PDA

View Full Version : 6.5 ka Levantine chalcolithic DNA



bicicleur
20-08-18, 13:51
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/DNA-study-in-Israeli-cave-sheds-light-on-origins-of-Chalcolithic-culture-565293

One of the largest studies of ancient DNA ever conducted in Israel has shed light on the origins of the Chalcolithic culture in the Levant, approximately 6500 years ago, Tel Aviv University announced Monday.

“It showed that the Peqi’in people had substantial ancestry from northerners – similar to those living in Iran and Turkey – that was not present in earlier Levantine farmers.”

Does any one know more about this study?

Tomenable
20-08-18, 15:33
Excerpts from the study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9

"(...) The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past.


"Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).


It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population24,26. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry.

In what follows, we treat Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North as separate populations for analysis, since the symmetry statistic f4(Levant_BA_North, Levant_BA_South; A, Chimp) is significant for a number test populations A (|Z| ≥ 3) (Supplementary Data 5), consistent with the different estimated proportions of Levant_N and Iran_ChL ancestry reported in24,26.


(...)


We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in26. (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by26. These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.


We obtained additional insight by running qpAdm with Levant_BA_South as a target of two-way admixture between Levant_N and Iran_ChL, but now adding Levant_ChL and Anatolia_N to the basic 09NW “Right” set of 11 outgroups. The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.


(...)


Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be well-modeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_N-related ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region. We additionally find that the Levant_ChL population does not serve as a likely source of the Levantine-related ancestry in present-day East African populations (see Supplementary Note 4)24.


These genetic results have striking correlates to material culture changes in the archaeological record. The archaeological finds at Peqi’in Cave share distinctive characteristics with other Chalcolithic sites, both to the north and south, including secondary burial in ossuaries with iconographic and geometric designs. It has been suggested that some Late Chalcolithic burial customs, artifacts and motifs may have had their origin in earlier Neolithic traditions in Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia8,13,47. Some of the artistic expressions have been related to finds and ideas and to later religious concepts such as the gods Inanna and Dumuzi from these more northern regions6,8,47,48,49,50. The knowledge and resources required to produce metallurgical artifacts in the Levant have also been hypothesized to come from the north11,51.


Our finding of genetic discontinuity between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods also resonates with aspects of the archeological record marked by dramatic changes in settlement patterns43, large-scale abandonment of sites52,53,54,55, many fewer items with symbolic meaning, and shifts in burial practices, including the disappearance of secondary burial in ossuaries56,57,58,59. This supports the view that profound cultural upheaval, leading to the extinction of populations, was associated with the collapse of the Chalcolithic culture in this region18,60,61,62,63,64. (...)"

PCA graph:

https://i.imgur.com/I7KMSUJ.png

berun
20-08-18, 17:09
I don't understand the admixture graph, if authors believe that Levant_Ch is composed by Levant_N, Anatolia farmer and Iranian farmer... the bars lack the WHG that it might carry proportionaly the second one.

Ygorcs
20-08-18, 18:30
Yet again reinforcing my impressions that the "truly" Semitic Levant (Proto-Semitic was assumed to have been spoken in ~3850 BCE in a linguistic paper some years ago) came from the north of Levant and Mesopotamia during the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic, possibly from the region immediately to the south of the Anatolian highlands in what is now Southern Turkey, Northern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. I have a hunch that the South Levant (Israel/Palestine) could've been more Egyptian-like before that northern influx, maybe the missing link in the continuum from the Egyptian to the Semitic AA language families. Of course it's all just a personal "feeling", not hard science, but most of the data I've read about that region subtly point that out to me. I do not think the movement that reshaped the Middle East came directly from Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran (northern West Asia), but via a northern Mesopotamia/Syria heavily influenced by those northern populations in relation to the southern populations nearer to the Arabian Peninsula.

Sile
20-08-18, 18:57
As I said at least 3 years ago
every haplogroup under Haplogroup F, originates north of the Zargos mountain range
F known as F-M89
The vast majority of individual males with F-M89 fall into its direct descendant Haplogroup GHIJK (F1329/M3658/PF2622/YSC0001299).
.
.
.
IIRC..Alpenjager stated the origins where under the Alpide Belt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpide_belt

Sile
20-08-18, 19:14
The ydna and mtdna from the paper
None of the T are from my branch T1a2
.
https://s20.postimg.cc/ofdbx9b0t/north_levant.jpg (https://postimg.cc/image/r9ghapd6x/)

berun
20-08-18, 19:28
wait! nobody is suggesting that T and the Iranian farmer is the responsible of the introduction of Indoeuropean into Israel? wait... no IE there? what a fun we can have with genetics uh?

davef
20-08-18, 19:47
I don't understand the admixture graph, if authors believe that Levant_Ch is composed by Levant_N, Anatolia farmer and Iranian farmer... the bars lack the WHG that it might carry proportionaly the second one.

I was asking the exact same thing. I don't see any pink besides that one little blot on one of the samples. I'm confused

Angela
20-08-18, 22:07
Yet again reinforcing my impressions that the "truly" Semitic Levant (Proto-Semitic was assumed to have been spoken in ~3850 BCE in a linguistic paper some years ago) came from the north of Levant and Mesopotamia during the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic, possibly from the region immediately to the south of the Anatolian highlands in what is now Southern Turkey, Northern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. I have a hunch that the South Levant (Israel/Palestine) could've been more Egyptian-like before that northern influx, maybe the missing link in the continuum from the Egyptian to the Semitic AA language families. Of course it's all just a personal "feeling", not hard science, but most of the data I've read about that region subtly point that out to me. I do not think the movement that reshaped the Middle East came directly from Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran (northern West Asia), but via a northern Mesopotamia/Syria heavily influenced by those northern populations in relation to the southern populations nearer to the Arabian Peninsula.

That's how I've always felt as well. There will be heart burn among some "experts", real or imagined, at this news.

Angela
20-08-18, 22:20
As for the Admixture results, it works the way it always does.

Everything depends on the chosen "reference" sample or sample, which is just one way the samples could be modeled. Within that chosen reference are all sorts of other "hidden" ancestry, just as there is with modern components. Does anyone still think that "Northern European" like components don't already have EEF like ancestry in them? Within Levant Neolithic we know there was already "Anatolian" Neolithic, which contained some UHG related to WHG. They're just looking at the groups at that specific point in time and trying to show the admixtures going on at that time.

The new paper I just posted on the pitfalls and misinterpretations of Admixture and Structure would be helpful in understanding what's going on.

davef
20-08-18, 22:55
^^ thanks. also Levant Neolithic doesn't seem that far off from Anatolian, it's mostly the same thing without that extra whg but with a little more Iran like ancestry in a few cases. They're both very Natufian in the grand scheme.

Ygorcs
20-08-18, 23:21
I don't understand the admixture graph, if authors believe that Levant_Ch is composed by Levant_N, Anatolia farmer and Iranian farmer... the bars lack the WHG that it might carry proportionaly the second one.

I think it may be because WHG or a source much closer to WHG than to any other of the admixtures they used as proxies may have already been present in one or even all the other admixtures (Levant_Neolithic and Anatolia_Neolithic already had some WHG-like UHG), so it's not a component that is sufficiently different to distinguish the admixtures between themselves (except if the excess WHG was really large to make it really different), and that minor WHG may go unnoticed because it was already included within some other admixture. I think these graphs cannot be read too literally.

Angela
20-08-18, 23:27
^^Prior to this paper Anatolian Neolithic was modeled with both more "UHG" and more northern Near East ancestry. It may depend on the exact samples chosen for the runs in each paper.

As I keep emphasizing, one shouldn't over-interpret Admixture. There's no sign in the results, for example, of the facts as shown through other methods:
" These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic."

The PCA shows more clearly that pull toward Anatolia Neolithic as well as the difference between Anatolia Neolithic and the Natufians, although of course that's only the two major components. Nor would you guess from Admixture that Levant Bronze Age North (Sidon) and Levant Bronze Age (South) are quite so different from one another, yet that's the case.

I do think their analysis probably shows that the Levant Chl didn't directly impact the Bronze Age samples from Sidon and Jordan. The fact that nearly all the samples are "T" is further evidence and also evidence that the paternal line may have been perhaps more "Anatolian". However, I think it's early days to say that they didn't impact any other populations in the Levant.

Interesting how many depigmentation snps the Levant Chl had.

halfalp
20-08-18, 23:39
Interesting the presence of mtdna U6d. Also mtdna H4 was never found in ancient samples from near-east until now, it was found in neolithic spain and is found in modern basque and sardinian people.

Angela
21-08-18, 00:09
That's how I've always felt as well. There will be heart burn among some "experts", real or imagined, at this news.

This continued insistence that Semitic arose far in the south, in the face of all this migration from the north makes no sense to me. That would imply that the migrants who imposed their y dna to the almost eradication of the local male lineages somehow changed their language for that of the absorbed.

Also interesting in terms of the West Eurasian component in East African populations is the following:

"We find that the Levant_N and Levant_BA_South populations are both plausible sources for all but two of the East African populations (Oromo and Jew_Ethiopian). Levant_ChL is a plausible source population for all but three East African populations (Oromo, Jew_Ethiopian, and Masai).These results confirm that the West Eurasian ancestry observed in East Africa may be Levantine in origin, but suggest that the Levant_ChL population is not the best available source population to use to model this ancestry. Levant_N or Levant_BA_South are at least as good proxies for this ancestry, and possibly somewhat better."

Angela
21-08-18, 03:08
^^Prior to this paper Anatolian Neolithic was modeled with both more "UHG" and more northern Near East ancestry. It may depend on the exact samples chosen for the runs in each paper.

As I keep emphasizing, one shouldn't over-interpret Admixture. There's no sign in the results, for example, of the facts as shown through other methods:
" These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic."

The PCA shows more clearly that pull toward Anatolia Neolithic as well as the difference between Anatolia Neolithic and the Natufians, although of course that's only the two major components. Nor would you guess from Admixture that Levant Bronze Age North (Sidon) and Levant Bronze Age (South) are quite so different from one another, yet that's the case.

I do think their analysis probably shows that the Levant Chl didn't directly impact the Bronze Age samples from Sidon and Jordan. The fact that nearly all the samples are "T" is further evidence and also evidence that the paternal line may have been perhaps more "Anatolian". However, I think it's early days to say that they didn't impact any other populations in the Levant.

Interesting how many depigmentation snps the Levant Chl had.

From Iosif Lazaridis:

"A huge surprise of the new @EadaoinSays (https://twitter.com/EadaoinSays) et al. paper on Chalcolithic Levant is that the OCA2/s12913832 "blue eye" allele frequency is ~1/2, i.e., Chalcolithic Levantines were probably more blue-eyed than Bronze Age people from Russia, a complete inversion of what is now observed."

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 03:53
This continued insistence that Semitic arose far in the south, in the face of all this migration from the north makes no sense to me. That would imply that the migrants who imposed their y dna to the almost eradication of the local male lineages somehow changed their language for that of the absorbed.

I find it quite possible, even likely that the Afro-Asiatic linguistic component was originally absorbed by (or imposed onto) the Anatolian & Iranian ("northern") population that probably merged with Levant_Neolithic ones, hypothetically because they were highland immigrants in a more technologically advanced region or something like that. But that would've happened before the consolidation of a Proto-Semitic language and culture, before its expansion to other areas, probably still during the Late Neolithic,, and during that "gestation period" it's possible that the foreign elements eventually became dominant even before Proto-Semitic was spread elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent. I say that because I find it hard to believe that Afro-Asiatic came originally from too much north or east of the Levant, considering the distribution of the rest of the family (all other branches in Africa, some of them with possible older links to Southwest Asia, like Cushitic) and the heavy Natufian affinities in other heavily AA regions like North Africa and Egypt.

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 03:59
From Iosif Lazaridis:

"A huge surprise of the new @EadaoinSays (https://twitter.com/EadaoinSays) et al. paper on Chalcolithic Levant is that the OCA2/s12913832 "blue eye" allele frequency is ~1/2, i.e., Chalcolithic Levantines were probably more blue-eyed than Bronze Age people from Russia, a complete inversion of what is now observed."



1/2 is the frequency? Really? Now that is a really surprising finding. :-O Were the genetic changes from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age so profound and comparatively fast? (I mean, by ~2000 BCE there is already good evidence that the Levant was mainly Semitic, and Semitic presence there is totally proven at least since 2900 BCE) Or was it a matter of selection and evolutionary pressure on a path totally contrary to what happened in Europe?

Aaron1981
21-08-18, 04:40
I was asking the exact same thing. I don't see any pink besides that one little blot on one of the samples. I'm confused

That's because "pink" is hidden within Anatolia_N, that's the source of WHG. It looks like an intrusion of a population from Anatolia_N to the south for a very short period of time, only to be superceded by Levant_BA which carried far more Iran/Mesopotamian ancestry. T1a (at minimum) seems to correspond to EEF like ancestry, which was also observed in a fairly recent central African study where some tribes of nomads rich in T1 and R1b-V88 carried rs1426654(A) alleles as well.

holderlin
21-08-18, 05:40
For once, I'm going to read the entire paper before I go through this thread and have my mind poisoned by you bastards.

Sile
21-08-18, 07:13
from other articles
Finally, the anthropologists found no obvious signs of war or violence on the bones themselves. Though the researchers caution that a specific study on the pathologies and causes of death in Peki’in has not been done yet, when a war has taken place, the bodies tend to tell the tale.
Drama and extinction
The DNA analysis also offers clues to the ultimate fate of this population. Samples from Lebanon and Jordan dated to the early Bronze Age, the period immediately after the late Chalcolithic, show very little contribution from the DNA of the Peki’in people.
In other words, at some point around 3,900 B.C.E., this group of Chalcolithic Galileans went almost completely extinct.
.
So what language did the people already in the levant and south levant speak when these northerners arrived ?
.
And these northerers had already moved emigrated as in left the levant by the early bronze-age.........how can they have taught any language from the north

markod
21-08-18, 08:47
from other articles
Finally, the anthropologists found no obvious signs of war or violence on the bones themselves. Though the researchers caution that a specific study on the pathologies and causes of death in Peki’in has not been done yet, when a war has taken place, the bodies tend to tell the tale.
Drama and extinction
The DNA analysis also offers clues to the ultimate fate of this population. Samples from Lebanon and Jordan dated to the early Bronze Age, the period immediately after the late Chalcolithic, show very little contribution from the DNA of the Peki’in people.
In other words, at some point around 3,900 B.C.E., this group of Chalcolithic Galileans went almost completely extinct.
.
So what language did the people already in the levant and south levant speak when these northerners arrived ?
.
And these northerers had already moved emigrated as in left the levant by the early bronze-age.........how can they have taught any language from the north

The classic view already proposed by Heinrich Zimmern a hundred years ago which also Ehret and others adhere to is that the Semites moved in after the Ghassulian culture (which those samples in the paper seem to be associated with) declined. From a newer publication by Edward Lipinski:


The collapse of the Ghassulian culture in Palestinearound 3300 B.C. and the Egyptian finds in southern Palestine from theEarly Bronze period I (ca. 3300-3050 B.C.) may testify to the arrival ofthese new population groups. The Palestinian tumuli, belonging to theculture of semi-nomadic groups during much of the fourth and third millennia B.C., seem to confirm this hypothesis, since a very similartype of sepulture characterizes pre-historic North Africa, especiallyAlgeria, and it is a typical feature of the old Libyco-Berber tradition.

The objection against a development of Semitic in the Levant usually is that early Semitic toponymy is difficult to derive from Proto-Semitic. Place names tend to be Hurrian or of unknown origin across large parts of the Levant.

holderlin
21-08-18, 10:28
Ok so I read with an unadulterated mind and I'll post my hot takes, then see what you guys decided to argue about. This will be interesting.


We begin to see appreciable Iran_N/Chl expansion in Levant_Chl, which appears to be admixture of Iran_N/Chl + Levant_N+Anatolian_N.

The Levant_BA_South sample doesn't have Anatolian_N, so the Movement of Iran_N/Chl into the Levant could have occured before Anatolian_N expansion into the Northern regions of the Levant, OR some other mechanism where Iran_N/Chl+Levant_N ends up in Levant_BA_South.

The Y-HG, aside from one E1b1b1ba, are all T1a1a with one T. The authors say that T "diversified in the Middle East", so that this makes sense.

Levant_Chl is not in East Africans

All of this is in alignment with the Archaeology that much of the material culture and art came from the North

As Lazaridis pointed out in his tweet, there is a high frequency of the OCA2 allele for blue eyes at 1/2.

This is in opposition to the increasingly proposed notion of gradual diffusion of everything, where neighbors are simply have sex with each other and sharing ideas while hitting the bongo drums. There were significant population movements that significantly changed things and the genetics continues to reinforce the earlier archaeological evidence supporting this idea.


My Hot take:

Looking just at the admixture myself it actually looks like Levant_N or Anatolian_N is expanding first, because you see it in Iran_LN and CHG while you don't really see Iran_N in Natufian and Levant_N, maybe a tad. This is in alignment with the archaeological evidence that Farming started with the Natufians, from which you would expect earlier expansion. Then you have Iranian_Chl/_N radiating in all directions from what could be Mesopotamia or the mountainous regions to the North, which I think ultimately is the genetic effect of the growing power of Mesopotamia through this period.

Wouldn't T1a1a in this period likely be males from Anatolia or Europe?

In spite of Lazaridis' virtue signalling tweet to show his excitement to the world that blue eyes were in the middle east 7000 years ago, the blue eyed alleles aren't surprising given all the new admixture into the region.

https://i.imgur.com/ALD2YY8.png

holderlin
21-08-18, 10:31
Yet again reinforcing my impressions that the "truly" Semitic Levant (Proto-Semitic was assumed to have been spoken in ~3850 BCE in a linguistic paper some years ago) came from the north of Levant and Mesopotamia during the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic, possibly from the region immediately to the south of the Anatolian highlands in what is now Southern Turkey, Northern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. I have a hunch that the South Levant (Israel/Palestine) could've been more Egyptian-like before that northern influx, maybe the missing link in the continuum from the Egyptian to the Semitic AA language families. Of course it's all just a personal "feeling", not hard science, but most of the data I've read about that region subtly point that out to me. I do not think the movement that reshaped the Middle East came directly from Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran (northern West Asia), but via a northern Mesopotamia/Syria heavily influenced by those northern populations in relation to the southern populations nearer to the Arabian Peninsula.

