenia was already populated by Neolithics...

Kura Axes had some(not a lot) of EHG ancestry. It's totally possible the R1b in Kura Axes is of EHG origin and the R1b in Yamnaya is also of EHG origin.

LeBrok
22-06-16, 04:53
White Pyramid off topic moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32383-Fantasy-and-conspiracy-about-white-pyramid

LeBrok
22-06-16, 05:01
Even in the Middle East alone, there could be few independent starts:

"Farming invented twice in Middle East, genomes study reveals":

http://www.nature.com/news/farming-invented-twice-in-middle-east-genomes-study-reveals-1.20119Yes, It happened more times that we realised just recently. I even found, watching YouTube :) Amazon Jungle tribe in walf way to agriculture. Women were farming some starchy root but men were still hunting. Their base diet was already mostly starches with only addition of game meat.
Take notice that in all these known cases of agriculture, the invention of farming was local, "self grown" for centuries and millennia, and not imported knowledge. Pan intended. :)

holderlin
22-06-16, 06:01
Thanks for this info! Are you sure that the Non-R1a sample from Xiaohe was indeed T1a1+?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184

http://i.imgur.com/2NkRVmt.jpg?1

holderlin
22-06-16, 06:30
I don't recall mixing up dates or saying that the original Basal Eurasians were always farmers. No group was "always farmers". All groups were originally hunter gatherers. What I was speculating is that the group or groups which developed agriculture had very high Basal Eurasian percentages.

I wasn't talking about you in particular. There were a few different proposals making references to things that were inconsistent with the dating or didn't make sense in this way.

We just need more is all. Just one more paper. Yeah. That's all, just a couple older samples from Iran and the Levant.......and one mesolithic from India......just one . That would do it.......maybe.......for while. BUT WE NEEEEEEED MOAR NOOOOOOOOW

I'm not nerdy enough and don't have enough time to run stats for months in between papers. I become a cosmic monster who consumes ancient DNA with an unappreciative lust and sloppiness. Much like Galactus consumes planets and NEEDS to keep feeding to maintain his life force.

A. Papadimitriou
22-06-16, 07:45
No not at all, nor do I care one way or another. Remember that in particular.

There's older R1b all over the steppe thousands of years before Kura Axes. Not to mention among the oldest WHG in Italy too. These earlier steppe cultures are no doubt precursors to Yamnaya and I don't know how many times I have to repeats this on deaf ears. By archaeological standards there is remarkable continuity from Samara to Yamnaya. No one is making this shit up. Keep in mind Neolithic Armenia was L2, and it's not until bronze age that this R1b shows up, along with a pull towards the steppe. This is consistent with the apparent steppe/Iranian diffusion beginning in the chalcolithic.



Yes, even still.



I don't know what you're saying here, but no I don't think Yamnaya R1b came from Iranian Chalcolithic for all the same reasons I've already stated. If we see a large set of R1b in Maykop or something like that then I'll change my tune, but I think we'll see J as expected.



Hittite actually needed to separate from PIE waaaaaaaaay before 2000BC for anything to make sense so the simple Kurgans in Anatolia = Anatolian languages was never adequate. The gradual infiltration of archaic IE much earlier actually makes perfect sense, which is exactly what we're seeing in BA Armenia.

In Bronze Age J2b and E1b also appear in Armenia. Also this site http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml considers L1a samples as 'Copper Age/Chalcolithic'

The location of the L1a samples is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areni-1_cave_complex

The location of the Kura-Araxes R1b sample is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalavan

In middle Bronze Age R1b is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerkin_Getashen

In middle Bronze Age E1b appears in the same place

In late Bronze Age J2b appears near R1b and E1b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norabak

Voyager
22-06-16, 08:34
Even in the Middle East alone, there could be few independent starts:

"Farming invented twice in Middle East, genomes study reveals":

http://www.nature.com/news/farming-invented-twice-in-middle-east-genomes-study-reveals-1.20119

Several waves of Migration. I think so too. The first EEF wave to Europe must have been mainly Y-Haplogroups G, 10 000 ybp from Near East, it's pretty clear. But R1b-M269>L23 followed few thousand years after , the L23 mutation is 6500 years old, this is still Neolithic age. The problem is where did they come from?

berun
22-06-16, 08:51
Originally Posted by holderlin No not at all, nor do I care one way or another. Remember that in particular.

There's older R1b all over the steppe thousands of years before Kura Axes. Not to mention among the oldest WHG in Italy too. These earlier steppe cultures are no doubt precursors to Yamnaya and I don't know how many times I have to repeats this on deaf ears. By archaeological standards there is remarkable continuity from Samara to Yamnaya. No one is making this shit up. Keep in mind Neolithic Armenia was L2, and it's not until bronze age that this R1b shows up, along with a pull towards the steppe. This is consistent with the apparent steppe/Iranian diffusion beginning in the chalcolithic.

I don't know what you're saying here, but no I don't think Yamnaya R1b came from Iranian Chalcolithic for all the same reasons I've already stated. If we see a large set of R1b in Maykop or something like that then I'll change my tune, but I think we'll see J as expected.

Hittite actually needed to separate from PIE waaaaaaaaay before 2000BC for anything to make sense so the simple Kurgans in Anatolia = Anatolian languages was never adequate. The gradual infiltration of archaic IE much earlier actually makes perfect sense, which is exactly what we're seeing in BA Armenia.

There was ancestral R1b in the Samara and and Khvalinsk cultures of course, but now we have another ancestral R1b guy in Armenia before any IE migration to Armenia, so we can choose now from were the Yamnayan and Armenian Z2103 popped up, and this one appears 6300 years ago, when Armenia was recently occupied by Neolithic farmers and herders; just a bottleneck effect over some R1b pioneer herders could explain Z2013 in Yamnaya. Also there is the statistical problem that demographics and the migratory sense is pointing just the opposite direction.

Of course Anatolian languages are the most divergent and they might be older, but you can check Italian and French how they have evolved from Latin and how they are yet near languages, you only need another substrate. It's necessary to don't dimiss archaeology: by 3000 BC Troy I-III was flourishing till a cultural disruption about 2100-1850, and kurgans with chariots appear in east Anatolia by 2300 BC along new ceramics; in fact by 3000 BC the cultural influences came from Uruk, and more precisely in Armenia these influences came from Syria (ware), what is worst, the Kura-Araxes in Armenia arrived in 3350-3000 from the east. As for language the Assyrian docs put no-IE Hattians in Anatolia in the III millenium and their Hattic language was yet written by IE Hittites in the half of the II millenium, so recent was the IE migration by then.

By the way it was good that somebody realized that the paper was forgetting the R1b guy data, which also doesn't receive any analysis in the paper... usualy I see how some authors try to get from 2+2 a 10 or even -2, but that its quite new for me.

Fire Haired14
22-06-16, 14:52
Several waves of Migration. I think so too. The first EEF wave to Europe must have been mainly Y-Haplogroups G, 10 000 ybp from Near East, it's pretty clear. But R1b-M269>L23 followed few thousand years after , the L23 mutation is 6500 years old, this is still Neolithic age. The problem is where did they come from?

R1b-M269 first pops up in Western Europe 4600 years ago. It was absent in EEF. No other Neolithic people came to Western Europe besides EEF, then in the Bronze age Steppe people with R1b came. This is all old news.

Alan
22-06-16, 16:46
I'm starting to think the same, Basal Eurasians were G people or it came from India with that H2 which appears in both Levant, Anatolian and European Neo.



I already said this in the past various times, I do believe also that Basal Eurasian is connected to G, makes sense if you look at the yDNA tree.

Basal Eurasian is the first branch to split up from the main Eurasian body.

So is G from HIJK. Basal Eurasian => G was found in Iran_Neo too. And I think these ar ethe guys who brought Basal Eurasian and they must have evolved somewhere on the southern coast of Iran.

I still have my doubts that E1b1b or even E in general came from Africa, if that was the case we would see stronger signal between Sub Saharan Africans and Natufians than SSA to other Eurasians however SSA shares as much with Natufians as it shares with other Eurasians. This indicates that it can't have come from Africa, while on the opposite hand we do have Eurasian signals already in Mota and it is around ~4%.

Alan
22-06-16, 16:50
If I remember well, we can expect some DNA from that area as well.
But if there is such leak, I'd take it with a big pinch of salt.
There may have been some R1a-Z93 in India prior to Indo-Aryans, but I don't expect any of that at the source of the Indus civilization.
If so, it will be the biggest surprise of the year, and there have allready been a few now.

I think R1a-Z93 is a bit to young for the roots of the Indus civilization.
If there is one scenario which has been confirmed by DNA till now, it is about the origin of IE.
It is not compatible with R1a-Z93 at the roots of the Indus civilization.
This can only mean that Z93 was already there prior to Indo Europeans, or Harrapans have more connection to Indo Europeans as we previously thought.

Alan
22-06-16, 17:01
Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages#Some_possible_cognates

Furthermore, the theory for instance linguists such as Kortlandt are pushing (http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf) is that PIE is derived from a common Indo-Uralic stem, on a Caucasian substrate. Almost all serious scenario's have two major influences: Uralic and Caucasian. Hence the positioning of the original Urheimat roughly in between these.


the Indo_Uralic theory is a controversial theory, also the theory actually supports the idea that Uralic and Indo European came from South_Central Asia, and this is what I actually said, it could very well be that EHG and even the whole Indo European package came from South_Central Asia.







E
HG is partly WHG, so maybe that was a vector. Frankly, I don't have a clue. But I wouldn't connect ANE that strictly to a language group if I were you. Proto-Uralic is not connected to all American Indian languages for that matter.


