Article in the NYTimes on First Farmers

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Reich and Lazaridis are quoted. Apparently Lazaridis will present the poster on this at ASHG.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/ancient-farmers-archaeology-dna.html

"They were as different from one another genetically as the Europeans and Chinese. And these groups remained distinct through the agricultural revolution as they changed from hunter-gatherers to full-blown farmers. “It was quite surprising to see how different these groups were from each other,” Dr. Lazaridis said. “It was more extreme than anything you could have imagined was going on.”

Dr. Reich and others argue that the findings show that people around the fertile crescent became farmers independently. “It’s not like you had one Near Eastern population that developed farming that expands and overruns all the others,” he said.

Archaeologists have welcomed the new results from the geneticists. But for now, they are interpreting the data in different ways.Dr. Zeder said that ancient DNA supports a scenario where farmers across the Fertile Crescent independently invented agriculture, perhaps repeatedly. But Dr. Bar-Yosef says he thinks full-blown agriculture evolved only once, and then quickly spread from one group to another.

He points to the increasingly precise dating of archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent. Instead of the southern Levant, the oldest sites with evidence of full-blown agriculture are in northern Syria and southern Turkey. That’s where Dr. Bar-Yosef thinks agriculture began. In other parts of the Fertile Crescent, he argues, people were just toying with farming. Only when they came in contact with the combination of crops and livestock, and the technology to manage them — what scientists call the Neolithic package — did they permanently adopt the practices.“You just map the dates” of the sites at which the evidence for farming is found, he said, “and you see it’s always later as you get away from the core area.” The new genetic results simply show that this farming technology spread through the Fertile Crescent, but that the populations sharing it did not interbreed."

"
About 8,000 years ago, the barriers between peoples in the Fertile Crescent fell away, and genes began to flow across the entire region. The Near East became one homogeneous mix of people.Why? Dr. Reich speculated that growing populations of farmers began linking to one another via trade networks. People moved along those routes and began to intermarry and have children together. Genes did not just flow across the Fertile Crescent — they also rippled outward. The scientists have detected DNA from the first farmers in living people on three continents.“There seem to be expansions out in all directions,” Dr. Lazaridis said.
 
Reich and Lazaridis are quoted. Apparently Lazaridis will present the poster on this at ASHG.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/ancient-farmers-archaeology-dna.html

"They were as different from one another genetically as the Europeans and Chinese. And these groups remained distinct through the agricultural revolution as they changed from hunter-gatherers to full-blown farmers. “It was quite surprising to see how different these groups were from each other,” Dr. Lazaridis said. “It was more extreme than anything you could have imagined was going on.”

Dr. Reich and others argue that the findings show that people around the fertile crescent became farmers independently. “It’s not like you had one Near Eastern population that developed farming that expands and overruns all the others,” he said.

Archaeologists have welcomed the new results from the geneticists. But for now, they are interpreting the data in different ways.Dr. Zeder said that ancient DNA supports a scenario where farmers across the Fertile Crescent independently invented agriculture, perhaps repeatedly. But Dr. Bar-Yosef says he thinks full-blown agriculture evolved only once, and then quickly spread from one group to another.

He points to the increasingly precise dating of archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent. Instead of the southern Levant, the oldest sites with evidence of full-blown agriculture are in northern Syria and southern Turkey. That’s where Dr. Bar-Yosef thinks agriculture began. In other parts of the Fertile Crescent, he argues, people were just toying with farming. Only when they came in contact with the combination of crops and livestock, and the technology to manage them — what scientists call the Neolithic package — did they permanently adopt the practices.“You just map the dates” of the sites at which the evidence for farming is found, he said, “and you see it’s always later as you get away from the core area.” The new genetic results simply show that this farming technology spread through the Fertile Crescent, but that the populations sharing it did not interbreed."

"
About 8,000 years ago, the barriers between peoples in the Fertile Crescent fell away, and genes began to flow across the entire region. The Near East became one homogeneous mix of people.Why? Dr. Reich speculated that growing populations of farmers began linking to one another via trade networks. People moved along those routes and began to intermarry and have children together. Genes did not just flow across the Fertile Crescent — they also rippled outward. The scientists have detected DNA from the first farmers in living people on three continents.“There seem to be expansions out in all directions,” Dr. Lazaridis said.


NY Times is Mexican newspaper. I wold not trust a damn thing from Mexicans.
 
I believe nature is responsable for what happened in the Fertile crescent.
During and after LGM, the area was blessed by nature - actually it still is.
Many different tribes from elsewhere found refuge there.
And each tribe brought their own skills - and at first kept it for themselves.