Agreed


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

holderlin
21-08-18, 11:20
and also

https://i.imgur.com/G0p306N.gif

halfalp
21-08-18, 13:25
I have to say Lazaridis virtue signaling is pretty obvious this time, he cannot longer hide that he is pushing an agenda. Now he is aknowledging in his Twitter that Gamba and Mathiesen found Anatolian Farmers with blue eyes and him Minoan with blue eyes, and he dont say that Villabruna that predate all those people had blue eyes too. Look at how many black / white mulato in europe and north america have blue eyes, because their mothers where of european descent. People where exchanging from europe - anatolia and ultimately levant, before the neolithic even exist. What's the most funny, is that all those people have too high opinion of themselves, they think they do the right thing, being open minded, being a people of the world. The day all those papers gonna be interpret by Erdogan like Turkey is the birth place of " Aryans " because those liberals scientifics tried to do a good thing to shadowing europe and empowering other places in the world ( even if the real history is more complicate ).

bicicleur
21-08-18, 15:00
I have to say Lazaridis virtue signaling is pretty obvious this time, he cannot longer hide that he is pushing an agenda. Now he is aknowledging in his Twitter that Gamba and Mathiesen found Anatolian Farmers with blue eyes and him Minoan with blue eyes, and he dont say that Villabruna that predate all those people had blue eyes too. Look at how many black / white mulato in europe and north america have blue eyes, because their mothers where of european descent. People where exchanging from europe - anatolia and ultimately levant, before the neolithic even exist. What's the most funny, is that all those people have too high opinion of themselves, they think they do the right thing, being open minded, being a people of the world. The day all those papers gonna be interpret by Erdogan like Turkey is the birth place of " Aryans " because those liberals scientifics tried to do a good thing to shadowing europe and empowering other places in the world ( even if the real history is more complicate ).

it is surprising to find people with blond hair and bleu eyes here
but I don't agree that intense mixing would have appeared in the middle east prior to the neolithic
the papers state that genetic distances between sperate pre-neolithic HG groups was as high as between modern Europeans and East Asians

on the other hand we have the paper about the Atlantic Scandinavian WHG who after admixing with EHG from Karelia were blond and blue-eyed too

now I also understand this :

Historical cultural perceptions
Ancient Greece



Most people in ancient Greece had dark hair and, as a result of this, the Greeks found blond hair immensely fascinating.[78] In the Homeric epics, Menelaus the king of the Spartans is, together with some other Achaean leaders, portrayed as blond.[79] Other blond characters in the Homeric poems are Peleus, Achilles, Meleager, Agamede, and Rhadamanthys.[79] Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty, was often described as golden-haired and portrayed with this color hair in art.[80] Aphrodite's master epithet in the Homeric epics is Χρυσεη (Khryseē), which means "golden".[81] The traces of hair color on Greek korai probably reflect the colors the artists saw in natural hair;[82] these colors include a broad diversity of shades of blond, red, and brown.[82] The minority of statues with blond hair range from strawberry blond up to platinum blond.[82]

Sappho of Lesbos (c. 630-570 BC) wrote that purple-colored wraps as headdress were good enough, except if the hair was blond: "...for the girl who has hair that is yellower than a torch [it is better to decorate it] with wreaths of flowers in bloom."[83] Sappho also praises Aphrodite for her golden hair, stating that since gold metal is free from rust, the goddess's golden hair represents her freedom from ritual pollution.[81] Sappho's contemporary Alcman of Sparta praised golden hair as one of the most desirable qualities of a beautiful woman,[81] describing in various poems "the girl with the yellow hair" and a girl "with the hair like purest gold."[81]

In the fifth century BC, the sculptor Pheidias may have depicted the Greek goddess of wisdom Athena's hair using gold in his famous statue of Athena Parthenos, which was displayed inside the Parthenon.[84] The Greeks thought of the Thracians who lived to the north as having reddish-blond hair.[85] Because many Greek slaves were captured from Thrace, slaves were stereotyped as blond or red-headed.[85] "Xanthias" (Ξανθίας), meaning "reddish blond", was a common name for slaves in ancient Greece[85][86] and a slave by this name appears in many of the comedies of Aristophanes.[86]

The most famous statue of Aphrodite, the Aphrodite of Knidos, sculpted in the fourth century BC by Praxiteles, represented the goddess's hair using gold leaf[87] and contributed to the popularity of the image of Aphrodite as a blonde goddess.[88] Greek prostitutes frequently dyed their hair blond using saffron dyes or colored powders.[89] Blond dye was highly expensive, took great effort to apply, and smelled repugnant,[89] but none of these factors inhibited Greek prostitutes from dying their hair.[89] As a result of this and the natural rarity of blond hair in the Mediterranean region, by the fourth century BC, blond hair was inextricably associated with prostitutes.[89] The comic playwright Menander (c. 342/41 – c. 290 BC) protests that "no chaste woman ought to make her hair yellow."[89] At another point, he deplores blond hair dye as dangerous: "What can we women do wise or brilliant, who sit with hair dyed yellow, outraging the character of gentlewomen, causing the overthrow of houses, the ruin of nuptials, and accusations on the part of children?"[89] Historian and Egyptologist Joann Fletcher asserts that the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great and members of the Macedonian-Greek Ptolemaic dynasty of Hellenistic Egypt had blond hair, such as Arsinoe II and Berenice II.[90] Historian Michael Grant notes that Ptolemy II Philadelphus, pharaoh and husband to queen Arsinoe II, also had blond hair.[91]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Ancient_Greece

davef
21-08-18, 15:23
I have to say Lazaridis virtue signaling is pretty obvious this time, he cannot longer hide that he is pushing an agenda. Now he is aknowledging in his Twitter that Gamba and Mathiesen found Anatolian Farmers with blue eyes and him Minoan with blue eyes, and he dont say that Villabruna that predate all those people had blue eyes too. Look at how many black / white mulato in europe and north america have blue eyes, because their mothers where of european descent. People where exchanging from europe - anatolia and ultimately levant, before the neolithic even exist. What's the most funny, is that all those people have too high opinion of themselves, they think they do the right thing, being open minded, being a people of the world. The day all those papers gonna be interpret by Erdogan like Turkey is the birth place of " Aryans " because those liberals scientifics tried to do a good thing to shadowing europe and empowering other places in the world ( even if the real history is more complicate ).
there aren't any western or eastern hunter gatherer samples that are genetically close to any Neolithic populations.

ToBeOrNotToBe
21-08-18, 17:59
The blue eyes part is very interesting - does anybody know what the official best guess is atm?

Angela
21-08-18, 18:06
It is a FACT, and a SURPRISING fact that Levant Chalcolithic has the blue eye snp at 50%. That is a substantial increase even from the levels found in the Anatolia Neolithic of about 25%.

Anyone reading a tweet from Lazaridis' account would be presumed to know the latter fact as well as the fact that the WHG were fixed for it. How someone could be so dense as to think Lazaridis is trying to "hide" that fact about the WHG is beyond me. He freaking REPORTED it in his own papers, but some of you apparently don't read papers. What VIRTUE there is in pointing this surprising fact out is also beyond me. Some of you reveal your prejudices so unknowingly. I, for one, see no VIRTUE in having blue eyes or in a group of people having blue eyes. It's just a human phenotypic variation, no more and no less, and I say that as someone whose paternal family is all light eyed. I just don't understand the emotion around this trait, or light hair, either, for that matter, and never have done. What, do the parents in northern Europe or from that stock tell their children before they tuck them in at night how superior they are if they carry those traits? Bizarre. The fact is that the "story" around de-pigmentation snps has been false to a large degree, science is showing it, and pointing that out is indeed a VIRTUE, I suppose.

As to serious matters such as why, a couple of things occur to me. I think it's very probable that this group of individuals represents a migration from Anatolia south into the Levant for the reasons I suggested above as well as the well known archaeological data. Thus, the presence of the blue eye gene should not be a surprise. The levels are higher than in the Anatolian Neolithic samples, however. Whether that is a result of continued selection with time, or the fact that this is one group of people with unusually high levels coincidentally I don't know. We'd need samples from the same culture but in other locations in order to know for certain. This sample is small and all from one site.

I've long thought that the presence of the blue eye gene in the Anatolian Neolithic may have come from the UHG, but so far as I know there's not enough data to prove that. It may be part of background variation in hunter gatherers related to the Villabruna group, because it wasn't present in the earlier hunter-gatherers of Europe. I'm not sure about the impact of selection. Again, so far as I know, no one has really found the environmental factor tied to selection for it. Perhaps social selection played a role.

Speaking of Gamba et al, perhaps it makes more sense now that people carrying both light eye and light skin and perhaps light hair genes appeared there in Hungary so early, before the movement of any steppe peoples into the area, and, for that matter, the same kinds of alleles at very high levels in Cucuteni Tripolye*.

*Ed. Globular Amphora

holderlin
21-08-18, 18:13
The blue eyes really aren't that fascinating given the proposed mixture model. If these samples were 12k years old I would be surprised.

It is a little surprising though if you just looked at the admixture bars because you don't see any WHG, but these alleles were also in CHG, and of course the admixture model requires some WHG.

Lazaridis is just doing what he thinks is best for the field of study, which is a good thing. This kind of research has historically been used for very murderous political ideologies, and they have to avoid that perception at all costs. So of course he's going to scream from the mountain tops after any publication that can be fitted to show mixing or relatedness between ancient Middle Easterners and Europeans. Just like Willerslev did with Kennewick Man when going into it he pretty much knew that the sample was going to be strongly related to the local tribes, and honestly it was great to see those two Native American dudes realize that science can work on their side. It was also cool to see them realize that ancient connection in real time.

halfalp
21-08-18, 19:03
It is a FACT, and a SURPRISING fact that Levant Chalcolithic has the blue eye snp at 50%. That is a substantial increase even from the levels found in the Anatolia Neolithic of about 25%.

Anyone reading a tweet from Lazaridis' account would be presumed to know the latter fact as well as the fact that the WHG were fixed for it. How someone could be so dense as to think Lazaridis is trying to "hide" that fact about the WHG is beyond me. He freaking REPORTED it in his own papers, but some of you apparently don't read papers. What VIRTUE there is in pointing this surprising fact out is also beyond me. Some of you reveal your prejudices so unknowingly. I, for one, see no VIRTUE in having blue eyes or in a group of people having blue eyes. It's just a human phenotypic variation, no more and no less, and I say that as someone whose paternal family is all light eyed. I just don't understand the emotion around this trait, or light hair, either, for that matter, and never have done. What, do the parents in northern Europe or from that stock tell their children before they tuck them in at night how superior they are if they carry those traits? Bizarre. The fact is that the "story" around de-pigmentation snps has been false to a large degree, science is showing it, and pointing that out is indeed a VIRTUE, I suppose.

As to serious matters such as why, a couple of things occur to me. I think it's very probable that this group of individuals represents a migration from Anatolia south into the Levant for the reasons I suggested above as well as the well known archaeological data. Thus, the presence of the blue eye gene should not be a surprise. The levels are higher than in the Anatolian Neolithic samples, however. Whether that is a result of continued selection with time, or the fact that this is one group of people with unusually high levels coincidentally I don't know. We'd need samples from the same culture but in other locations in order to know for certain. This sample is small and all from one site.

I've long thought that the presence of the blue eye gene in the Anatolian Neolithic may have come from the UHG, but so far as I know there's not enough data to prove that. It may be part of background variation in hunter gatherers related to the Villabruna group, because it wasn't present in the earlier hunter-gatherers of Europe. I'm not sure about the impact of selection. Again, so far as I know, no one has really found the environmental factor tied to selection for it. Perhaps social selection played a role.

Speaking of Gamba et al, perhaps it makes more sense now that people carrying both light eye and light skin and perhaps light hair genes appeared there in Hungary so early, before the movement of any steppe peoples into the area, and, for that matter, the same kinds of alleles at very high levels in Cucuteni Tripolye.

I mean, i've tried to say that to you or in general many times but... The problem is not where fair features appeared. The problem is that we are talking about 6000BC Levant and we make an analogy with Eastern Europe, only because IE theories. Pushing an agenda is not about finding something that nobody ever thought, its about take that information and make a parallel without something else, just too discredit that latter thing. Apparently, you, Lazaridis and many are willing to believe that if Yamnaya was Brown haired / Brown eyed or Blonde haired / Blue eyed it change completely the power of this reality, because some kind of elite ( wich one? George Soros? Lol private joke ) prefer that they were Blond Haired / Blue Eyed.

halfalp
21-08-18, 19:05
there aren't any western or eastern hunter gatherer samples that are genetically close to any Neolithic populations.

I'm not sure to understand your point.

halfalp
21-08-18, 19:09
it is surprising to find people with blond hair and bleu eyes here
but I don't agree that intense mixing would have appeared in the middle east prior to the neolithic
the papers state that genetic distances between sperate pre-neolithic HG groups was as high as between modern Europeans and East Asians

on the other hand we have the paper about the Atlantic Scandinavian WHG who after admixing with EHG from Karelia were blond and blue-eyed too

now I also understand this :

Historical cultural perceptions
Ancient Greece



Most people in ancient Greece had dark hair and, as a result of this, the Greeks found blond hair immensely fascinating.[78] In the Homeric epics, Menelaus the king of the Spartans is, together with some other Achaean leaders, portrayed as blond.[79] Other blond characters in the Homeric poems are Peleus, Achilles, Meleager, Agamede, and Rhadamanthys.[79] Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty, was often described as golden-haired and portrayed with this color hair in art.[80] Aphrodite's master epithet in the Homeric epics is Χρυσεη (Khryseē), which means "golden".[81] The traces of hair color on Greek korai probably reflect the colors the artists saw in natural hair;[82] these colors include a broad diversity of shades of blond, red, and brown.[82] The minority of statues with blond hair range from strawberry blond up to platinum blond.[82]

Sappho of Lesbos (c. 630-570 BC) wrote that purple-colored wraps as headdress were good enough, except if the hair was blond: "...for the girl who has hair that is yellower than a torch [it is better to decorate it] with wreaths of flowers in bloom."[83] Sappho also praises Aphrodite for her golden hair, stating that since gold metal is free from rust, the goddess's golden hair represents her freedom from ritual pollution.[81] Sappho's contemporary Alcman of Sparta praised golden hair as one of the most desirable qualities of a beautiful woman,[81] describing in various poems "the girl with the yellow hair" and a girl "with the hair like purest gold."[81]

In the fifth century BC, the sculptor Pheidias may have depicted the Greek goddess of wisdom Athena's hair using gold in his famous statue of Athena Parthenos, which was displayed inside the Parthenon.[84] The Greeks thought of the Thracians who lived to the north as having reddish-blond hair.[85] Because many Greek slaves were captured from Thrace, slaves were stereotyped as blond or red-headed.[85] "Xanthias" (Ξανθίας), meaning "reddish blond", was a common name for slaves in ancient Greece[85][86] and a slave by this name appears in many of the comedies of Aristophanes.[86]

The most famous statue of Aphrodite, the Aphrodite of Knidos, sculpted in the fourth century BC by Praxiteles, represented the goddess's hair using gold leaf[87] and contributed to the popularity of the image of Aphrodite as a blonde goddess.[88] Greek prostitutes frequently dyed their hair blond using saffron dyes or colored powders.[89] Blond dye was highly expensive, took great effort to apply, and smelled repugnant,[89] but none of these factors inhibited Greek prostitutes from dying their hair.[89] As a result of this and the natural rarity of blond hair in the Mediterranean region, by the fourth century BC, blond hair was inextricably associated with prostitutes.[89] The comic playwright Menander (c. 342/41 – c. 290 BC) protests that "no chaste woman ought to make her hair yellow."[89] At another point, he deplores blond hair dye as dangerous: "What can we women do wise or brilliant, who sit with hair dyed yellow, outraging the character of gentlewomen, causing the overthrow of houses, the ruin of nuptials, and accusations on the part of children?"[89] Historian and Egyptologist Joann Fletcher asserts that the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great and members of the Macedonian-Greek Ptolemaic dynasty of Hellenistic Egypt had blond hair, such as Arsinoe II and Berenice II.[90] Historian Michael Grant notes that Ptolemy II Philadelphus, pharaoh and husband to queen Arsinoe II, also had blond hair.[91]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Ancient_Greece

Those are previous fact, based on sample bias. How do you explain how SHG,Villabruna-Like and CHG are Blue Eyed and Anatolian_Nhl and Levant_Chl as well, if there is not some kind of link.

holderlin
21-08-18, 19:11
It is a FACT, and a SURPRISING fact that Levant Chalcolithic has the blue eye snp at 50%. That is a substantial increase even from the levels found in the Anatolia Neolithic of about 25%.

People are allowed to be surprised about this increase. But by the Chalcolithic the notion of these Alleles concentrating due to Admixture from Iranian_Chl/N and Anatolian_N isn't far fetched. That's all I'm saying.


Anyone reading a tweet from Lazaridis' account would be presumed to know the latter fact as well as the fact that the WHG were fixed for it. How someone could be so dense as to think Lazaridis is trying to "hide" that fact is beyond me. He freaking REPORTED it in his own papers, but some of you apparently don't read papers. What VIRTUE there is in pointing this surprising fact out is also beyond me. Some of you reveal your prejudices so unknowingly. I, for one, see no VIRTUE in having blue eyes. Maybe people shouldn't drink before posting.

I wasn't saying he was hiding anything, but the way in which these labs are managing the PR is pretty obvious. Like I posted above, I fully understand and agree with this, but I'm also allowed to snicker at some of these headlines/tweets.


As to serious matters such as why, a couple of things occur to me. I think it's very probable that this group of individuals represents a migration from Anatolia south into the Levant for the reasons I suggested above as well as the well known archaeological data. Thus, the presence of the blue eye gene should not be a surprise. The levels are higher than in the Anatolian Neolithic samples, however. Whether that is a result of continued selection with time, or the fact that this is one group of people with unusually high levels coincidentally I don't know. We'd need samples from the same culture but in other locations in order to know for certain. This sample is small and all from one site.

Yep, and the Iranian_N/Chl could also be bringing some alleles just based on them being in CHG. Would need a latter source population though.

Angela
21-08-18, 19:30
holderlin;551724]People are allowed to be surprised about this increase. But by the Chalcolithic the notion of these Alleles concentrating due to Admixture from Iranian_Chl/N and Anatolian_N isn't far fetched. That's all I'm saying.


I agree.



I wasn't saying he was hiding anything, but the way in which these labs are managing the PR is pretty obvious. Like I posted above, I fully understand and agree with this, but I'm also allowed to snicker at some of these headlines/tweets.



Sorry, I think that's a little paranoid. Sometimes, a surprising fact is just a surprising fact. I don't think anyone expected levels of 50%.


Yep, and the Iranian_N/Chl could also be bringing some alleles just based on them being in CHG. Would need a latter source population though.

Again, I agree.

Angela
21-08-18, 19:38
Those are previous fact, based on sample bias. How do you explain how SHG,Villabruna-Like and CHG are Blue Eyed and Anatolian_Nhl and Levant_Chl as well, if there is not some kind of link.

Could you for crying out loud ever get your facts straight? CHG WAS NOT BLUE-EYED.

Also, read my post # 30 second to last paragraph as to the possible origin.

As far as the following is concerned, you are completely confused:
"I mean, i've tried to say that to you or in general many times but... The problem is not where fair features appeared. The problem is that we are talking about 6000BC Levant and we make an analogy with Eastern Europe, only because IE theories. Pushing an agenda is not about finding something that nobody ever thought, its about take that information and make a parallel without something else, just too discredit that latter thing. Apparently, you, Lazaridis and many are willing to believe that if Yamnaya was Brown haired / Brown eyed or Blonde haired / Blue eyed it change completely the power of this reality, because some kind of elite ( wich one? George Soros? Lol private joke ) prefer that they were Blond Haired / Blue Eyed."

The saga of the blonde, blue-eyed Yamnaya people or more generally the Bronze Age people of places like Ukraine bringing those alleles to central and northern Europe has nothing to do with Iosif Lazaridis, or Reich, or me for that matter. That was the saga promulgated since the late 19th century by "anthropologists" and then repeated by every crack pot racist in the 20th century.

Science has falsified that explanation. It's all much more complicated than that and hasn't really been fully explained as of yet.

Sile
21-08-18, 19:38
I mean, i've tried to say that to you or in general many times but... The problem is not where fair features appeared. The problem is that we are talking about 6000BC Levant and we make an analogy with Eastern Europe, only because IE theories. Pushing an agenda is not about finding something that nobody ever thought, its about take that information and make a parallel without something else, just too discredit that latter thing. Apparently, you, Lazaridis and many are willing to believe that if Yamnaya was Brown haired / Brown eyed or Blonde haired / Blue eyed it change completely the power of this reality, because some kind of elite ( wich one? George Soros? Lol private joke ) prefer that they were Blond Haired / Blue Eyed.
if we look at the origins of blue eyes we see it is from proto-circassians.........maykop culture area
The Circassian language, also known as the Cherkess language, including West Adyghe, Kabardian Adyghe, and Ubykh, is a member of the ancient Northwest Caucasian language family.
Archaeological findings, mainly of dolmens in Northwest Caucasus region, indicate a megalithic culture in the Northwest Caucasus.[44] Around the beginning of the 4th Millennium BCE, the North West Caucasus region and western Steppes became influenced by the Maykop culture.
Is yamnaya also on the black sea or only on the caspian sea side ..........there are different options by some scholars
.
http://www.circassianworld.com/circassians/who-are-they/1124-who-are-the-circassians

Angela
21-08-18, 19:40
if we look at the origins of blue eyes we see it is from proto-circassians.........maykop culture area
The Circassian language, also known as the Cherkess language, including West Adyghe, Kabardian Adyghe, and Ubykh, is a member of the ancient Northwest Caucasian language family.
Archaeological findings, mainly of dolmens in Northwest Caucasus region, indicate a megalithic culture in the Northwest Caucasus.[44] Around the beginning of the 4th Millennium BCE, the North West Caucasus region and western Steppes became influenced by the Maykop culture.
Is yamnaya also on the black sea or only on the caspian sea side ..........there are different options by some scholars

Again, a totally unresponsive post. Who says they had blue eyes? CHG certainly didn't.

My God, people, go back and read the papers.

Sile
21-08-18, 19:42
2 of the T have snp CTS2214 the same as what was found in the Moroccan paper ( the T samples on the atlantic ocean ) who are found to have migrated to africa from northern Iberia

Cpluskx
21-08-18, 20:27
50% blue eye frequency is a lot. In NE Europe blue eyes became common from much lower percentages, i wonder why the reverse happened in Levant.