Let's let this possibility open but I don't think WHG will be the source.



"Watar", ne- for negation, "me" for I, me, etc. See the list above.

How do we know that these are Uralic loanwords?? What about see being Indo European loanwords in Uralic? Nevermind.




Haplogroups are not languages, even as they sometimes, or even often, have a relationship. Furthermore, if you want to propose a different origin, make the case for it.

Have you actually been following this thread from the start I did make my proposals in many posts. 1. PIE is from the Iranian Plateau, reached the Steppes via the Caucasus (influx from Iranian Plateau to Caucasus and Steppes supported by archeology) or via East of the Caspian. In this scenario Indo European might have evolved on the Iranian Plateau and the Steppes could be a secondary homeland to the major European branches of Indo European, while Hittite didn't even cross the Steppes but directly moved into Anatolia.
Or Indo European evolved after some Iran_Calcolthic dudes reached the Steppes and merged with the EHG of Samara.

2. Indo European could have a South_Central Asian origin in itself and reached the Steppes via East of the Caspian. If that is not the case at least the EHG individuals probably came from South_Central Asia and reached Samara via the East Caspian route.

Note South_Central Asia in this case for me is the region between Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

Alan
22-06-16, 17:07
That model had high standard errors and is therefore not a realistic model for Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N doesn't fit well as a mixture of other ancient genomes. We need more ancient genomes to learn who the ancestors of Anatolia_N were. It probably has some Iran_Neolithic ancestry but not a lot, definitely not 34%. Anatolia_N is also definitely not 27% WHG. Anatolia_N appears to be a brother to Levant_N.



Iran Chl is a mixture of CHG(or Iran Neolithic. Both were similar) and Levant_Neolithic. Armenia_EBA is a mixture of CHG, Levant_Neolithic(or Anatolila_Neolithic. Both were similar), and EHG.

It is not even clear if EHG or WHG. Armenian EBA does not shows any more significant EHG(or WHG) admixture than Iranian or Anatolian Calcolthic. In fact Armenian Calcolthic had twice as much of it already. In fact the "EHG" in Armenian EBA looks identical to that of CHG. With other words Armenian EBA looks like CHG with Anatolian_Neo admixture. Or alterntively and better fitting Armenia EBA can be modeled as Armenia_Chl + Iran_Chl

With other words the "EHG/WHG" admixture was present there already during the mesolithic and in much higher frequency even already during the calcolthic.

http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/e3be4a-1466609444.png (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=e3be4a-1466609444.png)

Alan
22-06-16, 17:43
Everything actually makes very good sense though. We see EHG start to pop up in Iran and the Zagros around the chalcolithic, which is when we started to see the Teal increase in Steppe samples. Not surprised to see R1b in bronze age Armenia as it comes with some EHG and is the perfect spot and time for the arrival of the Anatolian languages, keeping in mind that neolithic Armenia was all L2(?) Kura axes however is highly unlikely to be IE. Probably Hurrian or Caucasian or ancestral to those languages. Also as we move to the late Bronze age in Armenia we see a shift towards the steppe, which is consistent with ever increasing steppe influence as we move through the bronze age.


: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.





We'll have to see what the P* in neolithic Iran is. If it's R1b that could be a surprise to some, but it shouldn't be. R2 at this point would make more sense.



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.

Alan
22-06-16, 17:46
And actually, the admixture in ANI might make linguistic sense. Iranian actually appears to be a bastardized version of Indic that was passed down through oral tradition more so than written. So Indic being associated perhaps with earlier (less admixed?) steppe makes sense.



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.

Alan
22-06-16, 17:50
No surprise to see in Armenia the same clade that appear among yamnayans two hundred years after? In a culture (Kura-Araxes) related to Maykop? And knowing that what we know by sure now is that there was a migration northwards? By simple chance the presence of R1b in Yamnaya is debt to such migration instead of EHG going south: because the demographical difference is high enough and the expansive nature of the neolithic are giving more numbers.

Kurgans appear in Anatolia around 2000 BC, the time for Anatolian languages... so to late for that.

Another (big) problem doing this R1b clade being a paleolithic migrant is that its TMRCA is after Armenia was already populated by Neolithics...
People who base their theories on things they read on blogger websites are not usualy known for common sense.

It's always the same game, the blogger doesn't have the courage to defend his ideas on foreign ground and sends his deputies to spred his word.

And no there isn't any "Basal" R1b nor R1a around Samara, they don't seem to know what basal means. No m343 or l62 found. There are many R1 lineages but all slightly downstream.

Angela
22-06-16, 18:10
From Iosif Lazardis:

"It's great to see the data already being analyzed and I hope it will be useful in your analyses!

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.

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).

We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled."

Nice of him to clarify for people who haven't read the Supplement carefully.

From RK:
"Just a quick point: even if southern admixture did arrive via the Caucasus, there is little reason to assume that it was pure CHG, free from Iran_N ancestry by the time it entered on the steppe. In the timeframe between the Khvalynsk and the Yamnaya where southern ancestry increased a great deal, the Caucasus was already agricultural, and for quite some time. Even in the pre-Khvalynsk period this was already the case. Tying in cultural packages with genetics, the demographic impact of Iran_N ancestry in India and Iran would almost definitely be repeated in the Caucasus. If southern ancestry in Yamnaya was limited to Kotias hunter-gatherers exclusively, then almost pure CHG Hunter-Gatherers must have existed hidden somewhere between the agricultural Caucasus and the emerging pastoral Yamnaya for thousands of years, and then on top of that somehow gene flow was limited to the HG groups, which I find very unlikely."

That seems sensible to me.

Alan
22-06-16, 19:19
From Iosif Lazardis:

"It's great to see the data already being analyzed and I hope it will be useful in your analyses!

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.

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).

We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled."

Nice of him to clarify for people who haven't read the Supplement carefully.

From RK:
"Just a quick point: even if southern admixture did arrive via the Caucasus, there is little reason to assume that it was pure CHG, free from Iran_N ancestry by the time it entered on the steppe. In the timeframe between the Khvalynsk and the Yamnaya where southern ancestry increased a great deal, the Caucasus was already agricultural, and for quite some time. Even in the pre-Khvalynsk period this was already the case. Tying in cultural packages with genetics, the demographic impact of Iran_N ancestry in India and Iran would almost definitely be repeated in the Caucasus. If southern ancestry in Yamnaya was limited to Kotias hunter-gatherers exclusively, then almost pure CHG Hunter-Gatherers must have existed hidden somewhere between the agricultural Caucasus and the emerging pastoral Yamnaya for thousands of years, and then on top of that somehow gene flow was limited to the HG groups, which I find very unlikely."

That seems sensible to me.

Would love to give that a thumps up but can't.

This all makes allot of sentence. Remember when the CHG samples were modeled using blogger calculators? CHG turned out as roughly ~30% "Gedrosia" and ~50% Caucasus .

HOWEVER the Yamna samples modeled with the same calculator had ~27% "Gedrosia" but only ~3% Caucasus. Where was all the "Caucasus" gone? Obviously this didn't fit very much and everyone was expecting a more Gedrosia like group to be the source for the Teal admixture.

Now we have Iran_Neo/Chl samples and those from the wording of the study and where it is found and in whom it peaks (Balochi), indicate that this is the more Gedrosia like source we were searching for. Or at least Iran_Chl makes more sense than CHG.

Now someone post that one Eurogenes, where some people don't seem to have enough archeological and historic understanding and still believe mesolithic CHG+EHG is the best model for Bronze Age Yamna.

Alpenjager
22-06-16, 19:29
I already said this in the past various times, I do believe also that Basal Eurasian is connected to G, makes sense if you look at the yDNA tree.

Basal Eurasian is the first branch to split up from the main Eurasian body.

So is G from HIJK. Basal Eurasian => G was found in Iran_Neo too. And I think these ar ethe guys who brought Basal Eurasian and they must have evolved somewhere on the southern coast of Iran.

I still have my doubts that E1b1b or even E in general came from Africa, if that was the case we would see stronger signal between Sub Saharan Africans and Natufians than SSA to other Eurasians however SSA shares as much with Natufians as it shares with other Eurasians. This indicates that it can't have come from Africa, while on the opposite hand we do have Eurasian signals already in Mota and it is around ~4%.

E1b carriers looks heavily admixed with Eurasians, you only need to see their mtDNA haplogroups. If we would expect strong signals of shared autosomal DNA, we would expect E1b carriers conserving their original mtDNA but this is not the case. They are clearly "hybrids".

Voyager
22-06-16, 20:37
R1b-M269 first pops up in Western Europe 4600 years ago. It was absent in EEF. No other Neolithic people came to Western Europe besides EEF, then in the Bronze age Steppe people with R1b came. This is all old news.
That 's true until the next discoveries. The R1b-L23 must have been somewhere between Europe and Near East, 6500 years ago.
We try to understand the all story with less than 1% of the words.

bicicleur
22-06-16, 21:01
according to Genetiker the Ganj Dareh Iran goat herders were R2

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/y-snp-calls-from-the-ancient-near-east/

Tomenable
22-06-16, 21:21
PCA chart (ancient pops):

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis

https://s32.postimg.org/qi9jt7u0z/wykres_PCA.png

Modern pops highlighted:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images/nature13673-f2.jpg

Angela
22-06-16, 21:29
Would love to give that a thumps up but can't.

This all makes allot of sentence. Remember when the CHG samples were modeled using blogger calculators? CHG turned out as roughly ~30% "Gedrosia" and ~50% Caucasus .