There are the Natufians, E1b1b1 who came from Africa ca 24 ka, who were maybe also the same people in Ohalon.
There are haplo H2 and G who came from India or the Indus Valley. They brought geometric microliths who were invented in India 35 ka. That is also the time the southwest monsoons dropped and the Thar desert started to grow all over Northern India and the Indus Valley.
There are the Villabrunans, I2 who found refuge in the caves west of Antalya, SW Anatolia who learned about the microliths and conquered all of Europe with them.

During LGM the high pressure zones above Iran had shifted southward, allowing the moist western winds to reach to the west and the north of the Hindu Kush area.
Witness are the lakes that were in todays Dasht-e-Kavir deserts.
L, T, Q1b,R1a, R1b, R2 could all survive LGM there, till the high pressure zones shifted again.
Then these tribes came to the Zagros Mts, bringing their selective hunting and wild sheep and goat herding techniques, and replacing the Zarzian HG.

The tribes didn't mix, but I guess they exchanged brides. (well, we don't notice this in Villabruna mtDNA though)
The boundaries remained, but they slowly learned from each other.

The 8.2 ka climate event was a diseaster for North Africa and the Middle East. It was the end of PPNB.
That's why things started moving 8 ka.
Before 8.2 ka North Africa was full of HG on the 'Green Sahara'.
Between 8.2 ka and 8 ka it was empty.
After 8 ka we have herders instead of HG. From the Levant, Zagros or Anatolia. E1b1b, R1b-V88 and T.
And the Nile Valley gets filled up by E1b1b farmers.

Well, let's see what the new study will say. Maybe I'll have to invent a new story then.
 

Dr. Reich and others argue that the findings show that people around the fertile crescent became farmers independently. “It’s not like you had one Near Eastern population that developed farming that expands and overruns all the others,” he said.

Archaeologists have welcomed the new results from the geneticists. But for now, they are interpreting the data in different ways.Dr. Zeder said that ancient DNA supports a scenario where farmers across the Fertile Crescent independently invented agriculture, perhaps repeatedly. But Dr. Bar-Yosef says he thinks full-blown agriculture evolved only once, and then quickly spread from one group to another.

He points to the increasingly precise dating of archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent. Instead of the southern Levant, the oldest sites with evidence of full-blown agriculture are in northern Syria and southern Turkey. That’s where Dr. Bar-Yosef thinks agriculture began. In other parts of the Fertile Crescent, he argues, people were just toying with farming. Only when they came in contact with the combination of crops and livestock, and the technology to manage them — what scientists call the Neolithic package — did they permanently adopt the practices.“You just map the dates” of the sites at which the evidence for farming is found, he said, “and you see it’s always later as you get away from the core area.” .
I think there were 3 independent groups of people in Fertile Crescent who dealt in agriculture on their own. Two are already well described, the Natufians and Iranian Farmers. The third is from South Anatolia or Northern Syria, as the authors are eluding to. I think they were the Yhg G2a (plus some varieties) and high with Mediterranean admixture from Harappa World run. The farming package consolidated in Anatolia from local and some Natufian genom, before moving to Europe. This explains why Natufian farmers didn't overwhelmed Anatolian HGs, giving them most of their Y haplogroup and autosomal, and why EEF were not mostly Natufians. Because Anatolian HGs were not HGs but already farmers. For that reason their population was already in great numbers, so they were not replaced, instead partially mixed with Natufians.
Slowly but surely we are beginning to see the full story, the ancient story, story of humankind.
 
Reich and Lazaridis are quoted. Apparently Lazaridis will present the poster on this at ASHG.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/ancient-farmers-archaeology-dna.html

"They were as different from one another genetically as the Europeans and Chinese. And these groups remained distinct through the agricultural revolution as they changed from hunter-gatherers to full-blown farmers. “It was quite surprising to see how different these groups were from each other,” Dr. Lazaridis said. “It was more extreme than anything you could have imagined was going on.”

Dr. Reich and others argue that the findings show that people around the fertile crescent became farmers independently. “It’s not like you had one Near Eastern population that developed farming that expands and overruns all the others,” he said.

Archaeologists have welcomed the new results from the geneticists. But for now, they are interpreting the data in different ways.Dr. Zeder said that ancient DNA supports a scenario where farmers across the Fertile Crescent independently invented agriculture, perhaps repeatedly. But Dr. Bar-Yosef says he thinks full-blown agriculture evolved only once, and then quickly spread from one group to another.

He points to the increasingly precise dating of archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent. Instead of the southern Levant, the oldest sites with evidence of full-blown agriculture are in northern Syria and southern Turkey. That’s where Dr. Bar-Yosef thinks agriculture began. In other parts of the Fertile Crescent, he argues, people were just toying with farming. Only when they came in contact with the combination of crops and livestock, and the technology to manage them — what scientists call the Neolithic package — did they permanently adopt the practices.“You just map the dates” of the sites at which the evidence for farming is found, he said, “and you see it’s always later as you get away from the core area.” The new genetic results simply show that this farming technology spread through the Fertile Crescent, but that the populations sharing it did not interbreed."