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 21:23
So what language did the people already in the levant and south levant speak when these northerners arrived ?
.
And these northerers had already moved emigrated as in left the levant by the early bronze-age.........how can they have taught any language from the north

The issue is not that. It is that Chalcolithic Levant was already northern-shifted (much more Anatolian_Neo and, a bit less so, Iranian_Neo) than Neolithic Levant, but this study also shows that Chalcolithic Levant was still less northern-shifted than Bronze Age Levant, particulary Bronze Age Levant_North (that's especially clear when you look at the PCA, with Chalcolithic Levant closer to Neolithic Levant, and Bronze Age Levant, especially Bronze Age Levant North, even closer to the ancient Caucasian and Iranian samples). That shows that, if Chalcolithic Levant can be modeled as ~43% non-Levantine (Anatolian + Iranian), then Bronze Age Levant were even more affected by these West Asia, but non-Levantine sources of ancestry. In my opinion that came from a second wave from northerners, probably this time more influenced by Iranians/South Caucasians than by Anatolians (maybe the wave that brought a huge percentage of J1 and J2?) - and in my opinion probably more "northeasterly" than the earlier wave and possibly coming roughly from Northern Mesopotamia.

halfalp
21-08-18, 21:27
Could you for crying out loud ever get your facts straight? CHG WAS NOT BLUE-EYED.

Also, read my post # 30 second to last paragraph as to the possible origin.

As far as the following is concerned, you are completely confused:
"I mean, i've tried to say that to you or in general many times but... The problem is not where fair features appeared. The problem is that we are talking about 6000BC Levant and we make an analogy with Eastern Europe, only because IE theories. Pushing an agenda is not about finding something that nobody ever thought, its about take that information and make a parallel without something else, just too discredit that latter thing. Apparently, you, Lazaridis and many are willing to believe that if Yamnaya was Brown haired / Brown eyed or Blonde haired / Blue eyed it change completely the power of this reality, because some kind of elite ( wich one? George Soros? Lol private joke ) prefer that they were Blond Haired / Blue Eyed."

The saga of the blonde, blue-eyed Yamnaya people or more generally the Bronze Age people of places like Ukraine bringing those alleles to central and northern Europe has nothing to do with Iosif Lazaridis, or Reich, or me for that matter. That was the saga promulgated since the late 19th century by "anthropologists" and then repeated by every crack pot racist in the 20th century.

Science has falsified that explanation. It's all much more complicated than that and hasn't really been fully explained as of yet.

Lazaridis just said it in his Twitter. It's not about facts, it's about pushing an agenda. He maybe just confused the fact that CHG had genes for fair skin. The fact that Yamnaya was like Brown Haired / Brown Eyed, like Mediterranean with Fair Skin isn't an issue, why would it be? It's an issue when, in case of IE spreading languages and the potential ancestry and heritage people can get of that, Fair Skin have somehow a role to play. Why would Lazaridis make an analogy of blue eyes with Levant_Chl and Pontic Steppe Eneolithic if he didn't have himself the envy to prove the contrary.

davef
21-08-18, 21:43
Lazaridis just said it in his Twitter. It's not about facts, it's about pushing an agenda. He maybe just confused the fact that CHG had genes for fair skin. The fact that Yamnaya was like Brown Haired / Brown Eyed, like Mediterranean with Fair Skin isn't an issue, why would it be? It's an issue when, in case of IE spreading languages and the potential ancestry and heritage people can get of that, Fair Skin have somehow a role to play. Why would Lazaridis make an analogy of blue eyes with Levant_Chl and Pontic Steppe Eneolithic if he didn't have himself the envy to prove the contrary.
He simply stated how surprising it was to find blue eyes in such a high frequency in an ancient Levantine population. I'm sure hardly anyone expected a frequency this high.

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 21:56
I have to say Lazaridis virtue signaling is pretty obvious this time, he cannot longer hide that he is pushing an agenda. Now he is aknowledging in his Twitter that Gamba and Mathiesen found Anatolian Farmers with blue eyes and him Minoan with blue eyes, and he dont say that Villabruna that predate all those people had blue eyes too. Look at how many black / white mulato in europe and north america have blue eyes, because their mothers where of european descent. People where exchanging from europe - anatolia and ultimately levant, before the neolithic even exist. What's the most funny, is that all those people have too high opinion of themselves, they think they do the right thing, being open minded, being a people of the world. The day all those papers gonna be interpret by Erdogan like Turkey is the birth place of " Aryans " because those liberals scientifics tried to do a good thing to shadowing europe and empowering other places in the world ( even if the real history is more complicate ).

What??? Can you clarify what you really mean? The "Aryan" (PIE) question has virtually nothing to do with these findings ("Aryan" does not mean "people with blue eyes", it means a people with a specific language and culture), and in fact it's been years since we first knew that Anatolian_Neolithic had a significant WHG-like - but still not exactly WHG - ancestry, so if the mutation for blue eyes happened in that ancestral population that contributed to both WHG and Anatolian_Neolithic everything could be neatly explained without any need for conspiracy theories. We also know that blue eyes were regularly find in WHG, but also in significant yet minor percentages in ANF and later in some EEF populations. There is no need to talk about "Aryans" here when the topic is Chalcolithic Levant.

halfalp
21-08-18, 22:29
What??? Can you clarify what you really mean? The "Aryan" (PIE) question has virtually nothing to do with these findings ("Aryan" does not mean "people with blue eyes", it means a people with a specific language and culture), and in fact it's been years since we first knew that Anatolian_Neolithic had a significant WHG-like - but still not exactly WHG - ancestry, so if the mutation for blue eyes happened in that ancestral population that contributed to both WHG and Anatolian_Neolithic everything could be neatly explained without any need for conspiracy theories.

What all this have to do with what i said. You and me obviously knows the meaning of Aryan, of CHG, Anatolia_Nhl, but not everyone. You never fought that people could use it as a political recuperation not to valorize european culture or genetic like Nazis, but to devalorize it instead? I know exactly what i'm fighting for, i'm not interested in PIE for some ancient ethnic pride, but for history, but not every people are like this. Just look at Kurdish people who says " PIE came from Kurdistan ". If you let them have this reality, they gonna after that come with " everything europe as came from Kurdistan, so we have better, we can devalorize them ". Did you remember that Vladimir Putin in 2004 was going to Arkaim ( archeological site of Sintashta Culture ) and talked about it like a " russian pride ". Just imagine the same is do about PIE coming from Kurdistan or Turkey only because some Genetists have to virtue signaling.

halfalp
21-08-18, 22:30
He simply stated how surprising it was to find blue eyes in such a high frequency in an ancient Levantine population. I'm sure hardly anyone expected a frequency this high.

I dont think he was, i was personnally surprised and found interesting that we found mtdna U6 in that context, until people made an analogy between PIE and Levant, then i remember than in 2k18 everything is virtue signalling.

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 22:40
if we look at the origins of blue eyes we see it is from proto-circassians.........maykop culture area
The Circassian language, also known as the Cherkess language, including West Adyghe, Kabardian Adyghe, and Ubykh, is a member of the ancient Northwest Caucasian language family.
Archaeological findings, mainly of dolmens in Northwest Caucasus region, indicate a megalithic culture in the Northwest Caucasus.[44] Around the beginning of the 4th Millennium BCE, the North West Caucasus region and western Steppes became influenced by the Maykop culture.
Is yamnaya also on the black sea or only on the caspian sea side ..........there are different options by some scholars
.
http://www.circassianworld.com/circassians/who-are-they/1124-who-are-the-circassians

That's total fantasy. CHG and even Caucasian Chalcolithic people were not particularly blue-eyed, WHG much to the west of the Maykop area had already had a much higher proportion of blue eyes, and in fact people of the Villabruna Cluster well, well before Maykop (in the Mesolithic) and far away from the Caucasus. I also think you're making another leap of faith by affirming categorically that the Maykop culture was Proto-Circassian. Besides, as we can see from this study, by the Chalcolithic, when Maykop formed as a culture, there were already relevant proportions of blue eyes in populations of the Levant, Anatolia and all of Europe. No, it's not from Proto-Circassians, it predates them by thousands of years, and the Caucasus wasn't even a hotspot for high blue eyes frequency.

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 22:47
What all this have to do with what i said. You and me obviously knows the meaning of Aryan, of CHG, Anatolia_Nhl, but not everyone. You never fought that people could use it as a political recuperation not to valorize european culture or genetic like Nazis, but to devalorize it instead? I know exactly what i'm fighting for, i'm not interested in PIE for some ancient ethnic pride, but for history, but not every people are like this. Just look at Kurdish people who says " PIE came from Kurdistan ". If you let them have this reality, they gonna after that come with " everything europe as came from Kurdistan, so we have better, we can devalorize them ". Did you remember that Vladimir Putin in 2004 was going to Arkaim ( archeological site of Sintashta Culture ) and talked about it like a " russian pride ". Just imagine the same is do about PIE coming from Kurdistan or Turkey only because some Genetists have to virtue signaling.

I understood what you think about this problem that you perceive. What I didn't understand is your point about the remarks of Lazaridis, and why they are supposedly so misleading or even dangerous. And what do the comments about blue eyes and Chalcolithic Levant have to do with the PIE controversy? What's this association between the Levant and steppe PIE that you're talking about in your posts?

It's not like blue eyes has been demonstrated to be particularly correlated with the spread of PIE-speaking people, especially because out of dozens of Pontic-Caspian samples only a minority have blue eyes, and it's been proven that both light skin and - less so - blue eyes were already widespread before the IE expansion in many parts of Europe and West/Central Asia. In fact, blue eyes are a trait too superficial and minor to allow us to make any inferences about the origin of peoples. It can be selected for or against along the time, "artificially" increased to high frequencies by genetic drift and bottlenecks, or whatever.

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:00
I understood what you think about this problem that you perceive. What I didn't understand is your point about the remarks of Lazaridis, and why they are supposedly so misleading or even dangerous. And what do the comments about blue eyes and Chalcolithic Levant have to do with the PIE controversy? What's this association between the Levant and steppe PIE that you're talking about in your posts?

It's not like blue eyes has been demonstrated to be particularly correlated with the spread of PIE-speaking people, especially because out of dozens of Pontic-Caspian samples only a minority have blue eyes, and it's been proven that both light skin and - less so - blue eyes were already widespread before the IE expansion in many parts of Europe and West/Central Asia. In fact, blue eyes are a trait too superficial and minor to allow us to make any inferences about the origin of peoples. It can be selected for or against along the time, "artificially" increased to high frequencies by genetic drift and bottlenecks, or whatever.

Exactly what's the point? It's Lazaridis who said, Hey look Levant Chalcolithic have more Blue Eyes than Chalcolithic Eastern Europe. Then he start to talk about how some Anatolian Farmers from the Gamba and Mathiesen papers and his study about Minoan also had Blue Eyes, then he even mention CHG for whatever reason. Why? What's the analogy between Levant Chl and Eastern Europe Chl a part of saying something like " hey look near-easterners where more aryans than PIE people ". Obviously my use of the term Aryan here is purely provocative. He could have just said: Wow ancient near-easterners had blue eyes, cool. But no, he talks about eastern europe with a somehow analogy with PIE, like an attack to people believing Eastern Europe and PIE people were Blonde haired and Blue eyed. That's typically people who hide ideas or agenda, and those ideas and agenda resurface at certain points for random reasons.

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:08
wait! nobody is suggesting that T and the Iranian farmer is the responsible of the introduction of Indoeuropean into Israel? wait... no IE there? what a fun we can have with genetics uh?

Typically what this means? What IE have to do with the actual context? It not even make any ironical sense. Can we stop to put PIE in every context like this is the graal?

Angela
21-08-18, 23:10
50% blue eye frequency is a lot. In NE Europe blue eyes became common from much lower percentages, i wonder why the reverse happened in Levant.

I think it may have something to do with the movement of J1 and J2 bearing groups from the southern Caucasus. These Levant Chalcolithic people had about 17% Iran Chalcolithic, but they had a lot of Anatolian Neolithic, where we know that people had about 25% of this blue eyed gene. Drift, bottleneck, etc. might have increased it, or it's just a coincidence in this one collection of people, but Anatolia Neolithic was quite a bit fairer than Iran Neolithic.

The Bronze Age Sidon and Jordan samples are almost 50% Iran Chalcolithic, with the rest Levant Neolithic, and are quite a bit darker, so that would fit.

The question I have is whether there were any people in the Levant, i.e. Syria perhaps, or among ancient Jews, in the Bronze and Iron Ages who did descend from them, or are they a total dead end. One reason I wonder that is because isolated Syrian populations, i.e. Assad's group, Samaritans, and even Palestinian Christians can have a few people with a relatively "lighter" phenotype. This could, however, be a result of endogamy and thus a barrier to continuing gene flow from the direction of the Arabian peninsula.

davef
21-08-18, 23:11
What all this have to do with what i said. You and me obviously knows the meaning of Aryan, of CHG, Anatolia_Nhl, but not everyone. You never fought that people could use it as a political recuperation not to valorize european culture or genetic like Nazis, but to devalorize it instead? I know exactly what i'm fighting for, i'm not interested in PIE for some ancient ethnic pride, but for history, but not every people are like this. Just look at Kurdish people who says " PIE came from Kurdistan ". If you let them have this reality, they gonna after that come with " everything europe as came from Kurdistan, so we have better, we can devalorize them ". Did you remember that Vladimir Putin in 2004 was going to Arkaim ( archeological site of Sintashta Culture ) and talked about it like a " russian pride ". Just imagine the same is do about PIE coming from Kurdistan or Turkey only because some Genetists have to virtue signaling.
These people had Anatolian farmer ancestry which includes whg-like ancestry. That whg-like ancestry is likely where the blue eyes came from.

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:15
These people had Anatolian farmer ancestry which includes whg-like ancestry. That whg-like ancestry is likely where the blue eyes came from.

I mean i probably have hard time to explain the point. It's not about Blue Eyes, it's about how you use this information. " Chalcolithic Levantines were probably more blue-eyed than Bronze Age people from Russia " What does that mean? To use Bronze Age Russia as an analogy for you?

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 23:15
Exactly what's the point? It's Lazaridis who said, Hey look Levant Chalcolithic have more Blue Eyes than Chalcolithic Eastern Europe. Then he start to talk about how some Anatolian Farmers from the Gamba and Mathiesen papers and his study about Minoan also had Blue Eyes, then he even mention CHG for whatever reason. Why? What's the analogy between Levant Chl and Eastern Europe Chl a part of saying something like " hey look near-easterners where more aryans than PIE people ". Obviously my use of the term Aryan here is purely provocative. He could have just said: Wow ancient near-easterners had blue eyes, cool. But no, he talks about eastern europe with a somehow analogy with PIE, like an attack to people believing Eastern Europe and PIE people were Blonde haired and Blue eyed. That's typically people who hide ideas or agenda, and those ideas and agenda resurface at certain points for random reasons.

Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:18
Lazaridis twitted this " I don't think it's directly relevant, as no one AFAIK proposed PIE had anything to do with Chalcolithic Israel, but certainly a piece of the larger puzzle. " So what is he trying to say?

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:29
Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.

Because it's not to others, especially people who dont have blue eyes ( wich i'am part of ) to call people with blue eyes out like they are shit. Racial bias and sexual bias are real things, wich i personnally dont care about, but a lot of people want to deconstruct those things. It's bad if you are a white guy having sexual bias over blonde blue eyed girl, but it's not if having over an african or a racial minority. It should be pretty obvious that fair features doesn't gives you any power, i dont understand your comment against racism here. So you cannot considering somebody special if he as blue eyes and blonde hair? its against every people that doesn't have those features? It's sad that such targeted shaming is happenning to Europe. And finally, what the heck have indo-european cultures to do with all this crap? Do you see warriors around you? Is Sweden a pride viking country? If you know actuality, then you know thats not. What IE was 4000 years ago, is not what it is today, this is for this reason i believe things like nationalism are bullshit, because those are federative ideas, you are willing to believe that everyone from your ethnic thinks the same, if it was the case, there would not be any other humans than europeans in europe.

MOESAN
21-08-18, 23:36
I find it quite possible, even likely that the Afro-Asiatic linguistic component was originally absorbed by (or imposed onto) the Anatolian & Iranian ("northern") population that probably merged with Levant_Neolithic ones, hypothetically because they were highland immigrants in a more technologically advanced region or something like that. But that would've happened before the consolidation of a Proto-Semitic language and culture, before its expansion to other areas, probably still during the Late Neolithic,, and during that "gestation period" it's possible that the foreign elements eventually became dominant even before Proto-Semitic was spread elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent. I say that because I find it hard to believe that Afro-Asiatic came originally from too much north or east of the Levant, considering the distribution of the rest of the family (all other branches in Africa, some of them with possible older links to Southwest Asia, like Cushitic) and the heavy Natufian affinities in other heavily AA regions like North Africa and Egypt.

with some fancy we could suppose the definite break of Semitic off other AA languages could have occurred when somme AA language came northwards and was adopted by more northern populations in ancient times, if I follow your suggestion or what I believe it is. After that, linguistically acculturated northern pops could have reversed the flood and passed a completely developped Semitic language to southern pops, their old "teachers" of more archaic AA... Not impossible at all. Latins were not the first basic IE speakers but after some time, when their culture and forces flourished they passed their locally evolved IE to other IE pops whose languages were maybe closer to the origins...

MOESAN
21-08-18, 23:37
the Chamitic languages are even, maybe, the more basic AA heirs? Or at least a more southern evolution of basic AA in situ (closer to the cradle).

halfalp
21-08-18, 23:42
I feel like, in linguistic afro-asiatic hypothesis are too conservative to try to debunk the actual hypothesis with some genetic facts. What's actually the real relationship between Afro-Asiatic languages? Some people have actual problem to consider even IE languages family as a thing, so imagine A/A?

Ygorcs
21-08-18, 23:44
Because it's not to others, especially people who dont have blue eyes ( wich i'am part of ) to call people with blue eyes out like they are shit. Racial bias and sexual bias are real things, wich i personnally dont care about, but a lot of people want to deconstruct those things. It's bad if you are a white guy having sexual bias over blonde blue eyed girl, but it's not if having over an african or a racial minority. It should be pretty obvious that fair features doesn't gives you any power, i dont understand your comment against racism here. So you cannot considering somebody special if he as blue eyes and blonde hair? its against every people that doesn't have those features? It's sad that such targeted shaming is happenning to Europe. And finally, what the heck have indo-european cultures to do with all this crap? Do you see warriors around you? Is Sweden a pride viking country? If you know actuality, then you know thats not. What IE was 4000 years ago, is not what it is today, this is for this reason i believe things like nationalism are bullshit, because those are federative ideas, you are willing to believe that everyone from your ethnic thinks the same, if it was the case, there would not be any other humans than europeans in europe.

Dude, you're a bit obsessed about this. It's no shaming and no attack (like they are shit, what?) to say that blue-eyed people may not have inherited these traits from Eastern European steppe peoples, and that Middle Eastern populations may have had some contribution in the spread of that traits. Unless, of course, you think that there is something especially superior about Eastern Europe or steppe Indo-Europeans, and simultaneously something really shameful and. No self-aware blue-eyed person would feel offended by the mere suggestion (even if it end up being totally wrong) that the high frequencies of blue eyes in their nations may be a relatively recent situation and that blue eyes may have already existed in high frequency in parts of the Middle East before it achieved high frequency in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Most blue-eyed people won't even know what the Pontic-Caspian steppe is, to be honest.

No, I don't think there's anything "special" about someone having blue eyes or blonde hair - not brown hair, red hair. It may be interesting, beautiful, exotic, fascinating, rare in some regions, but why woud some human being be "special" or "better" because of that? That statement is not just naive, but it's also problematic if you don't choose to ignore the very ugly and dangerous history of racism and white supremacism (particularly of the kind obsessed with "North European looks" - blonde, blue-eyed, very pale) in the very recent past, just decades ago. Statements have a history and a context that either justifies it or makes it even worse. You can't ignore historic and social context. Black pride usually means, in practice, something very different in society than white/blue eyes pride, let alone an even stronger assertion which is people with blue eyes are "special".

markod
21-08-18, 23:48
Well, but if some people in 2018 still believe that PIE people were all Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes then I can see why a geneticist may have thought it'd be nice (or funny?) to call them out ("attack" is too strong a word frankly). I don't think the point of this comparison has two interesting observations: 1) things can change a lot in 5,000-6,000 years, so that the frequency of blue eyes in the Levant and in Eastern Europe are now almost the reverse of what they were in ~4000 BCE; 2) the traditional anthropologists and the pseudo-scientific or simply amateur/deluded racists of older generations were indeed very wrong when they believed that blue eyes and blonde hair were directly and mostly correlated with Indo-European ancestry, because there were other clearly non-IE sources for those traits. Unless blue eyes, light skin and blonde hair are somehow "more special" if they came only from Eastern Europe rather than at least partly from West Asia and from Western/Central Europe itself, I don't get what's the "big problem" in that provocation. The racists were again dead wrong. I can see why someone would find it worth commenting about.