HOWEVER the Yamna samples modeled with the same calculator had ~27% "Gedrosia" but only ~3% Caucasus. Where was all the "Caucasus" gone? Obviously this didn't fit very much and everyone was expecting a more Gedrosia like group to be the source for the Teal admixture.

Now we have Iran_Neo/Chl samples and those from the wording of the study and where it is found and in whom it peaks (Balochi), indicate that this is the more Gedrosia like source we were searching for. Or at least Iran_Chl makes more sense than CHG.

Now someone post that one Eurogenes, where some people don't seem to have enough archeological and historic understanding and still believe mesolithic CHG+EHG is the best model for Bronze Age Yamna.

I'm not clear about where you disagree with Lazaridis. He is saying CHG + EHG is rejected, while EHG + Iran Chalcolithic is not. He's also implying, I think, that they don't yet have the sample from the specific population which went north. If they did, the fits would obviously be better. During the Chalcolithic there were probably a number of populations in the northern Near East with slightly different mixes of ancestries. The one that did go north may have picked up more Levant or Anatolia EEF, but be relatively close to Iran Chalcolithic.

At any rate it's pretty clear, in my opinion, that Yamnaya is not a mix of EHG and some population of CHG which had been north of the Caucasus for thousands of years. This was mixture from the actual Near East.

Alan
22-06-16, 22:13
R1b-M269 first pops up in Western Europe 4600 years ago. It was absent in EEF. No other Neolithic people came to Western Europe besides EEF, then in the Bronze age Steppe people with R1b came. This is all old news.

R1b pops up in 5000 BC EEF individual in Iberia. How was it absent in EEF?

Alan
22-06-16, 22:15
I'm not clear about where you disagree with Lazaridis. He is saying CHG + EHG is rejected, while EHG + Iran Chalcolithic is not. He's also implying, I think, that they don't yet have the sample from the specific population which went north. If they did, the fits would obviously be better. During the Chalcolithic there were probably a number of populations in the northern Near East with slightly different mixes of ancestries. The one that did go north may have picked up more Levant or Anatolia EEF, but be relatively close to Iran Chalcolithic.

At any rate it's pretty clear, in my opinion, that Yamnaya is not a mix of EHG and some population of CHG which had been north of the Caucasus for thousands of years. This was mixture from the actual Near East.

I never said I disagree with Lazaridis. Did I give that impression? I said I agree with him that CHG can't be the "Teal source" of Yamna.

Tomenable
22-06-16, 22:36
R1b pops up in 5000 BC EEF individual in Iberia.Yes but V88 rather than M269.

arvistro
22-06-16, 23:16
Genetiker analyses.
Phenotype:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/
Y-Dna:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/y-snp-calls-from-the-ancient-near-east/

holderlin
22-06-16, 23:24
In Bronze Age J2b and E1b also appear in Armenia. Also this site http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml considers L1a samples as 'Copper Age/Chalcolithic'

The location of the L1a samples is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areni-1_cave_complex

The location of the Kura-Araxes R1b sample is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalavan

In middle Bronze Age R1b is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerkin_Getashen

In middle Bronze Age E1b appears in the same place

In late Bronze Age J2b appears near R1b and E1b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norabak

Thanks for the links.

L1a in a different location all together, but everything else pretty much around Lake Sevan.

All of those Y-HG's would be expected in in the Bronze age in that region.

Aaron1981
22-06-16, 23:56
R1b pops up in 5000 BC EEF individual in Iberia. How was it absent in EEF?

R1b-V88 is probably linked to WHG type of ancestry in EEF that found it's way into Africa and the Levant. You'll notice that Villabruna R1b (xV88, xM269) is WHG not EEF. These are old hunter-gatherer north Eurasian lineages who mostly died out.

Angela
23-06-16, 00:12
This is what Llorente et al had to say about phenotype:

"The! phenotypic! attributes! of! GD13a are! similar! to! the! neighbouring! Anatolian! early! farmers! and!Caucasus!Hunter)Gatherers.!Based!on!diagnostic !SNPs,!she!had!dark,!black!hair!and!brown!eyes!(se e!Supplementary).!She!lacked! the!derived!variant!(rs16891982)!of! the!SLC45A2!gene!associated!with!light! skin! pigmentation! but! had! at! least! one! copy! of the! derived! SLC24A5! allele! (rs1426654)!associated!with!the!same!trait.!The!de rived!SLC24A5!variant!has!been!found!in!both!Neoli thic!farmer!and! Caucasus! hunter)gatherer! groups! (5,! 21,! 26)suggesting! that! it! was! already! at! appreciable!frequency!before!these!populations!div erged.!Finally,!she!did!not!have!the!most!common!E uropean!variant!of! the! LCT!gene!(rs4988235)!associated!with! the!ability! to!digest! raw!milk,!consistent!with!the!later!emergence!of!t his!adaptation (5,!21,!23)."

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/18/059568.full.pdf

Fire Haired14
23-06-16, 01:32
Genetiker analyses.
Phenotype:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/
Y-Dna:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/y-snp-calls-from-the-ancient-near-east/

R2 in Neolithic Iran is a big deal because R2 a mysterious mostly south Asian lineage today. Wait for geneticker to post reads for phenotype SNPs, most results are based on few reads. It does appear CHG/Iran were darker EHG because 4/4 EHG and Chalolithic Samara have 374F allele.

Garrick
23-06-16, 02:04
I did make my proposals in many posts. 1. PIE is from the Iranian Plateau, reached the Steppes via the Caucasus (influx from Iranian Plateau to Caucasus and Steppes supported by archeology) or via East of the Caspian. In this scenario Indo European might have evolved on the Iranian Plateau and the Steppes could be a secondary homeland to the major European branches of Indo European, while Hittite didn't even cross the Steppes but directly moved into Anatolia.
Or Indo European evolved after some Iran_Calcolthic dudes reached the Steppes and merged with the EHG of Samara.

2. Indo European could have a South_Central Asian origin in itself and reached the Steppes via East of the Caspian. If that is not the case at least the EHG individuals probably came from South_Central Asia and reached Samara via the East Caspian route.

Note South_Central Asia in this case for me is the region between Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

Yes, both first and second scenarios you give here have certain probability. People can be careful to avoid premature conclusions.

Two competing hypotheses Steppe (Kurgan) and Anatolian have their arguments. Grey and Atkinson (2003) using statistical methods developed by biologists found that Proto Indo European spoken 7,800 to almost 10,000 years ago. Their findings gave support to Anatolian hypothesis! Nine years later a larger team of scientists including the two mentioned using mathematical model for geographical spreading of viruses again gave support for Anatolian versus Kurgan hypothesis. In those days seems that Anatolian hypothesis triumphed.

After that two new scientific papers things changed (and someone can see it is not good make speedy conclusions).

Phylogenetic analysis by Chang et al (2015) using generally accepted language ancestries found that ancestor language originated about 6,500 years ago. Chang et al examined over 200 sets of words using present day and historical Indo-European languages, and through statistical modeling, they concluded that languages which first used these words began to diverge about 6,500 years ago. This backs Steppe hypothesis.

DNA study Haak et al (2015) confirmed migration from steppes, people who lived in Yamnaya 5,000 years ago are closely matched with Corded Ware people in (today’s) Germany 4,500 years ago. Massive migrations happened from steppe. According researchers eastern migrants could replace domicile population (on areas present days Germany). Yes, we knew this earlier, but always it is good when exact scientific results give confirmation.

After these papers someone can reckon triumph Steppe hypothesis? But mater is complex and knowledge lacks.

For example we don’t know about languages of Starcevo culture, Linear Pottery Culture etc. in Europe.

Wikipedia:
“There are different opinions about the ethno-linguistic origin of the people of Starčevo culture. According to one opinion, Neolithic cultures of the Balkans were of non-Indo-European origin and Indo-European peoples (originating from Eastern Europe) did not settle in this area before the Eneolithic period. According to other opinions, Neolithic cultures of the Balkans were also Indo-European and originated from Anatolia, which some researchers identified with a place of origin of Indo-European peoples.”

Renfrew, author of Anatolian hypothesis, in the light of new findings, considers steppes as secondary migration IE speakers to Europe and about 3,000 years later in regards first migration IE speakers.

There are more hypotheses, among them, Armenian, Paleolithic continuity, Vasconic etc.

Armeinan hypothesis also makes sense. For Armenian hypothesis Hak et al (2015) argue:

“The Armenian plauteu hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixture in the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from a population of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the "Eastern European hunter-gatherers" and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open.”

And Paleolithic continuity by Alinei has its value. This hypothesis suggests that Indo-European speakers were native in Europe since Paleolithic. By the end of ice age IE language family differentiated in languages which many of them survived and developed till today. We can argue that archeological and genetic evidence missing but it is very good food for thoughts and contributes to our knowledge.

There are more different hypothesis. One of them is Vasconic hypothesis proposed by Vennemann. Vasonic people lived in Western Europe and gave names to rives and places. Basque is Vasconic language which survived.

According Klyosov and Tomezolli (2013) original language of R1b carriers wasn’t Indo-European. According authors R1b carriers arrived in Europe about 4,800 – 4,300 years ago and they didn’t speak IE languages, these languages spoke R1a carriers. Authors claim:

“During the period of 3000 - 2300 ybp many R1a tribes migrated with their IE languages from the Russian Plain to central, western and southern Europe bringing to Europe the peoples later called Germans, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians, Balto-Slavs, and Celts (the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures flourished between 2600 and 2400 ybp). We posit that some Arbin (R1b) peoples adopted the IE languages from the R1a bearers and, in exchange, introduced NIE loan words and grammatical structures.”