"
About 8,000 years ago, the barriers between peoples in the Fertile Crescent fell away, and genes began to flow across the entire region. The Near East became one homogeneous mix of people.Why? Dr. Reich speculated that growing populations of farmers began linking to one another via trade networks. People moved along those routes and began to intermarry and have children together. Genes did not just flow across the Fertile Crescent — they also rippled outward. The scientists have detected DNA from the first farmers in living people on three continents.“There seem to be expansions out in all directions,” Dr. Lazaridis said.

That thing with Chinese and Europeans is kinda confusing though. Iran_Neolithic just cluster somewhere near modern Iranics and Levant_Neolithic just somewhere between modern Levantines and Anatolian_Neolithics...
 
That thing with Chinese and Europeans is kinda confusing though. Iran_Neolithic just cluster somewhere near modern Iranics and Levant_Neolithic just somewhere between modern Levantines and Anatolian_Neolithics...
I thought they were comparing Near Eastern Farmers to European Hunter Gatherers.
 
I thought they were comparing Near Eastern Farmers to European Hunter Gatherers.


Even in this case this would be a very weird statement, because on Global perspective, WHG, EHG, Anatolian_Neo, Levant_Neo, Iran_Neo would look within the West Eurasian spectrum of diversity, even if slightly more diverse than modern populations. So the statement is kinda overexaggerating. Like the way you would do to make the reader the diversity more clear.
 
Gentlemen, they were talking about the earliest Anatolia Neolithic/Natufian and earliest Iran Neolithic samples, before there was any admixture. They're talking about fst distance, not saying the Iranian Neolithic wasn't West Eurasian. The same analogy was made in other places about the fst distance between the EEF and WHG.

" A team of researchers based at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, reconstructed the genomes of four early farmers from the Zagros Mountains whose bones date back as much as 10,000 years."

"
The new results all point to the same overall conclusion: The first farmers in each region were the descendants of the earlier hunter-gatherers. What’s more, each population had its own distinct ancestry, going back tens of thousands of years.They were as different from one another genetically as the Europeans and Chinese. And these groups remained distinct through the agricultural revolution as they changed from hunter-gatherers to full-blown farmers. “It was quite surprising to see how different these groups were from each other,” Dr. Lazaridis said. “It was more extreme than anything you could have imagined was going on.”"



 
This is interesting article
 
Gentlemen, they were talking about the earliest Anatolia Neolithic/Natufian and earliest Iran Neolithic samples, before there was any admixture. They're talking about fst distance, not saying the Iranian Neolithic wasn't West Eurasian. The same analogy was made in other places about the fst distance between the EEF and WHG.

" A team of researchers based at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, reconstructed the genomes of four early farmers from the Zagros Mountains whose bones date back as much as 10,000 years."

"
The new results all point to the same overall conclusion: The first farmers in each region were the descendants of the earlier hunter-gatherers. What’s more, each population had its own distinct ancestry, going back tens of thousands of years.They were as different from one another genetically as the Europeans and Chinese. And these groups remained distinct through the agricultural revolution as they changed from hunter-gatherers to full-blown farmers. “It was quite surprising to see how different these groups were from each other,” Dr. Lazaridis said. “It was more extreme than anything you could have imagined was going on.”"



But still the statement is overexaggerating even if they are talking about the difference between Levant_Neo and Iran_Neo. The difference is not as big as the difference between modern Europeans and Chinese autosomaly. It is big enough sure, but not this big.
 
Even in this case this would be a very weird statement, because on Global perspective, WHG, EHG, Anatolian_Neo, Levant_Neo, Iran_Neo would look within the West Eurasian spectrum of diversity, even if slightly more diverse than modern populations. So the statement is kinda overexaggerating. Like the way you would do to make the reader the diversity more clear.
I see your point.
 
I find it hard to believe Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic were as different from each other as Chinese and Europeans are. Both shared a big chunk of Basal Eurasian DNA. Their mtDNA had a closer relationship than European and Chinese mtDNA.
 
I find it hard to believe Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic were as different from each other as Chinese and Europeans are. Both shared a big chunk of Basal Eurasian DNA. Their mtDNA had a closer relationship than European and Chinese mtDNA.

As I wrote it is more of an overexaggerating statement in a more "populistic" style. And it makes the difference just more visible to the average NY Times reader who doesn't know the difference between Middle Eastern overall, let alone Levantines and Iran_Neos. Therefore the statement makes it just more understandable for the reader. That they were quite distinct.
 

This thread has been viewed 6246 times.

Back
Top