I think the hypothesis was more than just a racist fantasy, since modern frequencies of light pigmentation correlate very well with the extent of Corded Ware culture. Coon was very careful in his wording when he described that skeletally the steppe people were of a type that today is associated with blue eyes & blondism. He cites notable exceptions to this in Iran, East Africa etc. .

MOESAN
22-08-18, 00:00
I feel like, in linguistic afro-asiatic hypothesis are too conservative to try to debunk the actual hypothesis with some genetic facts. What's actually the real relationship between Afro-Asiatic languages? Some people have actual problem to consider even IE languages family as a thing, so imagine A/A?

It's only suppositions here, concerning AA. Concerning reality of IE, I think sincerely things are clear enough and well shored;

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 00:00
with some fancy we could suppose the definite break of Semitic off other AA languages could have occurred when somme AA language came northwards and was adopted by more northern populations in ancient times, if I follow your suggestion or what I believe it is. After that, linguistically acculturated northern pops could have reversed the flood and passed a completely developped Semitic language to southern pops, their old "teachers" of more archaic AA... Not impossible at all. Latins were not the first basic IE speakers but after some time, when their culture and forces flourished they passed their locally evolved IE to other IE pops whose languages were maybe closer to the origins...

That's a very possible scenario. My personal hunch though is that there was a confluence in the region between the "highland West Asia" and the "lowland West Asia" (northern Syria & Iraq - southern Turkey), during the Neolithic, between Iranian_Neolithic, Anatolian_Neolithic and Levant_Neolithic (speaking an earlier Afro-Asiatic branch out of which Proto-Semitic eventually arose, much like Latin from an earlier Northwestern IE that was mostly absorbed by it in a large territory). The Levant_Neolithic was possibly there first and was initially dominant during the Neolithic, absorbing the "northern" elements around its territory, until these northern elements, as you say, reversed the flood and started to expand onto the Levant_Neolithic and became dominant by the Chalcolithic, consolidating this mixed Proto-Semitic population. Then this heavily Iranian/Anatolian-shifted, very changed "Levant_Neolithic" population descended to the rest of "lowland West Asia" during the Late Chalcolithic or right after the Chalcolithic.

halfalp
22-08-18, 00:04
Dude, you're a bit obsessed about this. It's no shaming and no attack (like they are shit, what?) to say that blue-eyed people may not have inherited these traits from Eastern European steppe peoples, and that Middle Eastern populations may have had some contribution in the spread of that traits. Unless, of course, you think that there is something especially superior about Eastern Europe or steppe Indo-Europeans, and simultaneously something really shameful and. No self-aware blue-eyed person would feel offended by the mere suggestion (even if it end up being totally wrong) that the high frequencies of blue eyes in their nations may be a relatively recent situation and that blue eyes may have already existed in high frequency in parts of the Middle East before it achieved high frequency in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Most blue-eyed people won't even know what the Pontic-Caspian steppe is, to be honest.

No, I don't think there's anything "special" about someone having blue eyes or blonde hair - not brown hair, red hair. It may be interesting, beautiful, exotic, fascinating, rare in some regions, but why woud some human being be "special" or "better" because of that? That statement is not just naive, but it's also problematic if you don't choose to ignore the very ugly and dangerous history of racism and white supremacism (particularly of the kind obsessed with "North European looks" - blonde, blue-eyed, very pale) in the very recent past, just decades ago. Statements have a history and a context that either justifies it or makes it even worse. You can't ignore historic and social context. Black pride usually means, in practice, something very different in society than white/blue eyes pride, let alone an even stronger assertion which is people with blue eyes are "special".

I mean, you are probably a little too much obsessed with racism history, because this is actually how humanity is thinking. As i said, people have sexual bias, they could found some physical characteristics special. I dont get the Eastern European / Steppe People superiority because as far as i remember, classic racists despise eastern europe and steppe peoples. The fact that those 6000 years old Levante people isn't even a question in Virtue Signaling europeans because Villabruna and Cheddar Man are 3 times older and had Blue Eyes ( if we want to start talking about facts ).

MOESAN
22-08-18, 00:10
Concerning pigmentation, always the same old thing and oppositions!
But statistically speaking, the ancient samples we have everywhere are very too small as a whole to built solid hypothesis. THese traits are based upon too few SNP's compared to complete auDNA, when a sample of 10 persons in a little region is quite sufficiant for auDNA to have a valuable sketch. For pigmentation we need a far bigger number of persons by region than what we have to date for ancient pops.

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 06:01
I mean, you are probably a little too much obsessed with racism history, because this is actually how humanity is thinking. As i said, people have sexual bias, they could found some physical characteristics special. I dont get the Eastern European / Steppe People superiority because as far as i remember, classic racists despise eastern europe and steppe peoples. .

We're talking about supposedly special people, not special physical features. You're getting a bit confused about what we're talking about here. As for "classic racists", they've long been reconciled with the increasing evidence of Indo-Europeans coming from Eastern Europe and just consider that modern Eastern Europeans and steppe peoples would've become inferior due to extensive racial mixing with "inferior peoples", especially East Asians and Central Asians/Middle Easterners (e.g. Turks). They consider them disparagingly mongrels and half-breeds who lost their racial purity supposedly better preserved by Northern Europeans. I think you missed that part, it's everywhere on the internet.

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 06:06
I think the hypothesis was more than just a racist fantasy, since modern frequencies of light pigmentation correlate very well with the extent of Corded Ware culture. Coon was very careful in his wording when he described that skeletally the steppe people were of a type that today is associated with blue eyes & blondism. He cites notable exceptions to this in Iran, East Africa etc. .

Yes, but only partially. Those cultures were not PIE and not the original source of Indo-European expansion, though, but just descendants of the PIE-speaking culture(s) already mixed to varying levels with other regional populations. The very light phenotype of CWC or Sintashta people did not exist in near fixation frequencies in earlier cultures that are much more likely to be representative of the original, still undivided PIE. Besides, SHG, GAC and now Chalcolithic Levant and increasingly many other cultures also show that light skin, blue eyes and blonde hair - either cumulatively or only some of those traits - were already widespread in many other regions even before the Indo-European incursions in those areas, so they could've been one among several contributors to the spread of those phenotypic features, but they were certainly not pioneers nor the epicenter of that change.

Sile
22-08-18, 07:32
The issue is not that. It is that Chalcolithic Levant was already northern-shifted (much more Anatolian_Neo and, a bit less so, Iranian_Neo) than Neolithic Levant, but this study also shows that Chalcolithic Levant was still less northern-shifted than Bronze Age Levant, particulary Bronze Age Levant_North (that's especially clear when you look at the PCA, with Chalcolithic Levant closer to Neolithic Levant, and Bronze Age Levant, especially Bronze Age Levant North, even closer to the ancient Caucasian and Iranian samples). That shows that, if Chalcolithic Levant can be modeled as ~43% non-Levantine (Anatolian + Iranian), then Bronze Age Levant were even more affected by these West Asia, but non-Levantine sources of ancestry. In my opinion that came from a second wave from northerners, probably this time more influenced by Iranians/South Caucasians than by Anatolians (maybe the wave that brought a huge percentage of J1 and J2?) - and in my opinion probably more "northeasterly" than the earlier wave and possibly coming roughly from Northern Mesopotamia.

Seems like you are avoiding the question.........semitic language began after these people left the levant ( disappeared ) in the early bronze-age .
these people could never have brought semetic to the levant and mixed with the existing populace because semetic had not even begun.
The migrants brought another language with them from NE Anatolia/South caucasus or beyond lands

Sile
22-08-18, 07:36
the best of the ancient samples so far............results mean more accurate analysis
The data extracted from the skeletal remains, taken from 22 individuals, “is of exceptional quality given the typically poor preservation of DNA in the warm Near East,” wrote the scientists.
According to Tel Aviv University’s Hershkovitz, “human DNA was preserved in the bones of the buried people in Peki’in cave, likely due to the cool conditions within the cave and the limestone crust that covered the bones and preserved the DNA.”
As a result, the researchers were able to do a whole genome analysis of 22 of the skeletons.
“This study of 22 individuals is one of the largest ancient DNA studies carried out from a single archaeological site, and by far the largest ever reported in the Near East,” said Tel Aviv University researcher May.
The scientists uncovered some recessive genetic traits not usually expected in human remains from the Levant.

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 08:11
Seems like you are avoiding the question.........semitic language began after these people left the levant ( disappeared ) in the early bronze-age .
these people could never have brought semetic to the levant and mixed with the existing populace because semetic had not even begun.
The migrants brought another language with them from NE Anatolia/South caucasus or beyond lands

I think you just did not understand my point. Nobody said that Levant_Chalcolithic is necessarily the Proto-Semitic people, but that these findings confirm that the cultural and genetic transformation of the Levant from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (when it had become clearly Semitic in its vast majority) was marked by northern (Anatolian + Iranian/Caucasian) influx, not by massive south-to-north movements as some proponents of a "southern" Proto-Semitic language had proposed. That's all.

Actually, Proto-Semitic is a Chalcolithic language, it's estimated to have started splitting as early as 3750 BCE (latest common, completely unified stage of the language), so it's reasonable to expect that by 4000 BCE some early form of Proto-Semitic was already in use. By 2400 BCE Semitic daughter languages, Eblaite and a little later Akkadian, were already present at least in Syria and Iraq, possibly also elsewhere further south, and those East Semitic languages had already acquired some characteristics that made them distinct from West & South Semitic languages.

As a matter of fact, Bronze Age_Levant, both Levant_North and Levant_South, are even more northern-shifted than Levant_Chalcolithic and obviously much more than Levant_Neolithic, so what happened from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age clearly brought a population that was even more heavy in Chalcolithic Iranian-like admixture... and exactly because of that, that population most probably came from the north(east). And what also happened during that period was the widespread expansion of Proto-Semitic-derived languages.

Also, Levantine Chalcolithic people were clearly ancestral to Bronze Age Semitic population of the Levant (Levant_Bronze Age_North is best modeled as a mixture of Levant_Chalcolithic + Iran_Chalcolithic), and (yet unsampled) parts of the Chalcolithic Levant may have simply missed the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression seen in the Peqi'in Cave remains but also lingered on and contributed to Levant_Bronze Age_South. That's what the scholars of this study concluded themselves.

So you clearly misinterpreted the paper (or maybe didn't read it entirely). The Chalcolithic Levantines did not just vanish, they certainly contributed genetically and culturally to the future of the region, even if they were not the original Proto-Semites, which is actually my point since the beginning, since I think Proto-Semitic arose in Northern Mesopotamia and spread from there during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Read:



The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.


We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in26 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR26). (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by26 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR26). These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.


The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.

bicicleur
22-08-18, 08:54
26 % Anatolia N, blue eyes and copper metallurgie
could there be some connection with Vinca?

ToBeOrNotToBe
22-08-18, 09:22
26 % Anatolia N, blue eyes and copper metallurgie
could there be some connection with Vinca?

Interesting idea - I'd buy into that.

bicicleur
22-08-18, 15:01
there would have been 2 different succesive chalcolithic cultures in the Levant :

Chalcolithic
(4500 BCE – 3300 BCE)
Early Chalcolithic 4500 BCE – 4000 BCE
Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) 4000 BCE – 3300 BCE

So this would have been early chalcolithic, not the Ghassulian.

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

Settlements belonging to the Ghassulian culture have been identified at numerous other sites in what is today southern Israel, especially in the region of Beersheba, where elaborate underground dwellings have been excavated. The Ghassulian culture correlates closely with the Amratian of Egypt and also seems to have affinities (e.g., the distinctive churns, or “bird vases”) with early Minoan culture in Crete.[3][6]

Angela
22-08-18, 19:18
I think you just did not understand my point. Nobody said that Levant_Chalcolithic is necessarily the Proto-Semitic people, but that these findings confirm that the cultural and genetic transformation of the Levant from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (when it had become clearly Semitic in its vast majority) was marked by northern (Anatolian + Iranian/Caucasian) influx, not by massive south-to-north movements as some proponents of a "southern" Proto-Semitic language had proposed. That's all.

Actually, Proto-Semitic is a Chalcolithic language, it's estimated to have started splitting as early as 3750 BCE (latest common, completely unified stage of the language), so it's reasonable to expect that by 4000 BCE some early form of Proto-Semitic was already in use. By 2400 BCE Semitic daughter languages, Eblaite and a little later Akkadian, were already present at least in Syria and Iraq, possibly also elsewhere further south, and those East Semitic languages had already acquired some characteristics that made them distinct from West & South Semitic languages.

As a matter of fact, Bronze Age_Levant, both Levant_North and Levant_South, are even more northern-shifted than Levant_Chalcolithic and obviously much more than Levant_Neolithic, so what happened from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age clearly brought a population that was even more heavy in Chalcolithic Iranian-like admixture... and exactly because of that, that population most probably came from the north(east). And what also happened during that period was the widespread expansion of Proto-Semitic-derived languages.

Also, Levantine Chalcolithic people were clearly ancestral to Bronze Age Semitic population of the Levant (Levant_Bronze Age_North is best modeled as a mixture of Levant_Chalcolithic + Iran_Chalcolithic), and (yet unsampled) parts of the Chalcolithic Levant may have simply missed the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression seen in the Peqi'in Cave remains but also lingered on and contributed to Levant_Bronze Age_South. That's what the scholars of this study concluded themselves.

So you clearly misinterpreted the paper (or maybe didn't read it entirely). The Chalcolithic Levantines did not just vanish, they certainly contributed genetically and culturally to the future of the region, even if they were not the original Proto-Semites, which is actually my point since the beginning, since I think Proto-Semitic arose in Northern Mesopotamia and spread from there during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Read:

Iran Chalcolithic definitely is part of Bronze Age Levant. However, aren't the authors saying that Levant Chalcolithic did not genetically impact either North or South Bronze Age?

@Bicicleur,
So what is the culture of the early Chalcolithic in the Levant, what is its origin and spread?

Are you aware of any attested archaeological traces from Europe to Anatolia or the Levant from Vinca in the appropriate time frame? Also, there were blue eyes in the Anatolia Neolithic and even one in Levant Neolithic if I remember correctly, so no need for the snps to be reintroduced from Europe.

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 19:31
Iran Chalcolithic definitely is part of Bronze Age Levant. However, aren't the authors saying that Levant Chalcolithic did not genetically impact either North or South Bronze Age?

@Bicicleur,
So what is the culture of the early Chalcolithic, what is its origin and spread?

I didn't interpret thist way. For me it is stated that Levant_Chalcolithic probably contributed to Levant_BA_North, but not directly Levant_BA_South.

But about the latter it is possible, according to them, that the Levant_Chalcolithic population of the Peqi'in cave represents a population that received this additional Anatolian_Neolithic wave, but other populations of the Chalcolithic Levant may have went on unaffected by the Anatolian_Neolithic influx, so the Levant_BA_South can plausibly be at least partially the descendant of a Levant Chalcolithic population that resisted the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression and received an additional Iran_Chalcolithic one.

The Anatolian_Neolithic path could have been separated from the Iran_Chalcolithic one, not coming from the very same population/region. I think it's highly likely that the Levant, during this process of genetic interaction between Anatolia, Levant and Iran/Caucasus, had a lot of population substructure until much later, when the homogeneization that ensued was more or less complete (possibly by the Late Bronze Age). See these parts of the study:


The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.

We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in26 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR26). (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by26 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR26). These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.


The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.

Angela
22-08-18, 19:53
I didn't interpret thist way. For me it is stated that Levant_Chalcolithic probably contributed to Levant_BA_North, but not directly Levant_BA_South.

But about the latter it is possible, according to them, that the Levant_Chalcolithic population of the Peqi'in cave represents a population that received this additional Anatolian_Neolithic wave, but other populations of the Chalcolithic Levant may have went on unaffected by the Anatolian_Neolithic influx, so the Levant_BA_South can plausibly be at least partially the descendant of a Levant Chalcolithic population that resisted the Anatolian_Neolithic introgression and received an additional Iran_Chalcolithic one.

The Anatolian_Neolithic path could have been separated from the Iran_Chalcolithic one, not coming from the very same population/region. I think it's highly likely that the Levant, during this process of genetic interaction between Anatolia, Levant and Iran/Caucasus, had a lot of population substructure until much later, when the homogeneization that ensued was more or less complete (possibly by the Late Bronze Age). See these parts of the study:

Yes, I see all that. There seems to be a bit of internal inconsistency in the paper.

"It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population24,26. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry."

It makes sense to me that some genetic influence would have remained in certain areas.

davef
22-08-18, 20:02
Wondering if there are any modern Levantine groups that still have Anatolian farmer genes from these people. Strange how they didn't make it to the Sidons

Ygorcs
22-08-18, 20:26
Yes, I see all that. There seems to be a bit of internal inconsistency in the paper.

"It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population24,26. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry."

It makes sense to me that some genetic influence would have remained in certain areas.

Wow then it seems they're contradicting themselves. It will probably be pointed out and corrected later. When you see the detailed description of the tests they made, it seems clear that Levant_BA_North is different from Levant_BA_South in two ways: 1) Levant_Chalcolithic is a better fit than Levant_Neolithic; and 2) Levant_BA_North requires 3 admixtures to give the best fit, while Levant_BA_South requires only 2. It looks like they were a bit confused with their own results.

Also, I think we should not assume that the entire Chalcolithic Levant was like these Levant_Chalcolithic Peqi'in samples. They mention in the paper that the samples they analyzed form a very genetically homogeneous population, and the very high frequency (49%) of blue eyes is also in my opinion another indication that we may be dealing with a relatively localized genetic structure with some effects from a founder effect or something like that.

Their results demonstrate that Levant_BA_South probably had an ancestral source that contributed to Levant_Chalcolithic, too, so it's possible that we are still missing another part of the Chalcolithic Levant that was not directly affected by that "Anatolian shift" but was there and contributed to later BA populations in the same region.

P.S.: I guess I found the reason for that apparent inconsistency. The keyword is previously published BA Levantine samples in that part of the study. Further in the paper they explain that those studies had modeled them as a two-way admixture probably because they lacked a more proximate source which is Levant_Chalcolithic, and that hid the Levant_Chalcolithic ancestry in the BA_North sample. Those previous studies did not thus observe the genetic heterogeneity between the South and North of BA Levant. See:

W
e applied qpWave again, replacing Levant_ChL with Levant_BA_North, and found that the minimum number of source populations is only two. However, when we include the Levant_ChL population as an additional outgroup, three source populations are again required. This suggests that in the absence of the data from Levant_ChL there is insufficient statistical leverage to detect Anatolian-related ancestry that is truly present in admixed form in the Levant_BA_North population (data from the Levant_ChL population makes it possible to detect this ancestry). This may explain why26 did not detect the Anatolian Neolithic-related admixture in Levant_BA_North.

bicicleur
22-08-18, 21:31
Iran Chalcolithic definitely is part of Bronze Age Levant. However, aren't the authors saying that Levant Chalcolithic did not genetically impact either North or South Bronze Age?

@Bicicleur,
So what is the culture of the early Chalcolithic in the Levant, what is its origin and spread?

Are you aware of any attested archaeological traces from Europe to Anatolia or the Levant from Vinca in the appropriate time frame? Also, there were blue eyes in the Anatolia Neolithic and even one in Levant Neolithic if I remember correctly, so no need for the snps to be reintroduced from Europe.

I didn't say that these people in Israel came from Vinca.
I said there seem to be some things in common.
Maybe these people and Vinca have some common ancestor.
Maybe coming from Catal Höyük or thereabout.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1474072/1/Birch%20et%20al%202013%20Catal%20Hoyuk%20copper%20 a%20review%20and%20new%20work%20plus%20Appendices. pdf

No proof of copper melting though, just very early smithing of native copper, which was to be found in Anatolia.
First copper smelting is 7.5 ka in Vinca and Zagros chalcolithic similtaneously. 2 areas very far apart.