As authors claim Basque is language of R1b carries which survived and authors think Vasconic hypothesis has ground. Also they think R1a carriers migrated from Anatolia to Balkans between 9000-8000 years ago and they brought IE languages. In that way and Anatolian hypothesis according authors has ground. Authors disprove Steppe (Kurgan) and Paleolithic continuity hipotheses.

However till today nobody found ancient R1a in the Balkans and idea that R1a carriers brought IE language to the Balkans has not been proved. Vasconic hypothesis is not accepted in scientific community. Maybe author’s claim about original languages of R1b carriers as NIE (non Indo-European) is not priori mistaken but someone can claim same for R1a carriers. And they could spoke non IE once.

I will repeat languages don't go always with haplogroups, expansion of any language may not be caused by mass migration of newcomers, it can be only language expansion where local people of different origin adopt 'lingua franca' and their native languages disappear. Also, people (elite) who conquer any territory not always impose their language on local population. Massive migrations or conquering any territory are not necessary preconditions for language expansion, language can be spread in different ways.

At today’s level of knowledge (which can be changed with new discoveries and evidence) we can make link between Anatolian, Steppe and Armenian hypothesis, they does not have to be mutually exclusive. Better picture can be synthesis these three hypotheses.

holderlin
23-06-16, 03:16
I already said this in the past various times

You're so awesome

Tomenable
23-06-16, 03:51
Two competing hypotheses Steppe (Kurgan) and Anatolian have their arguments

Anatolian hypothesis is dead.

At this point Russia, Iran and Armenia are IMO the only options for PIE homeland.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 07:37
Anatolian hypothesis is dead.

At this point Russia, Iran and Armenia are IMO the only options for PIE homeland.
I don't have a problem with Iranian Neolithic or Caucasus Chalcolithic being core of PIE culture. They obviously spread agriculture to the Steppe and possibly their language. However fully developed IEs come from Steppe/Yamnaya culture.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 07:57
PCA chart (ancient pops):

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis

https://s32.postimg.org/qi9jt7u0z/wykres_PCA.png

Modern pops highlighted:


It is interesting how strongly Armenian Ch/BA is pulled down towards EEF/Anatolian N, half the way. Probably from starting location similar to CHG and Iranian N. They are also shifted somewhat left towards EHG group, the steppe influence.

Sile
23-06-16, 09:04
I1707 = T
age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
SNP's = 152234
MtDNA = R0a

I1707
: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
East9
and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
Neolithic of central Europe6.


While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries




Genetiker has done these below............for I1707

MC1R, rs1805009, red hair, fair skin
Levant Neolithic I1707 GG

OCA2, rs1800407, green or hazel eyes
Levant Neolithic I1707 CC

SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin
Levant Neolithic I1707 GG

SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin
Levant Neolithic I1707 GG

TYR, rs1042602, light skin, absence of freckles
Levant Neolithic I1707 CC


Looks like a south-caucasus or "thracian" identity

Alan
23-06-16, 11:14
Genetiker analyses.
Phenotype:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/
Y-Dna:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/y-snp-calls-from-the-ancient-near-east/
So "Genetiker", another dubious blogger has found out what the authors of the study with a huge lab couldn't. I remember Genetiker was also the one who found out that paleolithic Kostenki had red hair instead of dark as claimed in the study.

Alan
23-06-16, 11:15
You're so awesome

you too bro.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 11:50
This is also interesting (and shows up only during the Metal Ages; absent from Neolithic samples):

TYR, rs1393350 (blond hair + blue eyes):

Armenia Copper Age I1632 AA

MC1R, rs1805005 (blond hair + fair skin):

Iran Copper Age - I1662 TT
Iran Copper Age - I1674 TT

OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832 (blue eyes) [Edit: but it was present in Georgia in CHG hunters*]

Armenia Copper Age I1631 GG
Armenia Copper Age I1634 GG
Iran Copper Age I1665 GG
Levant Bronze Age I1730 GG

OCA2, rs1800407 (green or hazel eyes):

Armenia Early Bronze Age I1633 TT

*Satsurblia Cave hunter from Georgia (13,380-13,130 BP) had OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 11:53
BTW - Natufians were 100% dark skin + 100% dark hair + 100% dark eyes.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 12:36
It is interesting how strongly Armenian Ch/BA is pulled down towards EEF/Anatolian N, half the way. Probably from starting location similar to CHG and Iranian N. They are also shifted somewhat left towards EHG group, the steppe influence.

IMO is pulled towards Steppe_MLBA (red squares), not towards Anatolia.

Same with Copper Age Iran compared to Neolithic Iran.

It shows that Steppe migration to that region was already in Copper Age.

Pax Augusta
23-06-16, 12:41
Good point, we fall into known shortcomings of Anatolian origin of IE hypothesis, likewise there are too many ancient non-IE languages in the area, Caucasus, Minoans, Etruscans, Sumerians to make Iranian and Anatolian farmers IEs. There is no evidence of IE language till late Bronze Age. It could indeed be a language of Steppe herders/HGs and expended with them in Bronze Age.

There is no evidence that Etruscan language is linked to ancient non-IE languages in the Anatolian area, except for some possible loanwords.

I suggest you to read this paper on the Demlfeld plate written in Reatic and found in Austria. According to scholars, the link between Etruscan and Reatic is very old.

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_lingu istiche

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=63&lang=en#418

Tomenable
23-06-16, 13:18
Anyway, Sumerian artworks did not lie - DNA confirms that blue eyes existed in Ancient Middle East:

https://www.johndenugent.com/images/mesopotamia-blue-eyes.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aULXmdmBNsw

Fire Haired14
23-06-16, 14:15
So "Genetiker", another dubious blogger has found out what the authors of the study with a huge lab couldn't. I remember Genetiker was also the one who found out that paleolithic Kostenki had red hair.

He gets legitimate results. He didn't find out kostinki had red hair. He found out kostinki was a carrier of red hair. The study that sequenced his DNA found the same. Also his DNA was converted to 23andme format, I looked at it and actually he has a haplitype that is distantly anctral to a red hair haplitype. Point is geneticker isn't producing crazy results and can find stuff academics can't.

arvistro
23-06-16, 14:17
So "Genetiker", another dubious blogger has found out what the authors of the study with a huge lab couldn't. I remember Genetiker was also the one who found out that paleolithic Kostenki had red hair.
:)
Right, let's discredit people who do extra stuff, instead of recognizing their efforts.

Or if it is r1b they find they become less dubious, but when it is r2 their dubiousity shoots the stars?

A. Papadimitriou
23-06-16, 14:18
Everything a blogger says is dubious until it gets confirmed.

bicicleur
23-06-16, 15:06
Everything a blogger says is dubious until it gets confirmed.

I have seen quite a few Y-calls from Genetiker in the past which were confirmed afterwards.

Genetiker had some strange theories about Aurignacians and Gravettians and he was very groce against whoever didn't agree with him.
The study about Ice Age Europe proved him wrong. He apologized for that.

bicicleur
23-06-16, 15:08
BTW - Natufians were 100% dark skin + 100% dark hair + 100% dark eyes.

they came from Africa, I guess some 24 ka

E-M35 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M35/)M5290/S22882 * CTS9324/PF1768/M5266 * PF1871/M5325+95 SNPsformed 34900 ybp, TMRCA 24100 ybp


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

Ohalo is the common designation for the archaeological site Ohalo II in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee), and one of the best preserved hunter-gatherer archaeological sites of the Last Glacial Maximum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum), having been radiocarbon dated to around 19,400 BP.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohalo#cite_note-1) The site is significant because of the numerous fruit and cereal grain remains preserved therein, (intact ancient plant remains being exceedingly rare finds due to their quick decomposition).


they admixed with Basal Eurasian though, you'd expect them a bit less dark

Tomenable
23-06-16, 15:18
Genetiker is credible but would be more credible if I didn't see "BlahBlahAncientPeruWhiteGodsBlah" each time I visit his blog... :grin:

I think he should have one blog for legit genetical stuff, and another, separate blog for "Whites = Native Americans" stuff...

===========

Can't he at least remove it from "Featured Posts"?:

https://s32.postimg.org/xcowg2b05/Blahblah.png

bicicleur
23-06-16, 15:23
Today Yazidi girls cost between 15 dollars and 300+ dollars at ISIS slave market:

(See 8:55 - 9:05): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1r0s2mw1k#t=8m55s

One terrorist says that blue-eyed Yazidis are more expensive than brown-eyed.

why bother? they get all these virgins for free when they die

Alan
23-06-16, 16:39
BTW - Natufians were 100% dark skin + 100% dark hair + 100% dark eyes.

Most things indicate that light features were introduced into the Levant by Iran_Neo and Caucausus dudes.

In the past we had a debate about this. Remember Namrun (light features were known throughout Western Asia by Bronze Age times at least.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 16:42
IMO is pulled towards Steppe_MLBA (red squares), not towards Anatolia.

Same with Copper Age Iran compared to Neolithic Iran.

It shows that Steppe migration to that region was already in Copper Age. If we assume that most of genome is from Iranian and Anatolian Neolithic, we still see them as exact mix of both, and Armenians located exactly halfway between them. We also see substantial pull towards EHG and the Steppe. In contract Chalcolithic Iranians don't have Steppe influence, and exactly composed of two Neolithics.
7814

Alan
23-06-16, 16:45
IMO is pulled towards Steppe_MLBA (red squares), not towards Anatolia.

Same with Copper Age Iran compared to Neolithic Iran.

It shows that Steppe migration to that region was already in Copper Age.