We don't have Catal Höyük DNA, but we have Boncüklü and Tepecik-Ciftlik.
Anatolia Neolitic originated in this area.

bicicleur
22-08-18, 21:38
Iran Chalcolithic definitely is part of Bronze Age Levant. However, aren't the authors saying that Levant Chalcolithic did not genetically impact either North or South Bronze Age?

@Bicicleur,
So what is the culture of the early Chalcolithic in the Levant, what is its origin and spread?

Are you aware of any attested archaeological traces from Europe to Anatolia or the Levant from Vinca in the appropriate time frame? Also, there were blue eyes in the Anatolia Neolithic and even one in Levant Neolithic if I remember correctly, so no need for the snps to be reintroduced from Europe.

are you sure about the blue eyes in Anatolia?
which part? Central Anatolia or the northwest?

bicicleur
22-08-18, 21:43
Yes, I see all that. There seems to be a bit of internal inconsistency in the paper.

"It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population24,26. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry."

It makes sense to me that some genetic influence would have remained in certain areas.

well, there is also this :

We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in26. (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by26. These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.

davef
22-08-18, 22:32
are you sure about the blue eyes in Anatolia?
which part? Central Anatolia or the northwest?
I wouldn't be surprised. Anatolian farmers had whg ancestry, which gave them blue eyes I guess

Angela
22-08-18, 22:37
are you sure about the blue eyes in Anatolia?
which part? Central Anatolia or the northwest?

Yes, I'm sure.

This section on pigmentation is from Hofmanova et al. It's a very good review showing all the instances known up to that time for lighter pigmentation alleles in ancient.

Hofmanova found only one blue-eyed sample in Anatolia. It was from Barcin.

See:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?type=supplementary&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703.s013


"Light eye pigmentation variants were present at high frequencies in WHG, SHG, EHG and EEF (notpresent in PEHG), while the blue-eye color founder haplotype h-1 was found in the La Brana,Loschbour, Villabruna WHGs, SF12, Motala1 and Motala12 SHGs and at least one early farmer. Suchresults suggest that the blue eye-color allele is rather old. Using an ABC modeling approach Nakagomeet al. [31], predicted that the light-pigmentation allele at rs12913832 emerged around 42,000 years agoor earlier; a date close in time to the initial peopling of Europe. A plausible scenario of the origin of theblue-eye mutation that reconciles our results with findings from other studies is one where this variantappeared in an ancestral population before the ancestors of the WHG migrated from Near East intoWest and Central Europe [1]."

Then there's Mathiesen et al. 2015.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

The summary is in Figure 3, but there's a lot more detail if you read it.

bicicleur
23-08-18, 16:58
Yes, I'm sure.

This section on pigmentation is from Hofmanova et al. It's a very good review showing all the instances known up to that time for lighter pigmentation alleles in ancient.

Hofmanova found only one blue-eyed sample in Anatolia. It was from Barcin.

See:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?type=supplementary&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703.s013


"Light eye pigmentation variants were present at high frequencies in WHG, SHG, EHG and EEF (notpresent in PEHG), while the blue-eye color founder haplotype h-1 was found in the La Brana,Loschbour, Villabruna WHGs, SF12, Motala1 and Motala12 SHGs and at least one early farmer. Suchresults suggest that the blue eye-color allele is rather old. Using an ABC modeling approach Nakagomeet al. [31], predicted that the light-pigmentation allele at rs12913832 emerged around 42,000 years agoor earlier; a date close in time to the initial peopling of Europe. A plausible scenario of the origin of theblue-eye mutation that reconciles our results with findings from other studies is one where this variantappeared in an ancestral population before the ancestors of the WHG migrated from Near East intoWest and Central Europe [1]."

Then there's Mathiesen et al. 2015.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

The summary is in Figure 3, but there's a lot more detail if you read it.

yes, but Barcin is northwest-Anatolia, not central Anatolia
among the 8.4 ka Barcin samples there were also I2 (I2c)
as a matter of facts, I2 is suspected to have expanded from SE Europe or maybe even Anatolia around 15 ka, spreading the blue eyes into mesolithic western Europe

but indeed, I2 need not be the unique source for blue eyes, as the paper claims the allele would be 42.000 yo

Angela
24-08-18, 04:38
yes, but Barcin is northwest-Anatolia, not central Anatolia
among the 8.4 ka Barcin samples there were also I2 (I2c)
as a matter of facts, I2 is suspected to have expanded from SE Europe or maybe even Anatolia around 15 ka, spreading the blue eyes into mesolithic western Europe

but indeed, I2 need not be the unique source for blue eyes, as the paper claims the allele would be 42.000 yo

Never said where it was, nor do I think it's particularly relevant. I'm rather persuaded by Hofmanova that it originated in what is now the Near East, as another paper also found, and then moved to Europe with WHG/UHG. Founder effect in a very small population probably took care of the rest.

If it wasn't around Anatolia somewhere, then somewhere in southeastern Europe I would think, as the Reich Lab have been hinting for a long time (i.e. one or the other). Plenty of time in all those thousands of years for it to move around, although it doesn't seem as if it reached the Zagros until later on.

Interestingly it wasn't just the case that the Barcin sample carried the alleles, but like the WHG and SHG it carried the founder haplotype. It would have been interesting to know what the case was for the rest of the Anatolia Neolithic samples, i.e. the ones in the Mathiesen et al paper.

Salento
24-08-18, 08:20
Salento:
She’s Italian like me. STOP IT.
Don’t ruin all this Threads.

Thank you Salento. I appreciate it.

Sorry for the confusion.

Vallicanus
24-08-18, 10:56
She’s Italian like me. STOP IT.
Don’t ruin all this Threads.

Croatthing isn't white, he's a Balkan melange.

bicicleur
24-08-18, 12:41
Never said where it was, nor do I think it's particularly relevant. I'm rather persuaded by Hofmanova that it originated in what is now the Near East, as another paper also found, and then moved to Europe with WHG/UHG. Founder effect in a very small population probably took care of the rest.
If it wasn't around Anatolia somewhere, then somewhere in southeastern Europe I would think, as the Reich Lab have been hinting for a long time (i.e. one or the other). Plenty of time in all those thousands of years for it to move around, although it doesn't seem as if it reached the Zagros until later on.
Interestingly it wasn't just the case that the Barcin sample carried the alleles, but like the WHG and SHG it carried the founder haplotype. It would have been interesting to know what the case was for the rest of the Anatolia Neolithic samples, i.e. the ones in the Mathiesen et al paper.

no, you didn't say, but I asked
and I asked because I believe it could be relevant
because in NW the connection with I2 is much more likely than in Central Anatolia

Wonomyro
24-08-18, 14:35
Croatthing isn't white, he's a Balkan melange. You are not much differrent from him in some matters. Are you?

halfalp
24-08-18, 16:47
Nonetheless, if those samples are of so much good quality and that they show genes for Blue Eyes, then the mutation appear in an ancestral population that have given ancestors to WHG, Anatolian_Nhl ( probably Anatolian Hunter Gatherers too ), and as far as the Near-East and maybe Iran. Like redhairs, it probably was already common in the finale paleolithic ( some Iberomaursian sample shows 1 or 2 genes for redhairs ) and some related population but not fixed, and over the years those related tribes expanded in west-eurasia in different tribes that have a common ancestor related to those tribes. We might never found the good pop, but transitionnal population, for exemple Paleolithic / Neolithic Anatolia could have been a transitional zone were Blue Eyes expanded without being from there originally, we might only found at some point a population ( i guess after the Neolithic ) that have multiple case of those features and that we can conclude ( this population have so much Blue Eyes genes in various individuals, that they certainly participate to his modern prevalence ).

bicicleur
24-08-18, 21:43
I2 was formed 27.5 ka, TMRCA 21.8 ka
but I2 was probably centered somewhere in a small area in SE Europe or Anatolia till the Villabruna expansion some 15 ka

question is did blue eyes originate in I2 or did it earlier?
and if so, when and where?

if I understand well, these Peqi'in did not only have blue eyes, but also pale skin, which I2 didn't have
but both were probably present in the EEF/WHG contact zone

Angela
24-08-18, 21:48
I2 was formed 27.5 ka, TMRCA 21.8 ka
but I2 was probably centered somewhere in a small area in SE Europe or Anatolia till the Villabruna expansion some 15 ka

question is did blue eyes originate in I2 or did it earlier?
and if so, when and where?

if I understand well, these Peqi'in did not only have blue eyes, but also pale skin, which I2 didn't have
but both were probably present in the EEF/WHG contact zone

Yes, I think that's right. It may just boil down to what alleles happened to be present in the founding population in Europe.

Sile
25-08-18, 01:40
Nonetheless, if those samples are of so much good quality and that they show genes for Blue Eyes, then the mutation appear in an ancestral population that have given ancestors to WHG, Anatolian_Nhl ( probably Anatolian Hunter Gatherers too ), and as far as the Near-East and maybe Iran. Like redhairs, it probably was already common in the finale paleolithic ( some Iberomaursian sample shows 1 or 2 genes for redhairs ) and some related population but not fixed, and over the years those related tribes expanded in west-eurasia in different tribes that have a common ancestor related to those tribes. We might never found the good pop, but transitionnal population, for exemple Paleolithic / Neolithic Anatolia could have been a transitional zone were Blue Eyes expanded without being from there originally, we might only found at some point a population ( i guess after the Neolithic ) that have multiple case of those features and that we can conclude ( this population have so much Blue Eyes genes in various individuals, that they certainly participate to his modern prevalence ).

Other papers also state that the blue eyes did not come from Ukraine/Russian areas

bicicleur
25-08-18, 07:30
Yes, I think that's right. It may just boil down to what alleles happened to be present in the founding population in Europe.

I believe that I2 had contact with the proto-Anatolian G2a 15 ka prior to the Villabruna expansion, somewhere around the Aegean Sea (maybe the Franchthi Cave). They learned about geometric microliths and the bow and arrow prior to their expansion, which wllready existed in the Levant (Kebaran) and in the Zagros Mts (Zarzian). Though their was an exchange in knowledge, DNA excahnge remained rather limited.

The Hamburg culture reindeer hunters (17.5-15.1 ka) were Magdalenian derived (El Miron cluster people), they hunted with the atlatl and had epigravettian-like tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_culture
They were replaced by the Ahrensburg reindeer hunters (14.9-13.7 ka) with bow and arrow. They were Villabruna cluster people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture#Stellmoor


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

Obsidian from the island of Melos appears at Franchthi as early as 13,000 BCE, offering the earliest evidence of seafaring and navigational skills by anatomically modern humans in Greece.[10]

that was 15 ka, and not only obsidian arrived there, also seeds from Anatolia

bicicleur
25-08-18, 07:44
the Hensbacka group were successors of the Ahrensburg reindeer hunters who became seal hunters and fishers and moved up north along the fjords of Norway reaching the North Cape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture#Scandinavia,_Hensbacka_group
in North Cape they mixed with EHG from Karelia, this mixture formed the SHG
they were I2, but not darkhaired and darkskinned any more, they were blond and pale skinned,
but back in southern Scandinavia and northern Poland their DNA got diluted with more darkhaired and darkskinned WHG
their story is told in the Günther 2017 paper : http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703

O Neill
25-08-18, 08:27
So this 50% at 7 ka, In the levent seems to have dropped to 0% after about 3 ka.
Is that correct ? Would you expect then that we might find Similar for greece and turkey ?

That's troy in turkey dead and buried then, the story was imported to greece from somewhere were blonde people still lived in 1200 bc.

bicicleur
25-08-18, 08:49
So this 50% at 7 ka, In the levent seems to have dropped to 0% after about 3 ka.
Is that correct ? Would you expect then that we might find Similar for greece and turkey ?

That's troy in turkey dead and buried then, the story was imported to greece from somewhere were blonde people still lived in 1200 bc.

blond hair in SHG may have died out, but there were other areas where blond hair existed

one of them is the EHG area

and I'm not sure, but wasn't there some blond hair in the Mal'ta and Afantova Gora area?
they didn't take it along to America, for sure

halfalp
25-08-18, 13:17
blond hair in SHG may have died out, but there were other areas where blond hair existed

one of them is the EHG area

and I'm not sure, but wasn't there some blond hair in the Mal'ta and Afantova Gora area?
they didn't take it along to America, for sure

I think AG 2 or 3 had some genes for Blonde Hairs.

halfalp
25-08-18, 13:20
Other papers also state that the blue eyes did not come from Ukraine/Russian areas

We probably never know from where they came. Cheddar Man had Blue Eyes and Levantine Chalcolithic too, they probably have a common denominator, so we can roughly say that Blue Eyes emerged in Western Eurasia.

halfalp
25-08-18, 13:29
Just to put things in perspective, one of the 30'000 years old Kostenki had some genes for Red Hairs, as one woman from Iberomaurusian. The difference in time frame and in geography is pretty huge, and they probably had a common denominator. If we apply the same for Blue Eyes, it's pretty likely that Blue Eyed individuals were already leaving in all Western Eurasia in the Neolithic times and that they lost it at different place because of natural selection. Now, one thing to take in mind is, why is Blue Eyes positively selected in Cold Countries ( over the 45° parallel north ) and negatively South of it. The only explication is that, North, the populations might have more % of it to be positively selected but south ( the Levante ) constent melting with other populations without the genes, make it really recessive. This make more sense than positively selected because of climate variations. So taking that, we might assume that Blue Eyed people were more common north of the 45° parallel than south of it.

MOESAN
25-08-18, 14:19
Halfalp,
- more than a mutation produced fair eyes and red hairs - for red hairs it seems the countries where they are found today at high %'s are the ones which cumulated at least three of these mutations: uneasy to explain by the number of mutations because if a pop with "mute1" at 20% cross with a pop with "mute2" at 20% too, the final result will be 20% of total mutations, not 40%! But what is clear is that at first sight there is no unique ethnic or geographic origin for these mutations; we can only imagine hazard or natural selection to explain the today differences -
- it's admitted that a rare mutation (in %) in a pop will be exposed to more risk of disparition. That said I think that over 10%, this mutation will not disappear, if the pop is big enough (mathematicians could have their word here).
- but I red in a study about red hairs, freckles, light skin, skin moles and blue eyes among European Australians that some blue eye mutation seems linked with fair hair and lightER skin (lighter than the already roughly light skin of basic modern Europoids): it could be that a natural selection on skin could act to on blue eyes in these cases.
But this aspect in its details concerns more anthropologic threads than this very one, even if this surprisingly high % of light eyes in Levant could have some historic implications.

Angela
25-08-18, 17:53
the Hensbacka group were successors of the Ahrensburg reindeer hunters who became seal hunters and fishers and moved up north along the fjords of Norway reaching the North Cape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture#Scandinavia,_Hensbacka_group
in North Cape they mixed with EHG from Karelia, this mixture formed the SHG
they were I2, but not darkhaired and darkskinned any more, they were blond and pale skinned,
but back in southern Scandinavia and northern Poland their DNA got diluted with more darkhaired and darkskinned WHG
their story is told in the Günther 2017 paper : http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703

It wasn't a clean "sweep" for the de-pigmentation genes yet, however. If you look back at the Hofmanova et al chart you can see that there was still variation. Perhaps because they were relatively recently admixed?

As to the Villabruna group, I don't think there's clear evidence yet whether they were originally in southeastern Europe or Anatolia. The Reich group seems to be on the fence about it. Or maybe they were related groups.

The earlier paper on the emergence of blue eyes places it somewhere around the Caucasus. That's probably off, given that the CHG were darker and J1 and J2 probably brought some of the darker alleles to the Levant, but somewhere around Anatolia makes sense to me. That might put it in the people who moved into Europe long before the Neolithic.

For the blue eye snp the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there's no clear "advantage" for selection to operate upon. Of course, there may be something in the background haplotype which is advantageous in certain situations having nothing to do with iris pigmentation per se. There's also sexual selection. You never know what traits are going to "appeal" to certain groups. In some African groups they killed albinos. In other areas perhaps they thought blue eyes were "godly" given it's the color of the sky.

Blonde hair too has no clear "advantage" environmentally in cold climates, otherwise we wouldn't have Solomon Islanders who look like this.
http://www.tyden.cz/obrazek/201205/4fa78b2b711b6/crop-202196-blond1.jpg

It would be interesting to know if the same snp is involved or if it's congruent evolution. At any rate it brings into doubt in my mind that blonde hair results from a combination of snps.

halfalp
25-08-18, 22:30
Halfalp,
- more than a mutation produced fair eyes and red hairs - for red hairs it seems the countries where they are found today at high %'s are the ones which cumulated at least three of these mutations: uneasy to explain by the number of mutations because if a pop with "mute1" at 20% cross with a pop with "mute2" at 20% too, the final result will be 20% of total mutations, not 40%! But what is clear is that at first sight there is no unique ethnic or geographic origin for these mutations; we can only imagine hazard or natural selection to explain the today differences -
- it's admitted that a rare mutation (in %) in a pop will be exposed to more risk of disparition. That said I think that over 10%, this mutation will not disappear, if the pop is big enough (mathematicians could have their word here).
- but I red in a study about red hairs, freckles, light skin, skin moles and blue eyes among European Australians that some blue eye mutation seems linked with fair hair and lightER skin (lighter than the already roughly light skin of basic modern Europoids): it could be that a natural selection on skin could act to on blue eyes in these cases.
But this aspect in its details concerns more anthropologic threads than this very one, even if this surprisingly high % of light eyes in Levant could have some historic implications.

I dont really believe into Multiregional Hypothesis. For exemple whatever the numbers of genes or mutations applied in a characteristic, i'm pretty sure at some point it evolved in a related group. All seeds coming from the same place of some sort. We have more and more DNA and Samples, from Sapiens but also from Neanderthals and Denisovans, one day maybe we gonna have a blue eyed denisovan individual and that gonna ****** up everything we believed. About those Levantine, there is obviously some historical implications into their phenotypical characteristics, but the source pop can be pretty hard to found, but we can say something for sure WHG - SHG - EHG - Anatolian_Nhl - Natufians - Levante_Chl and CHG all have a common ancestor at some point and probably have constant gene flow from each other through indirect or direct link. Fair Features are found in all those genetic cluster at some point wich can only be explain by a common ancestor or constant gene flow from each other.

ToBeOrNotToBe
26-08-18, 14:53
It wasn't a clean "sweep" for the de-pigmentation genes yet, however. If you look back at the Hofmanova et al chart you can see that there was still variation. Perhaps because they were relatively recently admixed?

As to the Villabruna group, I don't think there's clear evidence yet whether they were originally in southeastern Europe or Anatolia. The Reich group seems to be on the fence about it. Or maybe they were related groups.

The earlier paper on the emergence of blue eyes places it somewhere around the Caucasus. That's probably off, given that the CHG were darker and J1 and J2 probably brought some of the darker alleles to the Levant, but somewhere around Anatolia makes sense to me. That might put it in the people who moved into Europe long before the Neolithic.

For the blue eye snp the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there's no clear "advantage" for selection to operate upon. Of course, there may be something in the background haplotype which is advantageous in certain situations having nothing to do with iris pigmentation per se. There's also sexual selection. You never know what traits are going to "appeal" to certain groups. In some African groups they killed albinos. In other areas perhaps they thought blue eyes were "godly" given it's the color of the sky.

Blonde hair too has no clear "advantage" environmentally in cold climates, otherwise we wouldn't have Solomon Islanders who look like this.
http://www.tyden.cz/obrazek/201205/4fa78b2b711b6/crop-202196-blond1.jpg

It would be interesting to know if the same snp is involved or if it's congruent evolution. At any rate it brings into doubt in my mind that blonde hair results from a combination of snps.

It's extremely likely blondism is from sexual selection during periods where the gene pool is extremely small (in Northern Europe, something like bad weather and temperatures leading to sustained extremely low populations). Same for blue eyes.

bicicleur
27-08-18, 13:05
It wasn't a clean "sweep" for the de-pigmentation genes yet, however. If you look back at the Hofmanova et al chart you can see that there was still variation. Perhaps because they were relatively recently admixed?
As to the Villabruna group, I don't think there's clear evidence yet whether they were originally in southeastern Europe or Anatolia. The Reich group seems to be on the fence about it. Or maybe they were related groups.
The earlier paper on the emergence of blue eyes places it somewhere around the Caucasus. That's probably off, given that the CHG were darker and J1 and J2 probably brought some of the darker alleles to the Levant, but somewhere around Anatolia makes sense to me. That might put it in the people who moved into Europe long before the Neolithic.
For the blue eye snp the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there's no clear "advantage" for selection to operate upon. Of course, there may be something in the background haplotype which is advantageous in certain situations having nothing to do with iris pigmentation per se. There's also sexual selection. You never know what traits are going to "appeal" to certain groups. In some African groups they killed albinos. In other areas perhaps they thought blue eyes were "godly" given it's the color of the sky.
Blonde hair too has no clear "advantage" environmentally in cold climates, otherwise we wouldn't have Solomon Islanders who look like this.
http://www.tyden.cz/obrazek/201205/4fa78b2b711b6/crop-202196-blond1.jpg
It would be interesting to know if the same snp is involved or if it's congruent evolution. At any rate it brings into doubt in my mind that blonde hair results from a combination of snps.
I don't believe in sexual selection causing selective sweeps.
Very often healthy exotic looking men or women have more appeal than locals, especially when all locals look the same.

The fact that blond hair sometimes occurs in warm climates doesn't disprove blond hair can have advantages in cold climates.

Ailchu
27-08-18, 19:02
our biology teacher back in school once said that he always had to turn up the light on the students microscope when a student with light eyes called him for help during microscopy class because the picture was too dark for him. and he had the theory that this was because his eyes were dark brown.

Angela
27-08-18, 19:15
I don't believe in sexual selection causing selective sweeps.
Very often healthy exotic looking men or women have more appeal than locals, especially when all locals look the same.

The fact that blond hair sometimes occurs in warm climates doesn't disprove blond hair can have advantages in cold climates.

You're right about that.

As for selective advantage for blonde hair and blue eyes it might be, as Ailchu alludes to, that we just don't know enough yet about the kinds of selective advantage they might offer in certain climates, or, for that matter whether it is something in the background haplotype which is under selection.

berun
27-08-18, 19:50
just a thought from empirical experience, if blue eyes and fair skin consume less proteins than brown eyes and brown skin, in regions devoid of sun the evolution will push for fair colours if it means that with less effort it's able to keep a body in good conditions.

By the way as usual all posts tend to end with IE (Aryans) or blue eyes and fair skin... so that sometimes I think that this forum is for white supremacists... I'm just confused uh?

Ailchu
27-08-18, 20:20
those proteins that would be gained are minimal. i doubt that this has any effect on selection. also the recessive genes often still get expressed into protein but they simpyl dont work.

also the reason why it ended with fair skin and blue eyes is probably because this trait got the attention of the people who wrote the paper. as always those things have only the value you give them. ask yourself the question why scientist are looking at these features and not at other interesting genes.

Angela
27-08-18, 20:34
@Ailchu and Berun,

I find that as a general rule it's not wise to make generalizations when one hasn't read many, if any, of the papers being discussed.

Clearly you have not read many of these papers, including this one. To wit:

"We leveraged our data to examine the change in frequency of SNP alleles known to be related to metabolism, pigmentation, disease susceptibility, immunity, and inflammation in the Levant_ChL population, considered in relation to allele frequencies in the Levant_N, Levant_BA_North, Levant_BA_South, Anatolia_N and Iran_ChL populations and present-day pools of African (AFR), East Asian (EAS), and European (EUR) ancestry in the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 dataset39 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR39) (Supplementary Data 7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#MOESM9))."

You might also want to take a look at Mathiesen et al, for example, which looks at any number of traits under selection. Lactase tolerance and selection on the FADS gene are merely two examples.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

It's true, of course, that, being human, we're interested to know what these various groups of people looked like. There's also the fact that for something like lactase tolerance and many other traits, the selective advantage is apparent. For pigmentation, everything is more obscure.

Personally, much of what I find myself doing is combatting Nordicists spouting fantasy or deliberate misinformation on this topic in case you haven't noticed.

Ygorcs
27-08-18, 22:48
So this 50% at 7 ka, In the levent seems to have dropped to 0% after about 3 ka.
Is that correct ? Would you expect then that we might find Similar for greece and turkey ?

That's troy in turkey dead and buried then, the story was imported to greece from somewhere were blonde people still lived in 1200 bc.

The ~49% percentage is for blue eyes, not blonde hair. It were the decidedly Indo-European and European Mycenaean Greeks that destroyed Troy on their own hands, so it's unlikely the West Asians by then were much more light-haired and light-eyed than the Europeans. There was a huge gap of more than 2000 years between these Chalcolithic Levant samples and 1200 BC, and the Bronze Age Anatolian and Levantine DNA are not significantly blonde nor light-eyed.

Besides, you're wrong when you assume a 0% percentage for light eyes in West Asia. Though a minority, a decidedly non-negligible proportion of people in modern Turkey, North Syria, Lebanon and North Iraq have light eyes and even, though a smaller minority, blonde hair. The percentage of light eyes (blue, green, grey etc.) is usually in the range of 10% to 20% and at the very least 5%-10%, not near 0% at all.

Finally, you guys just cannot presume that the AVERAGE proportin of blue eyes in the Chalcolithic Levant was as high as the ~49% found among people living in one specific location, around Peqi'in Cave. That higher percentage could have been found in one specific community, but not elsewhere in the region. The scholars themselves indicate that when they point out that the individuals they analyzed had a very strong genetic homogeneity, which suggests a common recent origin (so we may be dealing with the result of earlier founder effects there), and when they also posit that the BA Levant_South sample probably also derives part of their ancestry from a Chalcolithic Levant source, but one that hadn't been affected by the Anatolian_Neolithic expansion.

https://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploads/5/3/5/6/5356442/533478686.png

halfalp
28-08-18, 14:07
So i know talking about prehistoric climate is not very relevant, but what's interesting is that actual Peki'in Cave is located in Galilee, a place with high rainfalls and a certain temperate and cold mountainous climate in comparison of the more Mediterraenean Climate in surrounding regions. Wonder if such climate could have play a role in fair features selection, but as i said i tend to not believe that climate is that relevant.

Philjames100
24-09-18, 02:53
“Wouldn't T1a1a in this period likely be males from Anatolia or Europe?”

“26 % Anatolia N, blue eyes and copper metallurgie
could there be some connection with Vinca?“


How about the Varna culture? Haplogroup T has been found in chalcolithic Bulgaria, including in the elite male burial at the Varna cemetery, the richest grave anywhere in the world in that period. The Varna culture seems to have invented gold metallurgy, and it was certainly the first major gold-working centre in the world. They also used the lost-wax technique. Around the time that these blue-eyed people arrived in Israel from the north, gold metallurgy and the lost-wax technique also appeared there. Varna and Israel were apparently the only places doing anything equivalent at the time.

These people might also have gone into Egypt, as blue-eyed figurines then appear in the Naqada culture, one of which is made from gold. Then of course there are the blue-eyed statues from the Old Kingdom period.

bigblob
23-12-18, 09:14
Why do people on this site find blue eyes so surprising? Didn't the ancient Sumerians portray their people with fair skin and blue eyes?
https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancientpages.com%2 Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Fblueeyessumer.jpg&sp=35ac7e5e95616634d9a6666823e82c3e

bigblob
23-12-18, 09:19
Ancient Egyptians also portrayed their earlier dynasty people with blue eyes. Seeing ancient Egyptians were mostly Middle Eastern in origin, its likely the same blue eyed fair skin people migrated from Israel into Egypt:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/e3/70/76e370b143ee7bcb3a08bbc905f182a6.jpg

markod
23-12-18, 11:44
I think the reason for this was mainly that lapis lazuli held some type of cultic significance for early Middle Easterners. Blue eyes probably weren't common by the time the early civilizations emerged.

halfalp
23-12-18, 11:52
I think the reason for this was mainly that lapis lazuli held some type of cultic significance for early Middle Easterners. Blue eyes probably weren't common by the time the early civilizations emerged.

We kind of have the idea that blue eyes in Europe were intensively research and sexually selected. If they were common in Middle-East i dont understand why this process would not be the same? Especially looking at those statues. But, prehistoric Middle-East is a little weird. We have fair skinned Natufians and fair skinned and blue eyed Chalcolithic people. Semitic peoples clearly seems to came from Caucasus / South Caucasus, at least in term of their y-dna lineages, a place were fair skinned and maybe blue eyed people were highly present and Anatolia was also source of fair skinned people, maybe even with blonde hairs and blue eyes. Conclusion, did Middle-East at some point was replaced by Iranian or African ( maybe North African ) people that weren't that fair? I have hard time to believe those fair traits were replaced by themselves because of latitudes.

Angela
23-12-18, 16:17
These snps are highly susceptible to selection. It's the same reason why Horners are so dark skinned despite being sometimes close to 40% West Eurasian, and why SLC24A5 swept to reasonably high levels in the San in the last 2000 years. (They live in a part of Africa that gets less of the sun's rays than people like Nigerians or the Horn, which are closer to the equator.)

I know some Europeans find this hard to accept, but it is what it is.

Sile
23-12-18, 19:05
We kind of have the idea that blue eyes in Europe were intensively research and sexually selected. If they were common in Middle-East i dont understand why this process would not be the same? Especially looking at those statues. But, prehistoric Middle-East is a little weird. We have fair skinned Natufians and fair skinned and blue eyed Chalcolithic people. Semitic peoples clearly seems to came from Caucasus / South Caucasus, at least in term of their y-dna lineages, a place were fair skinned and maybe blue eyed people were highly present and Anatolia was also source of fair skinned people, maybe even with blonde hairs and blue eyes. Conclusion, did Middle-East at some point was replaced by Iranian or African ( maybe North African ) people that weren't that fair? I have hard time to believe those fair traits were replaced by themselves because of latitudes.
Not all the middle-east is or was semetic, one needs to be more precise, apart from african areas, the semetic areas is the arabian peninsula and the levant and the levant became semetic after the Chalcolithic period.
Anatolia, south caucasus and mostly everything north of the zargos mountains was not semetic
proto-semetic ( apart from the horn area of africa ) was only southern arabian peninsula .
.
problem is that the term middle-east covers different lands for different scholars/people

halfalp
23-12-18, 20:32
These snps are highly susceptible to selection. It's the same reason why Horners are so dark skinned despite being sometimes close to 40% West Eurasian, and why SLC24A5 swept to reasonably high levels in the San in the last 2000 years. (They live in a part of Africa that gets less of the sun's rays than people like Nigerians or the Horn, which are closer to the equator.)

I know some Europeans find this hard to accept, but it is what it is.

Are you saying that human gonna develop SLC24A5 only by being away for sun? Without any founder effect?

Angela
23-12-18, 20:55
Are you saying that human gonna develop SLC24A5 only by being away for sun? Without any founder effect?

No, I'm not. The San, for example, initially got it from West Eurasian genes that trickled down from the Horn. That's how evolution works: it operates on standing variation. On the other hand, some group first had to get the mutation. My bet is somewhere in the Near East. They sure didn't have it in Western Europe (WHG).

That mutation isn't going to make someone "European" fair, of course. That's clear. Pigmentation is the result of many genes working together. Still, it's a big driver of de-pigmentation. Look at the San compared to Nigerians.

halfalp
23-12-18, 22:23
No, I'm not. The San, for example, initially got it from West Eurasian genes that trickled down from the Horn. That's how evolution works: it operates on standing variation. On the other hand, some group first had to get the mutation. My bet is somewhere in the Near East. They sure didn't have it in Western Europe (WHG).

That mutation isn't going to make someone "European" fair, of course. That's clear. Pigmentation is the result of many genes working together. Still, it's a big driver of de-pigmentation. Look at the San compared to Nigerians.

But that's what i was saying somehow. How if prehistoric Middle-Easterner seens Natufians have genes for Fair Skin and maybe even Blue Eyes and more. Why in modern times it's not anymore the case? More than just regional selection due of climate, there must have been a demic increase that makes those features disappear. Now Eastern African could have been suffer the same exemple with being at some point very " middle-eastern " and got an increase of sub-saharian gene that make them lose their features, but maybe not the genes themselves. Now we know that prehistoric Iranians were more " dark " than middle-easterners of the same time and for North Africans, we dont really know a part of Iberomaurusians call from Genetiker. But certainly that one of them, or both made Fair Features more scarce than at some point.

markod
24-12-18, 03:38
But that's what i was saying somehow. How if prehistoric Middle-Easterner seens Natufians have genes for Fair Skin and maybe even Blue Eyes and more. Why in modern times it's not anymore the case? More than just regional selection due of climate, there must have been a demic increase that makes those features disappear. Now Eastern African could have been suffer the same exemple with being at some point very " middle-eastern " and got an increase of sub-saharian gene that make them lose their features, but maybe not the genes themselves. Now we know that prehistoric Iranians were more " dark " than middle-easterners of the same time and for North Africans, we dont really know a part of Iberomaurusians call from Genetiker. But certainly that one of them, or both made Fair Features more scarce than at some point.

There's definitely additional North African ancestry in present day Middle Easterners, and Egyptians seem to be the best proxy for now. It's more pronounced in Palestinian Bedouins than in, for example, Saudis or Syrians so it probably came through the Sinai.

I'd guess this has to do with the dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages, but I'm not sure how big the impact was and whether it made the people less lightly pigmented. Looking at Negev Bedouins they still seem to have a different look than Syrians or settled Palestinians - overall darker and more long-headed/long-faced.

halfalp
24-12-18, 09:22
There's definitely additional North African ancestry in present day Middle Easterners, and Egyptians seem to be the best proxy for now. It's more pronounced in Palestinian Bedouins than in, for example, Saudis or Syrians so it probably came through the Sinai.

I'd guess this has to do with the dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages, but I'm not sure how big the impact was and whether it made the people less lightly pigmented. Looking at Negev Bedouins they still seem to have a different look than Syrians or settled Palestinians - overall darker and more long-headed/long-faced.

I can see that a lot of Neguev Bedouins have the same physical traits than Maghrebians, but that a part. I think at the time semitic languages were already in the middle-east ( 3000 BC ), we would not found any additional African ancestry in them, so i'm not sure about the fact that Afro-Asiatic languages came from Africa at this point.

Lenab
24-12-18, 18:46
Ancient Egyptians also portrayed their earlier dynasty people with blue eyes. Seeing ancient Egyptians were mostly Middle Eastern in origin, its likely the same blue eyed fair skin people migrated from Israel into Egypt:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/e3/70/76e370b143ee7bcb3a08bbc905f182a6.jpg
The ancient Egyptians' ''European'' Dynasties were sometimes made up of ancient Greeks actually or general sea peoples a blue eyed mutation has been recorded around the Black sea I suggest you look that up. All ancient Egyptians in some of those photos?

And yes the ancient Mesopotamian ancient Egyptians were all a similar peoples from the Fertile Cresent they got obliterated during the Iron Age. But I suggest you take ''all the ancients had blue eyes '' to some kind of Nordicist BNP type website, as that's based on falsehood, sorry.

The Indo Europeans had a specific description being blue eyed wasn't one of them

Lenab
24-12-18, 18:51
Not all the middle-east is or was semetic, one needs to be more precise, apart from african areas, the semetic areas is the arabian peninsula and the levant and the levant became semetic after the Chalcolithic period.
Anatolia, south caucasus and mostly everything north of the zargos mountains was not semetic
proto-semetic ( apart from the horn area of africa ) was only southern arabian peninsula .
.
problem is that the term middle-east covers different lands for different scholars/people
Levant became Semitic after the Iron Age everywhere in the Near East / Middle East became Semitic after the Iron Age.

Lenab
24-12-18, 18:54
For all the other stuff no, Near Easterners Turks Armenians Levantines whatever you want do not have significant ''North African admixture'' what they have is a significant Red Sea admixture well Levantines have it people of the Caucasus don't as much. Because they are coastal Pre Historic people and also because when the great flood of Sumer happened these people left Anatolia and the Levant and settled along the Red Sea coast which is now modern day ''Red Sea'' of Egypt they were probably most similar to the Hittites racially. I did have an article about the connection to the early Phoenicians and Hittites it must be online, somewhere.

bigblob
28-12-18, 11:03
This bullshit that ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt could not possibly have had blue eyes needs to end:

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

bigblob
28-12-18, 11:11
EASPECIALLY FOR LENAB. Where did all the light skin, blue eyed blondes in Asia originate????

Thats right, they ORIGINATED FROM THE INDO-EUROPEAN ANDRONOVA CULTURE:

The Indo-Europeans migrated Europe and encountered the Blonde, blue eyed hunter - gatherers in Central Europe. The descendants of the this admixture migrated Asia

Now you know why so many Asians have blonde hair and blue eyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia

Blonde blue eyed Asians originating from the INDO-EUROPEANS:
https://sites.google.com/site/kiterunner3rd/_/rsrc/1355249510957/pashtuns/afghan10.jpg?height=272&width=320

bigblob
28-12-18, 11:18
Ancient Egyptians originated from the LEVANT as proven by ancient DNA:

DNA taken from 4000 year old mummy shows he was related to some Southern Europeans, Lebanese and the later Middle Eastern in origin, Abusir el Meleq mummies:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm



https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm

bigblob
28-12-18, 11:32
The first peoples to speak the Semite language were the Akkadians, who predate the Iron Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire

MOESAN
28-12-18, 20:43
This bullshit that ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt could not possibly have had blue eyes needs to end:

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

If I red well, the concerned survey speaks of 22 persons, whose 49% would have had blue eyes, spite it's said with some caution - so, yes, at some stage of history, there had been blue eyed people among the Near-Easterners. But we cannot base ourself upon this survey to affirm this percentage was common all over Near East: it would be conter-intuitive. Concerning I-Eans and "blond-blue", caution here again. It seems the regions where super-lightening of pigmentation occurred at respectable level were around Northern Ukraina (someof CWC), Central-North Europe (see GAC & SHG), before further densification of fair pigmentation all around the Eastern Baltic - the link with I-Ean was very tiny, it begun rather at the jonction of eastern Neolithic farmers and north-eastern HG's. It's only later that some I-Ean tribe became dominantly fair pigmented. And please, post adults pictures as examples, not children.
SO I agree, but with reserve.

halfalp
29-12-18, 18:56
Yamnaya and Middle-East could have been " repigmented " afterwards by migrations. Typically Yamnaya had mostly Caucasian women that could have over the years lower the amount of fair features into the general population. Such case can be confirmed by the fact that Yamnaya_Samara seems not to be fair featured, while Early Samara individuals might have been fair features for some part. Prehistorc Middle-Easterners could have been mostly like Prehistoric Eastern Europeans until they got an Iranian or African input that made them more " dark ". You can see this even today with modern Europeans, that can have desactivated genes for Blue Eyes or Fair Hairs but not have it. Or having pretty dark complexion like almost Olive skin but still have the genes for fair skins.

johen
29-12-18, 21:34
EASPECIALLY FOR LENAB. Where did all the light skin, blue eyed blondes in Asia originate????

Thats right, they ORIGINATED FROM THE INDO-EUROPEAN ANDRONOVA CULTURE:

The Indo-Europeans migrated Europe and encountered the Blonde, blue eyed hunter - gatherers in Central Europe. The descendants of the this admixture migrated Asia

Now you know why so many Asians have blonde hair and blue eyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia

Blonde blue eyed Asians originating from the INDO-EUROPEANS:
https://sites.google.com/site/kiterunner3rd/_/rsrc/1355249510957/pashtuns/afghan10.jpg?height=272&width=320

I think the blue eye and red hair slowly happened by a collision of East and west eurasian genes. It can be explained by the genetic fact that two major genes are responsible for blue eye color: HERC2 and OCA2. And also red hair appeared for the first time in ANE AG3.
For a long time, I have quoted russian anthropologist opinions that ancient people from mesolithic to neolithic (even iron age, now modern times of ural people) were intermediate living in the zone of east europ to the altai. Russian anthropologists still don’t know why the ancient people and modern ural people are intermediate. I think it is so simple that they were mixed with east and west gens since ANE age, being segregated and developed independently as a difference race. And their amalgamation could gradually create the blue eye and red hair in the zone from east europe to altai.
Especially red hair genes were found in AG3 to east hunter gatherer. Scythian also had red hairs, and the highest red hair frequency zone is now in Udmurt. Thus, I think such a long time red hair could be existed from altai to east europe of intermediate people before east asian appeared in iron age.

Now it is very important the fact of whether the WSHG had blue eyes and red hair but still no result?. There is a possibility that WSHG would enter Sumer with blue eye gene, altai words and altai wrestling culture ( or maybe recent neolithic Q1b did, becoming an ancestor of Abraham in Ur? ). We have already known that lake baikal pottery in Hottu cave and WSHG entered IVC.