The EHG admixture in Copper Age Iran equals that found in mesolithic CHG. On the other Hand EHG admixture in Bronze Age Armenia decreases drastically in comparison to Copper Age Armenia. This is much more complicated than that. imo, what we are seeing is Copper/Bronze AGE Armenia being dragged inbetween Anatolian_Neo and Iran_Neo. The western shift towards EHG on the pca can perfectly be explained with the more western situation of Anatolian_NEO in comparison to Iran_Neo which is more east but also significantly more North.

What people need to understand EHG was not exclusive to the Steppes so was not CHG/Iran_Neo to Caucasus, East Anatolia and Iranian Plateau.

I assume we will find EHG in South_Central Asia as well Iran_Neo in Neolithic South_Central Asia.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 16:50
There is no evidence that Etruscan language is linked to ancient non-IE languages in the Anatolian area, except for some possible loanwords.

I suggest you to read this paper on the Demlfeld plate written in Reatic and found in Austria. According to scholars, the link between Etruscan and Reatic is very old.

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_lingu istiche

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Esempi&id=63&lang=en#418 "In the area" was very used very liberal, and axamples were various non-IE languages. I'm not saying anywhere that they are related to each other or originated in Anatolia. Take it easy dude.

Alan
23-06-16, 16:51
:)
Right, let's discredit people who do extra stuff, instead of recognizing their efforts.

Or if it is r1b they find they become less dubious, but when it is r2 their dubiousity shoots the stars?


Genetiker is known as dubious Blogger since the day I know him, generally all bloggers are to some extend dubious this is why they are not pro scientists. Remember Genetiker claim still West EUropean paleolithic origin of R1b even after all the studies coming out and proving the opposite? :)


Also as I said in my very first posts, where there is R2, R1 can't be far away. If we found R2 we will find R1 too be sure and most likely basal R1b and R1a since it is today found on the Iranian Plateau such as Gogas R1a L62 but not in ancient Samara samples. I assume they came via South_Central Asia.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 16:53
Today Yazidi girls cost between 15 dollars and 300+ dollars at ISIS slave market:

(See 8:55 - 9:05): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1r0s2mw1k#t=8m55s

One terrorist says that blue-eyed Yazidis are more expensive than brown-eyed. Wouldn't this post be more fitted in your new "slave" thread?

Angela
23-06-16, 17:44
I wonder if a case could be made that it was in Basal Eurasians where the mutations for depigmentation first occurred, and they spread them to everyone else in the Middle East. After all, that's the genetic "tie that binds" all of them.

Perhaps, also, all the speculation about the Neolithic diet slowly selecting for the skin depigmentation also was on the right track.

We've been speculating for a long time about how these mutations could have wound up all over the world so early. I believe I suggested that perhaps it was a diffusion from the Near East in two directions: one into Europe from around Anatolia, and one over the Caucasus. Perhaps that is indeed the case.

I guess we'll see as more samples come in.

A word of caution about comparing "relative" levels of "fairness". We have very few samples. Also, to harp on again about the obvious, it's a combination of these traits that produces modern definitions of "fairness". One derived snp on one gene is not going to do it. So, if someone were going to compare people on both sides of the Caucasus (Yamnaya, for instance) all the snps would have to be compared, and in addition one would have to keep in mind the relative number of samples in both areas before drawing conclusions.

Fire Haired14
23-06-16, 18:11
The lack of rs14etc "A' in the single Natufian is surprising because all other ancient Middle easterners have it. Angela might be on to something about farming making it more popular, but then again it was popular in SHG, EHG, CHG. It's still guessing work at this point. We can be confident though the "G' allele was selected agianst because most WHG had it and there's 10%-20% WHG ancestry in Europe. But it looks like the majority of West Eurasian's ancestors had "AA' in 6000 BC or earlier. By Mesolithic lots of people had a high frequency of 374f and rs14etc.

Tomenable, I don't see what sex slaves has to do with this:). Anyways obvisouly big blue eyes are going to be a noticeable novelty in Asia and a unique attractive trait, just as brown skin would be in Europe. I don't think we should always assume fair pigmentation is somehow special and favoured and has an evolutionary advantage. If it did then many more would have it in Asia. Selection can be neutral and go in both directions. In Sardinia for example less than 5% have blue eyes while in Neolithic Central Europe at least 1/3 did.

Angela
23-06-16, 19:03
Alan;482392]The EHG admixture in Copper Age Iran equals that found in mesolithic CHG.

Well, not if we go by this chart, but the level of EHG in Armenia Copper Age is pretty close to that in CHG.*

7815



[QUOTE]On the other Hand EHG admixture in Bronze Age Armenia decreases drastically in comparison to Copper Age Armenia. This is much more complicated than that. imo, what we are seeing is Copper/Bronze AGE Armenia being dragge towards Anatolian_Neo n comparison to Iran_Neo.

The western shift towards EHG on the pca can perfectly be explained with the more western situation of Anatolian_NEO in comparison to Iran_Neo which is more east but also significantly more North.

Well, it decreases in the Early Bronze Age, but it increases to the highest levels in the Middle/Late Bronze Age, so by then, whatever was the case in previous eras, there might have been movement from north of the Caucasus.

I agree that it's complicated, and I don't see this as a simple matter of steppe intrusion. Part of the difficulty in interpreting what we see is that we don't have an Armenian Neolithic sample. The other problem, as Lazaridis pointed out in his post, is that we don't know the geographical range of these ancient people.

Let's assume, for the moment, that CHG resulted from the admixture of a population similar to the Iranian Neolithic who moved slightly north and encountered EHG. Did they encounter EHG already south of the Caucasus? Or were the EHC only north of the Caucasus, but the resulting admixed population straddled the entire Caucasus range. These are things we don't yet know and may perhaps never know.

That's why I don't know whether there's a hard and fast case to be made that the Armenian Copper and Early Bronze Age results necessarily imply a move from the steppes, although there is the R1b result to consider.

By the Armenian Chalcolithic we actually see, as you say and as I pointed out upthread, that EHG has decreased at the expense of an intrusion of Levant Neolithic and WHG. Is that actually just a breakdown of the Anatolian Neolithic that arrived from the west? Does that make more sense than a migration of purely Levant Neolithic people all the way north?

Then in the Armenia Early Bronze the EHG declines yet again, perhaps by admixture by a population heavier in Iranian Neolithic?

Only in the Armenia Late Bronze Age do we see the EHG levels rise back to the levels of the Iran Chalcolithic. That's the strongest case for steppe intrusion, in my opinion.


I assume we will find EHG in South_Central Asia as well Iran_Neo in Neolithic South_Central Asia.


This is the confounding factor that might change all of this.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 19:04
I wonder if a case could be made that it was in Basal Eurasians where the mutations for depigmentation first occurred, and they spread them to everyone else in the Middle East. After all, that's the genetic "tie that binds" all of them.

EHG, SHG or WHG* didn't have any Basal Eurasian ancestry yet many of them had these mutations.

Natufians had 50% Basal Eurasian ancestry and they were 100% dark -skinned, -eyed and -haired.

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

*WHG didn't have the 2 "major" skin-depigmenting SLC genes, but still had other depigmenting genes:

Villabruna had MC1R, rs1805007 (a mutation which causes red hair plus lighter skin, such a 2 in 1 package).

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

Věstonice Gravettians probably had SLC45A2, rs16891982 and MC1R, rs1805007. But they were Pre-WHGs.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 19:06
There are more depigmentation genes than just SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Many genes are 2 in 1 or 3 in 1 "packagaes", which affect pigmentation of more than one body part (for example they cause lighter skin + light eyes / light hair at the same time).

All darkening and lightening mutations will have a cumulative effect, contributing to an individual's pigmentation.

The Irish are so pale-skinned even compared to other Europeans because their red hair genes also lighten skin.

Of course 95+% of the Irish have SLC24A5, SLC45A2, and additional red hair + light skin genes.

Question is, how did someone without SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, but only with red hair + light skin gene, look like?

Tomenable
23-06-16, 19:14
We probably still don't understand the impact of each individual gene and combinations of genes well enough to evaluate - for example - how light was skin of someone who did not have any of the two SLC lightening mutations, but did have some other mutations (like MC1R, rs1805007 or MC1R, rs1805005 - both of which are "2 in 1" packages which affect the pigmentation of both hair and skin).

Pigmentation traits are polygenetic, so they are probably influenced by dozens of genes, not just a couple of them.

Or what was skin colour of someone, who had both SLC24A5 ("Caucasoid light skin") and ASIP ("Veddoid brown skin"?).

Probably both genes influenced such a person's skin pigmentation, which ended up being "intermediate".

Angela
23-06-16, 19:46
I guess I have to repeat myself again for the umpteenth time. A stray derived snp associated with depigmentation is not enough to make a person "European" fair. Plug the results from some of these people into a pigmentation predictor. One such snp is not going to result in a prediction of fair skin or fair hair or light eyes. That is a fact. It is the combination of snps that is important. That's why the genetiker results are so misleading for people who don't understand or don't want to understand how depigmentation works.

It's irrelevant that WHG had one such snp: they were dark skinned, darker skinned than any modern West Eurasians. UP Europeans were dark skinned, as was Mal'ta. It is what it is.

EHG and SHG did have these derived snps. They could very well have diffused northwards from the Caucasus, however. That's the possibility to which I was referring. We find "J" in Karelia, and a mtDna "H" far to the north. The selection there, once the mutation had arrived, could very well be based on the far more extreme lack of solar radiation. As to the Natufians, how many have been typed for these snps? Is it possible we got one of the ones who didn't show it?

The other alternative is that it occurred in some mixed group around the Caucasus and spread in both directions from there.

I'm throwing out various ideas here. I'm not married to any of them, but then I don't have this fixation with "fairness" and this burning desire to "claim" it for only one group of my ancestors, the "European" hunter-gatherers.

Honestly, I don't understand it. My father was blond and green eyed, both his parents were fair, the entire damn village where he was born was fair of eyes, skin and hair, two of my husband's four grandparents were fair, my own babies were blonde until at least their late teens, and one is green eyed, and I'm practically an albino in terms of skin color, yet I don't have this extraordinary attachment to it or any feeling it's somehow "better" in any objective sense. I'm certainly not desperate to claim it as some sort of prize for one of my ancestors at the expense of the others.

You people make me tired. The only reason I responded is so that people new to the discussion aren't misled. Other than that further discussion of it is useless.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 20:47
Scholars do not support your ideas in this case, Angela:

Felix M. Key et al., 2016:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160318/ncomms10775/full/ncomms10775.html

Quote:

"Adaptive alleles - especially those associated with pigmentation - are mostly of hunter-gatherer origin"


EHG and SHG did have these derived snps. They could very well have diffused northwards from the Caucasus, however.

Caucasus hunters were derived only for one of these two SLC alleles, while most of EHG and many of SHG were derived for both. Also when do you think were they diffused from the Caucasus northwards ??? During the LGM ??? During the LGM migrations were from the North to the South, with people escaping southwards from advancing icesheets (see David Reich's recent study). So more likely during the LGM northern hunters diffused southwards, bringing adaptive alleles for northern climates with them.

Alan
23-06-16, 20:48
EHG, SHG or WHG* didn't have any Basal Eurasian ancestry yet many of them had these mutations.

Natufians had 50% Basal Eurasian ancestry and they were 100% dark -skinned, -eyed and -haired.

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

*WHG didn't have the 2 "major" skin-depigmenting SLC genes, but still had other depigmenting genes:

Villabruna had MC1R, rs1805007 (a mutation which causes red hair plus lighter skin, such a 2 in 1 package).

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

Věstonice Gravettians probably had SLC45A2, rs16891982 and MC1R, rs1805007. But they were Pre-WHGs.

if someone was beeing simplistic he would simply say the pigmentation correlates with lattitude and UV radiation+ Neolithic diet. South Levant being one of the most sun heavy regions in Eurasia vs the Caucasus that looks in most regions actually like this. I think more "recent" waves of Levant, Anatolian and Iranian migrations "darkened" the regions slightly in comparison to the past, despite the North Caucasus especially being very well known for it's good share of very light pigmented people.

https://trabzontatilrehberi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1340372024_ay7.jpg


Depite the Iranian Plateau being generally a sun heavy region, especially the more mountainous regions such as the Zagros and Alborz mountains look like this. And I assume during the mesolithic_neolithic these regions were even more green.

http://www.irpedia.com/upload/iblock/fde/fdee05fd85b8458856ae98371019f5dc.jpghttps://mountaineering.asia/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Shadegan.jpg
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/5376/cablecari.jpg

I still think there is, of course next to neolithic_diet, a strong enviromental factor to physical appearance. Remember the Kalash are genetically almost identical to the general Pakistani population (they even have less Steppe admixture than Pashtuns), yet they live at the greenish shores of the Hindu-Kush and are generally more known for their fair complexions.

Often the simplest explanation is the right one.

Alan
23-06-16, 20:53
[QUOTE]Alan;482392]The EHG admixture in Copper Age Iran equals that found in mesolithic CHG.

Well, not if we go by this chart, but the level of EHG in Armenia Copper Age is pretty close to that in CHG.*

7815





Well, it decreases in the Early Bronze Age, but it increases to the highest levels in the Middle/Late Bronze Age, so by then, whatever was the case in previous eras, there might have been movement from north of the Caucasus.

I agree that it's complicated, and I don't see this as a simple matter of steppe intrusion. Part of the difficulty in interpreting what we see is that we don't have an Armenian Neolithic sample. The other problem, as Lazaridis pointed out in his post, is that we don't know the geographical range of these ancient people.

Let's assume, for the moment, that CHG resulted from the admixture of a population similar to the Iranian Neolithic who moved slightly north and encountered EHG. Did they encounter EHG already south of the Caucasus? Or were the EHC only north of the Caucasus, but the resulting admixed population straddled the entire Caucasus range. These are things we don't yet know and may perhaps never know.

That's why I don't know whether there's a hard and fast case to be made that the Armenian Copper and Early Bronze Age results necessarily imply a move from the steppes, although there is the R1b result to consider.

By the Armenian Chalcolithic we actually see, as you say and as I pointed out upthread, that EHG has decreased at the expense of an intrusion of Levant Neolithic and WHG. Is that actually just a breakdown of the Anatolian Neolithic that arrived from the west? Does that make more sense than a migration of purely Levant Neolithic people all the way north?

Then in the Armenia Early Bronze the EHG declines yet again, perhaps by admixture by a population heavier in Iranian Neolithic?

Only in the Armenia Late Bronze Age do we see the EHG levels rise back to the levels of the Iran Chalcolithic. That's the strongest case for steppe intrusion, in my opinion.



This is the confounding factor that might change all of this.



I see, the chart also shows that the EHG admixture throughout the Calcolthic and Bronze Age in Armenia equals that found in CHG and never surpasses that. What however does surpass is the WHG admixture that can be easily explained via Anatolian_Neo or Anatolian_Chl admixture. But I don't see how there is anymore EHG admixture in Bronze and Calcolthic Armenia in comparison to CHG.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 21:05
WHG originated from Southern European LGM refugia 14,000 years ago:

(so no surprise that they were dark-skinned, since these are very sunny regions):


https://vimeo.com/164767929

EHG were not just lighter-skinned, but also on average 10 cm taller than WHG.

Average height of 75 males from Mesolithic Russia (= EHG) was 173.2 cm.

Average height of 96 males from Mesolithic West Europe (WHG) was 163.1 cm.

Source:

Formicola & Giannecchini, "Evolutionary trends of stature in Upper Paleolithic & Mesolithic Europe", 1999.

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

Here a graph from David Reich's video lecture posted above (+ my additions):

https://s32.postimg.org/hjqxd77et/hunters_Europe.png

Alan
23-06-16, 21:07
WHG originated from Iberia and South-Eastern Europe 14,000 years ago:

(so no surprise that they were dark-skinned, since these are very sunny regions):


https://vimeo.com/164767929
Yes and when they moved North and especially later when the adopted a Vitamin D poor Neolithic_Diet, the became fairer. They combination of Genes+enviroment+diet is the key.

Alan
23-06-16, 21:09
And this is why I think PIE came from South :P they were freakn too "dark pigmented" for the lattitude they were living at. Their pigmentation and light eyes level was comparable to that found on the Iranian_Plateau and Anatolia today. But after they established themselves on the Steppes they went through a drastic shift towards light pigmentation.

arvistro
23-06-16, 21:23
Well I am on the Kortlandt's camp on PIE question. Primary homeland North of Caspian (Indo-Uralic stage), secondary homeland North of Black Sea (Indo-European stage).
From were they arrived North of Caspian (Khvalynsk, etc) is not that clear yet. Khvalynsk was EHG plus some CHG-ish admixture.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 21:27
Genetiker wrote that Afontova Gora 2 who lived in Siberia 17,000 years ago was derived for SLC24A5 white skin mutation:

"(...) Mal’ta 1 had two copies of the ancestral allele of rs1426654, but Afontova Gora 2, an Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer who lived 17,000 years ago in Siberia, had two copies of the derived allele. This SNP is located in the gene SLC24A5, and its derived allele is one of the two major Caucasoid depigmentation mutations. The other major Caucasoid depigmentation mutation is the derived allele of rs16891982, in the gene SLC45A2. (...)"

So it seems that Caucasoid skin-lightening alleles originated from ANE. Was ANE admixture present in Neolithic Near East?

Because EHG definitely had ANE admixture. And SHG also had it (they were part-EHG). IIRC, CHG also had some ANE.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 21:46
Haplogroup R2 in Iran (Ganj Dareh) could be related to ANE ancestry.

Alan
23-06-16, 21:47
Genetiker wrote that Afontova Gora 2 who lived in Siberia 17,000 years ago was derived for SLC24A5 white skin mutation:

"(...) Mal’ta 1 had two copies of the ancestral allele of rs1426654, but Afontova Gora 2, an Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer who lived 17,000 years ago in Siberia, had two copies of the derived allele. This SNP is located in the gene SLC24A5, and its derived allele is one of the two major Caucasoid depigmentation mutations. The other major Caucasoid depigmentation mutation is the derived allele of rs16891982, in the gene SLC45A2. (...)"

So it seems that Caucasoid skin-lightening alleles originated from ANE. Was ANE admixture present in Neolithic Near East?

Because EHG definitely had ANE admixture. And SHG also had it (they were part-EHG). IIRC, CHG also had some ANE.According to this Lazaridis paper Mal'ta sample itself is ~28% Iran_meso/neo and 10% CHG like (or derived from it) according to the graph with the pca plot in the study, you can look it up.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 21:50
But Mal'ta (24,000 years old) was brown-skinned. Afontova Gora 2 lived ~7,000 years after Mal'ta.

Native Americans don't have Caucasoid light skin mutations despite having Mal'ta related ancestry.

So if this mutation originated among ANE, it was probably between 24,000 and 17,000 years ago.

Angela
23-06-16, 22:04
Yes and when they moved North and especially later when the adopted a Vitamin D poor Neolithic_Diet, the became fairer. The combination of Genes+enviroment+diet is the key.