MOESAN
30-12-18, 21:53
@Johen:
to date, I know NO pop with majority of red hairs, the maxi's being in NW Ireland, W Scotland and Udmurt - (surely because among red haired people, a lot have some other problems concerning health and this colour as a whole has not been favoured too much during history, spite the story about Ramses II and his "clan").
I doubt WSHG would have been light pigmented for hair and eyes at a high % -
The light pigmentation is present, not at an exclusive level, among the West Uralic and IE pops : as the features seemingly 'eastasian' increase in the pops of Urals and Siberia, the light pigmentation of eyes/hair decreases. So maybe the partly 'eastasian' or maybe undifferentiated north-eurasian (ANElike) pop knew a mutation concerning hairs, but it doesn't seem this mutation gained much ground in it. I repeat more than a mutation causes red hairs as well as blond hairs and beside this, Udmurt have more 'caucasoid' input than 'eastasian'.

halfalp
31-12-18, 02:14
@Johen:
to date, I know NO pop with majority of red hairs, the maxi's being in NW Ireland, W Scotland and Udmurt - (surely because among red haired people, a lot have some other problems concerning health and this colour as a whole has not been favoured too much during history, spite the story about Ramses II and his "clan").
I doubt WSHG would have been light pigmented for hair and eyes at a high % -
The light pigmentation is present, not at an exclusive level, among the West Uralic and IE pops : as the features seemingly 'eastasian' increase in the pops of Urals and Siberia, the light pigmentation of eyes/hair decreases. So maybe the partly 'eastasian' or maybe undifferentiated north-eurasian (ANElike) pop knew a mutation concerning hairs, but it doesn't seem this mutation gained much ground in it. I repeat more than a mutation causes red hairs as well as blond hairs and beside this, Udmurt have more 'caucasoid' input than 'eastasian'.

Do we even have a study for Ramses 2 that confirms snp's for red hairs? The guy is dead at 91 years old with red hairs? ( Unlikely ). It shouldn't even be a real thing at this point...

Angela
31-12-18, 18:56
Do we even have a study for Ramses 2 that confirms snp's for red hairs? The guy is dead at 91 years old with red hairs? ( Unlikely ). It shouldn't even be a real thing at this point...

Sense at last.

MOESAN
04-01-19, 20:33
What I found in Wiki, whatever the genetic confirmation:
. Professor Ceccaldi determined that: "Hair, astonishingly preserved, showed some complementary dataespecially about pigmentation: Ramses II was a ginger haired (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redhead) 'cymnotriche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymotrichous) leucoderma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukoderma)'." The description given here refers to a fair-skinned person with wavy ginger hair.[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-73)[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-74) Subsequent microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramesses II's hair proved that the king's hair originally was red, which suggests that he came from a family of redheads.[75] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-75) This has more than just cosmetic significance: in ancient Egypt people with red hair were associated with the deity Set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(deity)), the slayer of Osiris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris), and the name of Ramesses II's father, Seti I, means "follower of Seth."[76] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-76) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Ramesses_II_mummy_in_profile_%28colored_picture%29 .jpg/220px-Ramesses_II_mummy_in_profile_%28colored_picture%29 .jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ramesses_II_mummy_in_profile_(colored_picture ).jpg)

Mummy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy) of Ramesses II


During the examination, scientific analysis revealed battle wounds, old fractures, arthritis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthritis), and poor circulation.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Ramesses II's arthritis is believed to have made him walk with a hunched back for the last decades of his life.[77] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-77) A recent study excluded ankylosing spondylitis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis) as a possible cause.[78] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-78) A significant hole in the pharaoh's mandible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandible) was detected. Researchers observed "an abscess by his teeth (which) was serious enough to have caused death by infection, although this cannot be determined with certainty".

Angela
04-01-19, 22:11
As for his red hair:

Indeed, no old man would have hair that color.

"White at the time of death, and possibly auburn during life, they have been dyed a light red by the spices (henna) used in embalming...the moustache and beard are thin...The hairs are white, like those of the head and eyebrows...the skin is of earthy brown, splotched with black... the face of the mummy gives a fair idea of the face of the living king."[68] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-68)[69] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-69)"

In one sentence it says that: "Subsequent microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramesses II's hair proved that the king's hair originally was red, which suggests that he came from a family of redheads.[75] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-75)"

That is a book to which I can't get access.

It's possible, I suppose, but I'd like to see the examination done again, and I'd like to see some snps.

Alyan
05-01-19, 00:01
Ramesses II was a New Kingdom pharaoh. Noticeably late in Egyptian history. You'll need to find First Intermediate and earlier samples with such hair to support a claim of red hair being indigenous to Egypt. Especially when one Pontus Skoglund has expressed interest in testing within the the time period of Predynastic to First Intermediate.

MOESAN
05-01-19, 00:39
about Ramses II you say
"It's possible, I suppose, but I'd like to see the examination done again, and I'd like to see some snps."


I 'm tempted to have the same caution, so many affirmations have been made about ancient people's hair colour or other traits; I red some time ago (but I don't find the link again) a surely old enough anthropologic study about pharaons or other Egyptian mummies where "appeared" some diverse brown not black haired people, without genetic analysis; not impossible, not proved at the genetic level (of course); + as already said, the fact that Egypt has been ruled by more than an ethny.

MOESAN
05-01-19, 00:49
one can google:
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HAIR AND WIGS
Joann Fletcher

But it's still non-genetic at first sight

MOESAN
05-01-19, 00:57
one can google:
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HAIR AND WIGS
Joann Fletcher

But it's still non-genetic at first sight

ToBeOrNotToBe
05-01-19, 06:56
One ancient Egyptian sample has shown red hair, as well as one ancient Jordanian sample, so I don’t see why it is so far fetched for Ramses II.

The real clincher though is that an Egyptian god was associated with red hair, and with foreigners (the god Seth). Why would an Egyptian god be associated with redheads if redheads didn’t exist in sufficient numbers? Why were redheads sometimes burnt in ancient Egypt on the accusations of being vampires, as is on record, if they barely existed? Is it a coincidence that Ramses II and his father were both associated with the same god Seth? And is it just some kind of mistake that Ramses II was determined to have natural red hair, just like another mummy called Ginger?

Occam’s razor leans in my favour here, there’s too much evidence, circumstantial and direct, needed to be explained away.

Salento
05-01-19, 07:40
Ramses II was ninety years old when he died.
He was lucky to still have some hair left, He would have been Super Lucky if his hair didn’t turn gray.
If they didn’t, Good for him, red hair or not. :)

halfalp
05-01-19, 12:37
On Wikipedia discussions i've read that:

"
C’est une falsification qui fut véhiculée par les pseudo-egyptologues francais avec l’aide de l’oréal.

La momie de Ramses II a été irradier en 1977 pour la prevenir d’une décomposition due a un champignon. C’est de la

que vient la couleur brune ou rousse, et les malins petits falsificateurs français ont voulu profiter de ca pour

le blanchir mais c’est connu maintenant, Ramses II était bel et bien Noir.

Des tests d’ADN ont longtemps prouves que ramses etait bel et bien noir avec des cheveux noirs. "

Translation: " It is a falsification that was conveyed by French pseudo-egyptologists with the help of l'oreal.

The mummy of Ramses II was irradiated in 1977 to prevent mushroom decomposition. It is

that comes the color brown or red, and the clever little French falsifiers wanted to take advantage of that for

to whiten it but it is known now, Ramses II was indeed Black.

DNA tests have long proved that ramses were indeed black with black hair. "

I didn't really found any study that shows the Blackness of Ramses II but an egyptian study from 2000's that says egyptians and not Ramses II particularly were blacks.

Also they study few times ago that shows that ancient egyptians of the new kingdom might have been more middle-eastern than african related...

Cannot have any conclusions right now.

Carlos
05-01-19, 13:35
My brother was in Egypt and he told me that there were some Nubian soldiers in Lake Nasser with very dark skin and blue eyes, but I did not worry in the least, I do not intend to die hugging an old boulder. I have seen in a documentary that that mummy had her hair dyed but still and so her hair was red in origin. On the other hand I trust L'Oreal to get the dark brown, because what sells like dark brown is black, are there people with dark brown hair in France or beyond? It is not the same dark brown as black, now I do not need it because my gray hair has been removed naturally, I do not know what has happened but they have disappeared.

halfalp
05-01-19, 16:09
My brother was in Egypt and he told me that there were some Nubian soldiers in Lake Nasser with very dark skin and blue eyes, but I did not worry in the least, I do not intend to die hugging an old boulder. I have seen in a documentary that that mummy had her hair dyed but still and so her hair was red in origin. On the other hand I trust L'Oreal to get the dark brown, because what sells like dark brown is black, are there people with dark brown hair in France or beyond? It is not the same dark brown as black, now I do not need it because my gray hair has been removed naturally, I do not know what has happened but they have disappeared.

I'm not sure about your point, but i'm Swiss with Dark Brown Hair.

MOESAN
05-01-19, 21:05
fynny posts sometimes!
@ToBeOrNotToBe:
I never deny the possibility of red hairs for Ramses II and I attached some "authorized" opinions, except genetic analysis -
@Halfalp:
the opinion of these gies about "black" Egyptians doesn't weight too much: so much complexes of inferiority!
Indeed, I doubt frankly Ramses II would have been 'black' in the sense of SAA: his bony features (skull and face at least) don't evocate any typical 'negroid' type: rather some 'mediterranean' subtype; you can lookat nasal profile, lack of strong prog=nathy, jaw form - his skin colour?: I ignore it todate! If we can find these features in SAA pops it would be among some groups of Eastern Africans (Nubie, Soudan, Ethiopia), among whom they come from the Near-Eastern/Arabic inputs IMO - NO Egyptians have not been a monoblock pop allover Egypt and allover its history: according to times and places, the rulers have been of different human stocks, from pure 'caucasoids' to 'negroids', spite no typical fully 'negroid' types have been found among them, for I know. The most of them were 'caucasoid' concerning the hair form, or in a between state for others, not too far from what we can find among North Africans of current times in some regions.
Ramses II was found with dyed hairs, which true colour was white, but blond, black and red can become white, so, where is the point of this Wiki "protester" here???
I'm a bit tired by all these blond blue eyed lost tribes of Asia, and these 'nordic' inventors and rulers-civilisators of the world and these 'black' Greeks, Celts, Germans of Diallo and Cy, and so on...
My decision is taken: I'll pour a small taste of whisky in a big glass to swallow the bitterness of life!

MOESAN
05-01-19, 21:06
"of these GUYS", sorry

Ygorcs
05-01-19, 23:49
Levant became Semitic after the Iron Age everywhere in the Near East / Middle East became Semitic after the Iron Age.

That's utter nonsense. Some of the first attested languages in the entire world, from the early to the late Bronze Age, and which were spoken in the Middle East, WERE SEMITIC, including Akkadian, Eblaite, Ugaritic and Old Canaanite.

Ygorcs
06-01-19, 00:41
This bullshit that ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt could not possibly have had blue eyes needs to end:

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

Everyone knows that Middle Eastern ancient DNA samples yielded probable results of blue-eye gene variants, but that's it. Not even in modern Scandinavia there is any entirely blue-eyed society, and certainly it's nothing but wishful thinking to think that "ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt had blue eyes". Even the very surprising Chalcolithic Israel population had 49% of blue-eyed samples. In other words, slightly more than half of them did not have blue eyes. That CA Israel population was heavily Anatolia_Neolithic and very unlike the BA Levantines, though it apparently contributed significantly to at least the Northern (Sidon) Levant population, but not to the Southern Levant population, a fact that, according to the authors of that study themselves, may also suggest that not all Chalcolithic Levantine communities was like that of the CA Israeli site, and there was strong genetic structure in that region.

A blue-eyed majority is even less likely in a place like Egypt, which going by the LBA and IA samples that have already been analyzed, were mostly Levant_Neolithic, Iranian_Neolithic and probably also a fair bit of indigenous North African (IMHO easily mistaken for Levant_Neolithic until we have more ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic North Africa) as well as a non-negligible amount of Subsaharan African ancestry - with much less ANF ancestry (which I think was associated with the spread of blue eyes - it certainly did not come with Indo-Europans, it predates their expansion). Actually some of the carefully cherry-picked Egyptian statues you've posted do not even look like they had blue-pained eyes, but maybe you see things differently from my own eyes.

To sum it up: did blue-eyed people exist in the CA and BA Middle East and North Africa? Definitely, they do exist even now. Were they a majority in most places? Almost certainly not.

Carlos
06-01-19, 00:54
halfalp I'm not sure about your point, but i'm Swiss with Dark Brown Hair.

I see it dark brown but for example in the toilets of a mall I'm light brown almost blond, have any explanation? I also had two kinds of hair, one thicker and one thinner, now at the age I'm running with the finest hair, I'm a Fox Terrier? Something similar happens? I had gray hair and they have disappeared alone.

halfalp
06-01-19, 21:55
I see it dark brown but for example in the toilets of a mall I'm light brown almost blond, have any explanation? I also had two kinds of hair, one thicker and one thinner, now at the age I'm running with the finest hair, I'm a Fox Terrier? Something similar happens? I had gray hair and they have disappeared alone.
In the sun my Hairs also are becoming goldish like Chestnut. It's maybe the genes or maybe it's the shampoo.

MOESAN
11-01-19, 16:11
the feeling of hair colour is linked to luminosity: the more light the more "light" hairs;
some rather blackish haired person under cloudy weather reveal brownish or reddish hues under sunshines, according to heredity, but the difference in luminosity products more effects on fair hairs than on dark hairs where the differences are not so striking (it's gradual, proportioned to lightness of hairs); when head hair is sticked by water BI, light doesn't go through hairs so easily and even very light hairs can seem only brown more or less light : the opposite effect.
Everybody knows that the same persone at the same time seems lighter or darker haired according to changes in light exposure.
One of the ways to devine if 'blond' hair is artificial or not is to compare persons with apparently the same hue under sunlight and in a poorly lightened environment. The dyed hairs will appear very lighter in dark environment; It seems to me this is based on more reflectance for dyed hairs and more transparency in the case of natural fair hairs.
But the same headhair bundle under the same light can change, due to glints depending on hairs curves and on hair form (cylindric, or oval section of hairs) when the head moves.
Here under, a more reliable and detailed source than me, but uneasy to read:
www.graphics.stanford.edu/papers/hair/hair-sg03final.pdf
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=2ahUKEwiwkKyN8eXfAhWC5OAKHRT4DJYQFjAGegQICRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.graphics.stanford.edu%2Fpaper s%2Fhair%2Fhair-sg03final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw34yhYqWLFLlh58lx8tdH0i)

johen
12-01-19, 06:44
@Johen:
to date, I know NO pop with majority of red hairs, the maxi's being in NW Ireland, W Scotland and Udmurt - (surely because among red haired people, a lot have some other problems concerning health and this colour as a whole has not been favoured too much during history, spite the story about Ramses II and his "clan").
I doubt WSHG would have been light pigmented for hair and eyes at a high % -
The light pigmentation is present, not at an exclusive level, among the West Uralic and IE pops : as the features seemingly 'eastasian' increase in the pops of Urals and Siberia, the light pigmentation of eyes/hair decreases. So maybe the partly 'eastasian' or maybe undifferentiated north-eurasian (ANElike) pop knew a mutation concerning hairs, but it doesn't seem this mutation gained much ground in it. I repeat more than a mutation causes red hairs as well as blond hairs and beside this, Udmurt have more 'caucasoid' input than 'eastasian'.

I think some afanasievo and okunevo people had brown hair with brown eye and blue eye also. Right?

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2017_Hollard_Tableau14.jpg


The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here).

So, we can think that so many people had lived with blonde hairs in the huge areas from lake baikal to East Europe at that time. And blue eyes was kept from afanasievo to okunevo, which means, I think, that the other local people also had the blue eye genes at the Altai. As WHG blue eyes were wiped out by farmers, blue eyes could not be produced in Europe at that time. In other words, just small slaves or andronovo people with recessive light gene could not make locals in siberia, mongolia, and south central asian people to have light eyes and light hairs, I think.

Ygorcs
12-01-19, 08:52
I think some afanasievo and okunevo people had brown hair with brown eye and blue eye also. Right?

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2017_Hollard_Tableau14.jpg



So, we can think that so many people had lived with blonde hairs in the huge areas from lake baikal to East Europe at that time. And blue eyes was kept from afanasievo to okunevo, which means, I think, that the other local people also had the blue eye genes at the Altai. As WHG blue eyes were wiped out by farmers, blue eyes could not be produced in Europe at that time. In other words, just small slaves or andronovo people with recessive light gene could not make locals in siberia, mongolia, and south central asian people to have light eyes and light hairs, I think.

WHG and blue eyes were not wiped out by the Anatolian farmers. Blue eyes actually seem to have picked up by many EEF (which, remember, was a mixture of EEF + WHG in most regions) in Neolithic Europe. GAC was overwhelmingly EEF in ancestry, and it had not just high frequency of blonde hair, but also blue eyes. Pockets of mostly WHG survived during the Early and Mid Neolithic and in the Late Neolithic there was famously a resurgence of WHG in most of Europe. The ~20-30% of WHG ancestry in some EEF areas of Europe was more than enough for the "blue eye" mutation to spread to the European farmers of Anatolian descent, and in fact blue eyes were apparently found even in 1 sample from Neolithic Anatolia itself.

As for Okunevo and Afanasevo, didn't Okunevo derive a minor part of its ancestry from the former Afanasevo (some Okunevo sample even had the same R1b clade prevalent in former Afanasevo)? I find it likely, and I remember reading something like that in the papers I've read about the Okunevo DNA findings. Afanasevo and other later Western Steppe cultural expansions could easily have lent the genes for blue eyes to peoples like Okunevo, especially since some mutations, once acquired, tend to go on with their own inner expansion as they are selected positively and/or favored by some group, without any need for a big and additional genetic input from foreigners.

halfalp
13-01-19, 09:58
I think some afanasievo and okunevo people had brown hair with brown eye and blue eye also. Right?

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2017_Hollard_Tableau14.jpg



So, we can think that so many people had lived with blonde hairs in the huge areas from lake baikal to East Europe at that time. And blue eyes was kept from afanasievo to okunevo, which means, I think, that the other local people also had the blue eye genes at the Altai. As WHG blue eyes were wiped out by farmers, blue eyes could not be produced in Europe at that time. In other words, just small slaves or andronovo people with recessive light gene could not make locals in siberia, mongolia, and south central asian people to have light eyes and light hairs, I think.

Okunevo people had clear mixing with the local Yamnaya-Afanasievo looking at their mtdna.

halfalp
13-01-19, 10:03
WHG and blue eyes were not wiped out by the Anatolian farmers. Blue eyes actually seem to have picked up by many EEF (which, remember, was a mixture of EEF + WHG in most regions) in Neolithic Europe. GAC was overwhelmingly EEF in ancestry, and it had not just high frequency of blonde hair, but also blue eyes. Pockets of mostly WHG survived during the Early and Mid Neolithic and in the Late Neolithic there was famously a resurgence of WHG in most of Europe. The ~20-30% of WHG ancestry in some EEF areas of Europe was more than enough for the "blue eye" mutation to spread to the European farmers of Anatolian descent, and in fact blue eyes were apparently found even in 1 sample from Neolithic Anatolia itself.

As for Okunevo and Afanasevo, didn't Okunevo derive a minor part of its ancestry from the former Afanasevo (some Okunevo sample even had the same R1b clade prevalent in former Afanasevo)? I find it likely, and I remember reading something like that in the papers I've read about the Okunevo DNA findings. Afanasevo and other later Western Steppe cultural expansions could easily have lent the genes for blue eyes to peoples like Okunevo, especially since some mutations, once acquired, tend to go on with their own inner expansion as they are selected positively and/or favored by some group, without any need for a big and additional genetic input from foreigners.

I'm still not sure about that. I looked at Genetiker pigmentation calls ( i know, i know ). And surprisingly Blonde haired people with Blue eyes linked with early EEF / Barcin seems to be overwhelmingly of mtdna N1a1, wich is clearly Anatolian or broadly Middle-Eastern. Blonde hairs might be older, and had different founder effects, in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Balkans ( Danubian Plain ) / Anatolia.

MOESAN
13-01-19, 16:57
I think some afanasievo and okunevo people had brown hair with brown eye and blue eye also. Right?

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/public/2017_Hollard_Tableau14.jpg



So, we can think that so many people had lived with blonde hairs in the huge areas from lake baikal to East Europe at that time. And blue eyes was kept from afanasievo to okunevo, which means, I think, that the other local people also had the blue eye genes at the Altai. As WHG blue eyes were wiped out by farmers, blue eyes could not be produced in Europe at that time. In other words, just small slaves or andronovo people with recessive light gene could not make locals in siberia, mongolia, and south central asian people to have light eyes and light hairs, I think.