Exactly. That's what the science we have so far would suggest.

Also, of course, there's the fact that the Key paper didn't at all discuss SLC24A5, the oldest example of which can be found in the CHG hunter-gatherer from around the Caucasus if I remember correctly, at least in terms of an academic analysis.

Angela
23-06-16, 22:08
Has anyone given any thought to the description of EHG as something like a combination of WHG plus something on the Onge-Han scale? We know from other analyses that EHG has an "eastern" affinity. What exactly does that say about ANE?

Sorry, I haven't got the exact quote to hand.

As to the origin of PIE, I think the main development and spread was from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I'm just not sure about proto-PIE. If Anatolian developed south of the Caucasus, or even in the Caucasus itself, then technically PIE did not originate on the Pontic-Caspian lsteppe. I'm not sure about that, however.

All the studies about the location where PIE would first have developed, i.e. in terms of the words for flora and fauna, could that kind of locale also be found east of the Caspian or even near modern day Armenia or the Iranian plateau?

Also, when talking about influences by other languages, is the influence of the Uralic languages the same in Anatolian as it is in other IE languages? Also, where exactly were the Uralic languages located at this time. How far south did they extend?

Tomenable
23-06-16, 22:08
Selective sweep could happen after the adoption of farming. But this tells us nothing about the place of origin of these mutations. For example it is possible that 5% (1/20) of Upper Paleolithic Europeans were light-skinned. But only later a selective sweep took place and 99% became light-skinned (as is the case today). Some scholars suggest that it was actually sexual selection.

Why has no such selective sweep took place in the Middle East, by the way?

Or it took place in the past, but modern Near Easterners are darker due to mixing with Arabs and SSA ???

Tomenable
23-06-16, 22:14
EHG as something like a combination of WHG

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".

Angela
23-06-16, 22:43
Exactly. That's what the science we have so far would suggest.

Also, of course, there's the fact that the Key paper didn't at all discuss SLC24A5, the oldest example of which can be found in the CHG hunter-gatherer from around the Caucasus if I remember correctly, at least in terms of an academic analysis.

I don't know how many times it has to be said. Light skin, in the sense of "European" light skin, did not exist in UP Europeans or the WHG. Pop those values into a predictor and you will not get a prediction for light skin. Partly it's because the WHG had precursor alleles but not the target alleles themselves. The other factor is that it takes the combination of these snps to produce it, not just one or two.

As I've said ad nauseam, the major depigmentation snps may have occurred in two different populations. It's the convergence which is crucial, that and then the environmental factors, physical and social, which acted upon the mutations.

Part of any sweep is going to entail a convergence of not only the gene mutation but the climate, and in some cases perhaps diet, not to mention any social selection that may go on. If you're living in Anatolia you might get as much Vitamin D from the sun as you need from derived copies of SLC24A5 even if you have no or one copy of derived SLC 45A2. Of course, migration from other, "darker" areas is also going to be a factor.

davef
23-06-16, 22:57
@Angela

You wrote:
"I don't know how many times it has to be said. Light skin, in the sense of "European" light skin, did not exist in UP Europeans or the WHG. Pop those values into a predictor and you will not get a prediction for light skin. Partly it's because the WHG had precursor alleles but not the target alleles themselves. The other factor is that it takes the combination of these snps to produce it, not just one or two."

Cliff notes version: the hunter gatherers had one set of alleles for white skin and came into contact with a population with the other set of alleles (farmers) and produced offspring with both of the allele sets required to have "white skin". Right?

Sile
23-06-16, 22:58
As we are taught in Australia

Farming created light skin because grains gives a person zero vitamin D

Grains in the diet decrease calcium absorption, thus increasing the demand for vitamin D

so hunters stayed dark skin as meat gave them vitamin D, farmers became light skins because they got no Vitamin D from farming

dark skinned farmers came from the north of the zargos mountains, saw the fertile crescent and decided to farm, over time they became light skinned

MOESAN
23-06-16, 23:16
Do we know exactly what farmers ate? Surely corns but not only. It seems they hunted too and so had meat. Surely less than Hgs but those ones ate berries and not-meat food too? And farmers drunk milk, I think. Perhaps could one of us precise this? So selection, but surely not so simply based.

Tomenable
23-06-16, 23:20
did not exist in UP Europeans or the WHG.

But it did exist in ANE (Afontova Gora 2) andl later in Mesolithic EHG & SHG. So it looks like being Siberian in origin. Of course I mean the "Caucasoid" variant, not the "Mongoloid" one - which probably originated even farther to the north-east (although Upper Paleolithic Kostenki14 from European Russia had the "Mongoloid" variant of light skin mutation, according to Genetiker).

Tomenable
23-06-16, 23:26
it takes the combination of these snps to produce it, not just one or two.

There is a gradation of skin tones in Europeans (but most of Europeans have shades from columns 1, 2, 3, 4). The combination of all SNPs will produce shade A1, which is the lightest; with lack of some SNPs, it will be e.g. E1 (still very light):

http://loreal-dam-front-resources-corp-en-cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/1341-95ee3-picture_photo-color-chart-displaying-66-skin-tones.jpg

Tomenable
23-06-16, 23:33
^^^ Just 2 genes (!) are not enough to explain such a huge variety of skin tones.

I am sure that many more genes are influencing skin pigmentation in humans.

MOESAN
23-06-16, 23:38
Do we know exactly what farmers ate? Surely corns but not only. It seems they hunted too and so had meat. Surely less than Hgs but those ones ate berries and not-meat food too? And farmers drunk milk, I think. Perhaps could one of us precise this? So selection, but surely not so simply based.

Angela
23-06-16, 23:51
Do we know exactly what farmers ate? Surely corns but not only. It seems they hunted too and so had meat. Surely less than Hgs but those ones ate berries and not-meat food too? And farmers drunk milk, I think. Perhaps could one of us precise this? So selection, but surely not so simply based.

Vitamin D occurs naturally in very few foods. Milk has very little Vitamin D. It has it today because it is fortified with it. Likewise, meat in general doesn't have very much, but organ meats have more. The biggest source of it is in fish, particularly oily fish.

See:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/


In some hunter-gatherer groups in Europe they got 80% of their caloric intake from meat and fish. Around the Baltic a very large percentage of that 80% was from fish. In some Neolithic societies the percentages were almost exactly reversed, although it varied by area. I've previously posted papers on all of this. Consumption of cow meat (domesticated) seems to have been more for celebrations and other ritual purposes. The liver is a very small part of the cow, of course. Pork has more and they did consume some pigs, but again, it would have been fish consumption which would have made a big difference.

In the book "The Early Mediterranean Village", Robb makes much of the fact that although there were fresh water lakes near some of these Italian Neolithic settlements there is no evidence that the Neolithic farmers actually ate fish. It almost seemed to him like a deliberate aversion. In other areas there was some hunting and some fishing, but by no means in all. Later on, with downturns in the climate, or, who knows, with some admixture with some remnants of the WHG, there was some increased reliance on hunting and fishing.
http://www.cambridge.org/cu/academic/subjects/archaeology/archaeological-theory-and-methods/early-mediterranean-village-agency-material-culture-and-social-change-neolithic-italy?format=PB

There is also a paper which I previously posted showing that even in Scandinavia and the Baltic people who had previously based most of their diet on fish stopped eating it when they turned to agriculture. It was only later, perhaps with the collapse of the Neolithic package, that they turned to the sea again for food. I've wondered, as Frachetti seemed to indicate in his books and articles whether grain took on an almost ritual significance.

arvistro
23-06-16, 23:52
Has anyone given any thought to the description of EHG as something like a combination of WHG plus something on the Onge-Han scale? We know from other analyses that EHG has an "eastern" affinity. What exactly does that say about ANE?

Sorry, I haven't got the exact quote to hand.

As to the origin of PIE, I think the main development and spread was from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I'm just not sure about proto-PIE. If Anatolian developed south of the Caucasus, or even in the Caucasus itself, then technically PIE did not originate on the Pontic-Caspian lsteppe. I'm not sure about that, however.

All the studies about the location where PIE would first have developed, i.e. in terms of the words for flora and fauna, could that kind of locale also be found east of the Caspian or even near modern day Armenia or the Iranian plateau?

Also, when talking about influences by other languages, is the influence of the Uralic languages the same in Anatolian as it is in other IE languages? Also, where exactly were the Uralic languages located at this time. How far south did they extend?
Where Anatolian disagrees with late PIE reconstruction it agrees with Indo-Uralic one, I.e. Tu (you, late PIE) vs Ti (Anatolian, Proto-Uralic and Indo-Uralic). Klokhorst or similar surname had article on this.
As to Uralic themselves, they were not there as Uralic back then. There were different Indo-Uralic dialects, one of which got mixed with North Caucasian and other way later developed into Proto-Uralic.
Is not clear how far South they were then, but judged by PIE, they knew domesticated animals, did not know agriculture, knew (some) metals (Gold, Silver and metal), did not know metallurgy.

Angela
24-06-16, 00:12
Where Anatolian disagrees with late PIE reconstruction it agrees with Indo-Uralic one, I.e. Tu (you, late PIE) vs Ti (Anatolian, Proto-Uralic and Indo-Uralic). Klokhorst or similar surname had article on this.
As to Uralic themselves, they were not there as Uralic back then. There were different Indo-Uralic dialects, one of which got mixed with North Caucasian and other way later developed into Proto-Uralic.
Is not clear how far South they were then, but judged by PIE, they knew domesticated animals, did not know agriculture, knew (some) metals (Gold, Silver and metal), did not know metallurgy.

So, do we know if a population inhabiting, say, the Caucasus or just south of it, or living near the Caspian could have come into contact with Proto-Uralic speakers or a "language" that later developed into proto-Uralic?

MOESAN
24-06-16, 00:39
[QUOTE]Alan;482392]The EHG admixture in Copper Age Iran equals that found in mesolithic CHG.


Well, not if we go by this chart, but the level of EHG in Armenia Copper Age is pretty close to that in CHG.*






Well, it decreases in the Early Bronze Age, but it increases to the highest levels in the Middle/Late Bronze Age, so by then, whatever was the case in previous eras, there might have been movement from north of the Caucasus.


I agree that it's complicated, and I don't see this as a simple matter of steppe intrusion. Part of the difficulty in interpreting what we see is that we don't have an Armenian Neolithic sample. The other problem, as Lazaridis pointed out in his post, is that we don't know the geographical range of these ancient people.


Let's assume, for the moment, that CHG resulted from the admixture of a population similar to the Iranian Neolithic who moved slightly north and encountered EHG. Did they encounter EHG already south of the Caucasus? Or were the EHC only north of the Caucasus, but the resulting admixed population straddled the entire Caucasus range. These are things we don't yet know and may perhaps never know.


By the Armenian Chalcolithic we actually see, as you say and as I pointed out upthread, that EHG has decreased at the expense of an intrusion of Levant Neolithic and WHG. Is that actually just a breakdown of the Anatolian Neolithic that arrived from the west? Does that make more sense than a migration of purely Levant Neolithic people all the way north?


Then in the Armenia Early Bronze the EHG declines yet again, perhaps by admixture by a population heavier in Iranian Neolithic?


Only in the Armenia Late Bronze Age do we see the EHG levels rise back to the levels of the Iran Chalcolithic. That's the strongest case for steppe intrusion, in my opinion.



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.

Garrick
24-06-16, 01:20
Sorry, I haven't got the exact quote to hand.

As to the origin of PIE, I think the main development and spread was from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I'm just not sure about proto-PIE. If Anatolian developed south of the Caucasus, or even in the Caucasus itself, then technically PIE did not originate on the Pontic-Caspian lsteppe. I'm not sure about that, however.

All the studies about the location where PIE would first have developed, i.e. in terms of the words for flora and fauna, could that kind of locale also be found east of the Caspian or even near modern day Armenia or the Iranian plateau?

Also, when talking about influences by other languages, is the influence of the Uralic languages the same in Anatolian as it is in other IE languages? Also, where exactly were the Uralic languages located at this time. How far south did they extend?

From current perspective Anatolian, Steppe and Armenian hypotheses are in the game. Even synthesis of these hypotheses is possible.

After acquiring new knowledge including study Hak et al (2015), Balkan hypothesis is probably outdated. We can exclude Indigenous Aryan hypothesis too.

Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis has value, but for language generally, positing the presence Indo-European and non Indo-European languages in Europe from Paleolithic times.

Impact of Uralic languages existed. Also, impact of languages from the Caucasus existed. Indo European borrowed words from both families.

So IE and Uralic can have close relations. But Alan is right, Eurasiatic hypothesis which relates more Eurasian families: IE, Uralic, and other familes in northern and western Eurasia is controversial. We have another hypothesis - Nostratic, which relates IE, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, and many other, even Afroasiatic families, and of course it is controversial too.
...

In this seminal paper by Lazaridis et al. another question is interesting too. It is about Natufian language. From this perspective Natufian language probably was some kind proto Afro-Asiatic. But I would like see other opinions.

arvistro
24-06-16, 02:24
So, do we know if a population inhabiting, say, the Caucasus or just south of it, or living near the Caspian could have come into contact with Proto-Uralic speakers or a "language" that later developed into proto-Uralic?
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).

Fire Haired14
24-06-16, 04:56
But it did exist in ANE (Afontova Gora 2) andl later in Mesolithic EHG & SHG. So it looks like being Siberian in origin. Of course I mean the "Caucasoid" variant, not the "Mongoloid" one - which probably originated even farther to the north-east (although Upper Paleolithic Kostenki14 from European Russia had the "Mongoloid" variant of light skin mutation, according to Genetiker).

Nothing strongly suggests it's of Siberian origin. There isn't enough data to look at. Don't trust AG2's results because he's of low coverage.

Alpenjager
24-06-16, 05:27
Well, I reviewed the y-chromosome of I1707 and there is not found the claimed SNP "PF7466" position: 13904842. There is only a position 13904842 reported within chromosome 1. The only positive reported SNPs give us IJK but not T. Anyway this claimed "T" is negative for all known main subclades.

Alpenjager
24-06-16, 07:14
I reviewed all LT, T, T1 and T1a SNPs and there is none tested for I1707. negative for T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3a SNPs. Positive only for IJK. This sample looks as wrongly reported as T.

Maleth
24-06-16, 08:00
BTW - Natufians were 100% dark skin + 100% dark hair + 100% dark eyes.

I think that might have been pretty standard for human populations around 10,000 ybp according to Scientists. Humans started the depigmentation process through lack of Sunlight and change of Diet irrelevant of the Haplotype they would carry.

Migration of modern humans into Europe, based on simulation by Currat & Excoffier (2004)[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#cite_note-Currat-54)
(YBP=Years before present)

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



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Cro-Magnon_range_37%2C500_ybp.svg/147px-Cro-Magnon_range_37%2C500_ybp.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Cro-Magnon_range_35%2C000_ybp.svg/170px-Cro-Magnon_range_35%2C000_ybp.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Cro-Magnon_range_32%2C500_ybp.svg/147px-Cro-Magnon_range_32%2C500_ybp.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Cro-Magnon_range_30%2C000_ybp.svg/147px-Cro-Magnon_range_30%2C000_ybp.svg.png
37500ybp 35,000ybp 32.500ybp 30,000ybp

Alan
24-06-16, 09:55
I reviewed all LT, T, T1 and T1a SNPs and there is none tested for I1707. negative for T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3a SNPs. Positive only for IJK. This sample looks as wrongly reported as T.
Did Genetiker report it was T?

Alpenjager
24-06-16, 10:00
Genetiker could find the SNPs linking I1707 to T. I will try to find why I have not found them in the genome.

MOESAN
24-06-16, 11:29
Vitamin D occurs naturally in very few foods. Milk has very little Vitamin D. It has it today because it is fortified with it. Likewise, meat in general doesn't have very much, but organ meats have more. The biggest source of it is in fish, particularly oily fish.

See:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

In some hunter-gatherer groups in Europe they got 80% of their caloric intake from meat and fish. Around the Baltic a very large percentage of that 80% was from fish. In some Neolithic societies the percentages were almost exactly reversed, although it varied by area. I've previously posted papers on all of this. Consumption of cow meat (domesticated) seems to have been more for celebrations and other ritual purposes. The liver is a very small part of the cow, of course. Pork has more and they did consume some pigs, but again, it would have been fish consumption which would have made a big difference.

In the book "The Early Mediterranean Village", Robb makes much of the fact that although there were fresh water lakes near some of these Italian Neolithic settlements there is no evidence that the Neolithic farmers actually ate fish. It almost seemed to him like a deliberate aversion. In other areas there was some hunting and some fishing, but by no means in all. Later on, with downturns in the climate, or, who knows, with some admixture with some remnants of the WHG, there was some increased reliance on hunting and fishing.
http://www.cambridge.org/cu/academic/subjects/archaeology/archaeological-theory-and-methods/early-mediterranean-village-agency-material-culture-and-social-change-neolithic-italy?format=PB

There is also a paper which I previously posted showing that even in Scandinavia and the Baltic people who had previously based most of their diet on fish stopped eating it when they turned to agriculture. It was only later, perhaps with the collapse of the Neolithic package, that they turned to the sea again for food. I've wondered, as Frachetti seemed to indicate in his books and articles whether grain took on an almost ritual significance.

Thanks Angela. I've very little knowledge about ancient feeding, except a local survey about Denmark N-Germany Neolithic area (HG vs Farmers). All that takes time to read!

bicicleur
24-06-16, 11:33
Did Genetiker report it was T?

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1707/

MOESAN
24-06-16, 12:19
So, do we know if a population inhabiting, say, the Caucasus or just south of it, or living near the Caspian could have come into contact with Proto-Uralic speakers or a "language" that later developed into proto-Uralic?

Old theories about finnic-ugric languages link them as you know to a previous big Uralian group (with Samoyedes and Co). Only the Finnic-Ugric group has I-I loan words. Thay would have colonized the Kama-Petchora region West the Urals only about the 3000 BC or perhaps a bit earlier, IV° mill. There it's sure they had cultural contacts with "our" Steppic people, I consider as reasonably already I-Ean. But their loanwords upon primitive I-I would have occurred between VI and IV mill. BC what could seem a bit too soon for someones. Nevertheless IF the loans dates are TRUE that could mean that the contacts were already very early and far in North-East. Some influences from the Keltiminar culture were visible. Three subsequent cultures during Copper/Bronze (Turbino, Volossovo, Gorbunovo/Annino/Dmitirev) seem linked to Finnic-Ugric people. Pozdniakovo (higher Volga) seems having underwent strong influences of I-Eans of Timber Graves Abashevo (which gave them kourgan habits). All that does not exclude a southern (Caucasus or close) origin of I-Eans. But the high age of these contacts and the partial morphologic links between the two groups of languages does not plaid for an only Maykop time influence for proto-I-Ean at first sight. the links between F-U and I-E seems older and deeper to me.