I 'll not repeat the Ygorcs's arguments - just I find very light your proves here above
1- I don't know what cultures are in cause (except Okunevo, too much abbreviations)
2- I don't know what sites of these cultures are in cause (by instance, Okunevo of Tuva was for the most of 'europoid' stock, compared to other Okunevo sites, spite very far East itself
3- here the great majorities of these people here have got brown (dark) eyes
4- here the blue eyed ones are among people with Y-R1b6M269 and Y-R1a1-Z93
5- there would not be blond haired but the majority of supposed middle brown haired ones are amog Y-R1b-M269 and Y-R1a1-Z93
It's true some Y-R1 have eastern mt-DNA -but the Y-Q1a3 with intermediate eyes has mt-U - BTW the two blue eyed in Y-R1b are mt-H and mt-J, "european" -
As a whole, this table spite interesting, is very VERY too SMALL concerning some specific SNP's to make solid conclusions. So my own observations about colours and Y-haplo's in a mixed pop are without too much weight statistically.
I never know of a rather blond or rather blue eyed Mongolic pops; just someones in mixed pops with strong Slavic or proto-Iranic input whatever the past.

and "recessive"? What sense has it here? Recessive alleles can be passed from a pop A to a pop B very easily if it 's selectioned (mesologic or social-sexual pressure)
I don't know what you were trying to prove but you miss the goal, I think, with this only table. No offense.
I repeat mutations for light pigmentation could have been born in some borderline pop with weighty ANE making but the evidence today is that these mutations gave success only among rather 'europoid' pop. (I don't speak here of the blond hairs of some Australoids); the quasi lack of blond haired brown eyed people even at the individual level discards I think that the all the blue eyes mutations were born among black haired pops.

What remains possible is that a mutation light haires-light-eyes occurred among some North Central Asian pops (strong for Y-N1?) and could have had a cumulative effects with other "europoid" mutations producing what we find among Western Finns: but here again, this very speculative success occurred only in the Western parts of the Uralic world, were these ancestors mixed deeply with 'europoids' under certain same conditions.

MOESAN
13-01-19, 17:39
I'm still not sure about that. I looked at Genetiker pigmentation calls ( i know, i know ). And surprisingly Blonde haired people with Blue eyes linked with early EEF / Barcin seems to be overwhelmingly of mtdna N1a1, wich is clearly Anatolian or broadly Middle-Eastern. Blonde hairs might be older, and had different founder effects, in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Balkans ( Danubian Plain ) / Anatolia.

Where are these Genetiker pigmentation calls of Barcin and how have you the links of pigmentation with uniparental markers? (BTW I don't understand too well the Genetiker's calls in pigmentation : often it is under the form of 1/3 or 2/8 or so. (is this the number of mutated alleles on the total of verifiable pigmentation alleles ? I'm short here.
&: Y- and mt- markers in a small sample of mixed pop are not to be taken too seriously if the mixing is old enough, every kind of exchanges can have taken place. Only a big number of unchanged correlations could tell us something, and then, it could show a not completely and evenly mixed pop...

johen
13-01-19, 18:17
I 'll not repeat the Ygorcs's arguments - just I find very light your proves here above
1- I don't know what cultures are in cause (except Okunevo, too much abbreviations)
2- I don't know what sites of these cultures are in cause (by instance, Okunevo of Tuva was for the most of 'europoid' stock, compared to other Okunevo sites, spite very far East itself
3- here the great majorities of these people here have got brown (dark) eyes
4- here the blue eyed ones are among people with Y-R1b6M269 and Y-R1a1-Z93
5- there would not be blond haired but the majority of supposed middle brown haired ones are amog Y-R1b-M269 and Y-R1a1-Z93
It's true some Y-R1 have eastern mt-DNA -but the Y-Q1a3 with intermediate eyes has mt-U - BTW the two blue eyed in Y-R1b are mt-H and mt-J, "european" -
As a whole, this table spite interesting, is very VERY too SMALL concerning some specific SNP's to make solid conclusions. So my own observations about colours and Y-haplo's in a mixed pop are without too much weight statistically.
I never know of a rather blond or rather blue eyed Mongolic pops; just someones in mixed pops with strong Slavic or proto-Iranic input whatever the past.

and "recessive"? What sense has it here? Recessive alleles can be passed from a pop A to a pop B very easily if it 's selectioned (mesologic or social-sexual pressure)
I don't know what you were trying to prove but you miss the goal, I think, with this only table. No offense.
I repeat mutations for light pigmentation could have been born in some borderline pop with weighty ANE making but the evidence today is that these mutations gave success only among rather 'europoid' pop. (I don't speak here of the blond hairs of some Australoids); the quasi lack of blond haired brown eyed people even at the individual level discards I think that the all the blue eyes mutations were born among black haired pops.

What remains possible is that a mutation light haires-light-eyes occurred among some North Central Asian pops (strong for Y-N1?) and could have had a cumulative effects with other "europoid" mutations producing what we find among Western Finns: but here again, this very speculative success occurred only in the Western parts of the Uralic world, were these ancestors mixed deeply with 'europoids' under certain same conditions.

Here is two points to discuss, blonde and blue eye only regarding east and west Eurasian based upon aDNA research paper by well known institution.
The blonde thing is solved by Ian. M paper on 2017.
The other thing is the blue eye. Yamna people cannot have it genetically until now:
https://i.imgur.com/XMbiBXl.png

We will wait and see where the blue eyes of yamna, okunevo and andronovo orginated in.

p.s
By Ian, M 2017 paper, andronovo seems to not have the blue eyes, but krugan people on west siberia had it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0

halfalp
13-01-19, 18:24
Where are these Genetiker pigmentation calls of Barcin and how have you the links of pigmentation with uniparental markers? (BTW I don't understand too well the Genetiker's calls in pigmentation : often it is under the form of 1/3 or 2/8 or so. (is this the number of mutated alleles on the total of verifiable pigmentation alleles ? I'm short here.
&: Y- and mt- markers in a small sample of mixed pop are not to be taken too seriously if the mixing is old enough, every kind of exchanges can have taken place. Only a big number of unchanged correlations could tell us something, and then, it could show a not completely and evenly mixed pop...


I've repertoriate for 1 or 2 hours the samples ID with the cultures in question and watched their Lineages. The Barcin ones are labeled NW Asia Minor Early Neolithic, wich is Barcin. The sample in question is


I1096

NW Asia Minor EN
6500–6200 BC
Light
Blond

Blue



Wich was: I1096:mtDNA: N1a1a1Y-DNA: I2c



I1580
NW Asia Minor EN
6500–6200 BC
Light
Blond
Blue


Wich was: I1580:mtDNA: H5

For the mesolithic Europeans it's very random it goes with y-dna I2a2 and mtdna U5a, but the other Blonde Hair calls from Neolithic Balkans that i've repertoriate shows mtdna N1a1a just like the Barcin one.

I dont know how he makes the calls, neither if they are pertinent, i just noticed that from Early Neolithic NW Asia Minor to Neolithic Balkans, a lot of call for Blonde Hairs had mtdna N1a1a.

MOESAN
13-01-19, 20:15
Haltaf, I found that with your link (thanks, BTW)


AbstractTo help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far.

OK: But if I understand well, these Kurgan people of South SIberia were rather "blondish and blue" and they were supposed to be IE of Steppes: To me THAT IS Andronovo or an akin culture (Afanasyevo?): all the way people with a good chunk of tribes of what is named today North Kazakhstan - the only difference with Andronovo people is that their 'caucasian' (rather archaic) making what partly modified by a slight input of local West Siberian HG's (between 'mongoloid' and 'europoid', not truly 'east-asian')

MOESAN
13-01-19, 20:21
Here is two points to discuss, blonde and blue eye only regarding east and west Eurasian based upon aDNA research paper by well known institution.
The blonde thing is solved by Ian. M paper on 2017.
The other thing is the blue eye. Yamna people cannot have it genetically until now:
https://i.imgur.com/XMbiBXl.png

We will wait and see where the blue eyes of yamna, okunevo and andronovo orginated in.

p.s
By Ian, M 2017 paper, andronovo seems to not have the blue eyes, but krugan people on west siberia had it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0

Thanks for kind an quiet answer;
I 'm afraid we are far from the topic now!
That said, I have hard work to interpret these (small) figures. And do you have the samples numbers? Maybe it would be better to email me, to not polluate this thread?
Sorry for I made a mess of your pseudo!

Angela
13-01-19, 20:41
Here is two points to discuss, blonde and blue eye only regarding east and west Eurasian based upon aDNA research paper by well known institution.
The blonde thing is solved by Ian. M paper on 2017.
The other thing is the blue eye. Yamna people cannot have it genetically until now:
https://i.imgur.com/XMbiBXl.png

We will wait and see where the blue eyes of yamna, okunevo and andronovo orginated in.

p.s
By Ian, M 2017 paper, andronovo seems to not have the blue eyes, but krugan people on west siberia had it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0683-0

Just so people don't get confused: the Hunter-Gatherer group here is comprised of WHG, EHG, and SHG. That's why the graph shows reasonable scores for skin lightening for HG. The WHG would have scored 0 for the de-pigmentation snps except for OCA2. In final versions he really should have broken it out better.

Also, for accuracy, all the Yamnaya samples should be looked at, not just the ones he used. However, it shouldn't be a surprise if a lot of them were brown eyed. Some of them were 50% CHG/Iran and dark eyes are dominant, with no agreed upon selective advantage.

halfalp
13-01-19, 21:33
Just so people don't get confused: the Hunter-Gatherer group here is comprised of WHG, EHG, and SHG. That's why the graph shows reasonable scores for skin lightening for HG. The WHG would have scored 0 for the de-pigmentation snps except for OCA2. In final versions he really should have broken it out better.

Also, for accuracy, all the Yamnaya samples should be looked at, not just the ones he used. However, it shouldn't be a surprise if a lot of them were brown eyed. Some of them were 50% CHG/Iran and dark eyes are dominant, with no agreed upon selective advantage.

According to Genetiker calls ( once again ) most of Ukraine_Neolithic, Balkans HG's and Baltic HG's so basically the principal european sources ( i guess ) for the futur Yamnaya and previous cultures were Brown Eyed, Dark Haired and approximatelly 50/50 Light and Medium skinned. The fact that Blonde Hairs appears approximatively ( 1000 years of difference at last ) in Scandinavia, Khvalynsk and Northwestern Anatolia is kind of enigmatic, they likely dont have developped those traits by themselves right? So we can extrapolate that the genes for Blonde Hairs exist for some time already before but was ultra scarce, like very scarce. Wich makes me believe that 1 founder effect happened once, but that multiple factors made the selection possible. Maybe both High Latitudes, Farming Cereals and other factors were positive for the genes to expand. Maybe Corded Ware and related cultures like Sintashta and Andronovo had positive selection because eating a lot of Mushrooms. I know it sounds stupid just like that, but what do we know.

bigblob
14-01-19, 10:51
Everyone knows that Middle Eastern ancient DNA samples yielded probable results of blue-eye gene variants, but that's it. Not even in modern Scandinavia there is any entirely blue-eyed society, and certainly it's nothing but wishful thinking to think that "ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt had blue eyes". Even the very surprising Chalcolithic Israel population had 49% of blue-eyed samples. In other words, slightly more than half of them did not have blue eyes. That CA Israel population was heavily Anatolia_Neolithic and very unlike the BA Levantines, though it apparently contributed significantly to at least the Northern (Sidon) Levant population, but not to the Southern Levant population, a fact that, according to the authors of that study themselves, may also suggest that not all Chalcolithic Levantine communities was like that of the CA Israeli site, and there was strong genetic structure in that region.

A blue-eyed majority is even less likely in a place like Egypt, which going by the LBA and IA samples that have already been analyzed, were mostly Levant_Neolithic, Iranian_Neolithic and probably also a fair bit of indigenous North African (IMHO easily mistaken for Levant_Neolithic until we have more ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic North Africa) as well as a non-negligible amount of Subsaharan African ancestry - with much less ANF ancestry (which I think was associated with the spread of blue eyes - it certainly did not come with Indo-Europans, it predates their expansion). Actually some of the carefully cherry-picked Egyptian statues you've posted do not even look like they had blue-pained eyes, but maybe you see things differently from my own eyes.

To sum it up: did blue-eyed people exist in the CA and BA Middle East and North Africa? Definitely, they do exist even now. Were they a majority in most places? Almost certainly not.I never said blue eyed people were a majority anywhere, but they did exist in the ancient Middle East and Egypt/ North Africa. The DNA taken from the Abusir el Meleq mummies showed they had dark hair,eyes with light skin looking like the majority of Egyptians today.

bigblob
14-01-19, 11:07
According to Genetiker calls ( once again ) most of Ukraine_Neolithic, Balkans HG's and Baltic HG's so basically the principal european sources ( i guess ) for the futur Yamnaya and previous cultures were Brown Eyed, Dark Haired and approximatelly 50/50 Light and Medium skinned. The fact that Blonde Hairs appears approximatively ( 1000 years of difference at last ) in Scandinavia, Khvalynsk and Northwestern Anatolia is kind of enigmatic, they likely dont have developped those traits by themselves right? So we can extrapolate that the genes for Blonde Hairs exist for some time already before but was ultra scarce, like very scarce. Wich makes me believe that 1 founder effect happened once, but that multiple factors made the selection possible. Maybe both High Latitudes, Farming Cereals and other factors were positive for the genes to expand. Maybe Corded Ware and related cultures like Sintashta and Andronovo had positive selection because eating a lot of Mushrooms. I know it sounds stupid just like that, but what do we know.Hair colour originated from Neanderthals according to many scientists.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look

The oldest blonde haired remains were found in Russia and are dated over 14 000 years. The ancient Scandinavian hunter - gatherers had blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes at least 7700 years ago. (Motala Man)

So if you have blonde hair, blue eyes you probably resemble your Neanderthal ancestor.

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

halfalp
14-01-19, 12:28
Hair colour originated from Neanderthals according to many scientists.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look

The oldest blonde haired remains were found in Russia and are dated over 14 000 years. The ancient Scandinavian hunter - gatherers had blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes at least 7700 years ago. (Motala Man)

So if you have blonde hair, blue eyes you probably resemble your Neanderthal ancestor.

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

Afontova Gora 3 had only 1 derivative allels related with Blonde Hairs. But what's interesting is that this individual was mtdna R1b, the same found later in Karelia. Maybe Blonde Hairs were stuck for some times in far north european russia and irradiate there through Laponia into Scandinavia.

Angela
14-01-19, 19:17
Hair colour originated from Neanderthals according to many scientists.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look

The oldest blonde haired remains were found in Russia and are dated over 14 000 years. The ancient Scandinavian hunter - gatherers had blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes at least 7700 years ago. (Motala Man)

So if you have blonde hair, blue eyes you probably resemble your Neanderthal ancestor.

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

That is absolute nonsense. In fact, your citations in no way support your conclusions. If you deliberately distort the findings of papers again to mislead there are going to be consequences.

"Dannemann points out that you can look at someone's genes and have a hard time telling if she's tall or short — most human traits are determined by multiple genes working together. When it comes to skin tone, he says, several different parts of genetic material impact it, only some of which come from Neanderthals."It's not any single gene that makes a huge difference ... It's not like morning people have one thing and evening people have another," says anthropologist John Hawks (https://www.anthropology.wisc.edu/staff/hawks-john/), of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "It's many genes. Each of them has some small effect. This study is pointing out that, hey, there's one of these [genes] that has a small effect coming from Neanderthals."
Dannemann says they found multiple Neanderthal genes that affected hair and skin tone, some lighter and some darker. He says this suggests that Neanderthals themselves may have had variation in those traits too, meaning, maybe they too had a range of skin and hair tones."

Blonde hair does NOT come from Neanderthals.

Jovialis
15-04-19, 16:40
The people living in Copper-Age Anatolia, were autosomally pretty much the same as they were in the bronze-age according to the Willerslev et al graphic. These were those blue-eyed migrants that went to settle down in the Levant. :

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/eaar7711

https://i.imgur.com/WeXhhXp.jpg

Jovialis
15-04-19, 16:46
Perhaps the occasional depiction of fair features in ancient Mediterranean people doesn't necessarily have to come from Northern European sources. Because they were present in people coming in from Anatolia who had them as early as the copper age. The Bronze-Age Anatolian who spread west, that are exclusive of the ones that went down into the Levant; would probably have these features too. I don't think it was the norm phenotypically, but the mutations were there.

suyindik
17-04-19, 09:56
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/eaar7711

https://i.imgur.com/WeXhhXp.jpg

I can see in the figure that CA and EBA/MLBA Anatolia have similar proportions, but how did you make the link between them and the CA Peqi'in population? Is there any data/analysis showing this?
And the CA Peqi'in population was said to be migrants of Northern Mesopotamia, meaning from probably the regions of South-Eastern-Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
The CA Anatolia sample seems to be from Central/Western Turkey. Does this mean there was another group of migration from Northern Mesopotamia into Central/Western Turkey during the Chalcolithic period? And these people were genetically different from the Neolithic Anatolia samples? Which Y-DNA is associated with these groups?
And could these people have made migrations into the Italian Peninsula during the Iron Age?

halfalp
17-04-19, 10:40
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/eaar7711

https://i.imgur.com/WeXhhXp.jpg

Wait, is the Violet admixture in Sidelkino Anatolian Neolithic?

halfalp
17-04-19, 10:54
Perhaps the occasional depiction of fair features in ancient Mediterranean people doesn't necessarily have to come from Northern European sources. Because they were present in people coming in from Anatolia who had them as early as the copper age. The Bronze-Age Anatolian who spread west, that are exclusive of the ones that went down into the Levant; would probably have these features too. I don't think it was the norm phenotypically, but the mutations were there.

True, but it also somehow contradicte the hypothesis that Fair Features are an evolutionary trait. One explanation that fair features would come from Anatolia, would be that Anatolia had a very continental/cold climate + farming diet, because then what's the evolutionary purpose of losing pigmentation? It would be like a coincidence that a depigmentation process occured in a warm climate then fixed itself in a more temperate/cold one by chance. My guess, with the only few samples we have, fair features in Anatolia came from a founder effect, younger than the real mutations. It was positively selected after it. There is actually plenty of fair mesolithic europeans, the calls made by people like Genetiker were never confirmed by the authors of the studies for weird reasons. They could have review their studies and confirm or infirm the calls made. Then we can just say " he is an amateur, he is wrong " and we miss big pictures of the hypothesis.

markod
17-04-19, 15:44
True, but it also somehow contradicte the hypothesis that Fair Features are an evolutionary trait. One explanation that fair features would come from Anatolia, would be that Anatolia had a very continental/cold climate + farming diet, because then what's the evolutionary purpose of losing pigmentation? It would be like a coincidence that a depigmentation process occured in a warm climate then fixed itself in a more temperate/cold one by chance. My guess, with the only few samples we have, fair features in Anatolia came from a founder effect, younger than the real mutations. It was positively selected after it. There is actually plenty of fair mesolithic europeans, the calls made by people like Genetiker were never confirmed by the authors of the studies for weird reasons. They could have review their studies and confirm or infirm the calls made. Then we can just say " he is an amateur, he is wrong " and we miss big pictures of the hypothesis.

Latitude might be a weak predictor of depigmentation, especially as far as hair and eye color are concerned. What advantage does blond hair confer? Even with skin it isn't that obvious. Central Siberians don't look much lighter than Levantines for instance (I suspect the opposite might be the case if you account for tanning).

halfalp
17-04-19, 17:27
Latitude might be a weak predictor of depigmentation, especially as far as hair and eye color are concerned. What advantage does blond hair confer? Even with skin it isn't that obvious. Central Siberians don't look much lighter than Levantines for instance (I suspect the opposite might be the case if you account for tanning).

Hypothesis, i have plenty, but none were ever tested or even considered, so for now we only have the history they told us, until it gonna inevitably change with new samples, new scientists, new technics, new knowledges etc.

But to counter, what advantage does Farmer diet gives to the selection of this feature? Because Farmers eated plenty of animal food and there is no correlation between genes for fair hairs and fair skin with farmer diet because they were found in early samples unrelated with neolithic. It's not like gluten stops pigmentation.

markod
17-04-19, 17:51
Hypothesis, i have plenty, but none were ever tested or even considered, so for now we only have the history they told us, until it gonna inevitably change with new samples, new scientists, new technics, new knowledges etc.

But to counter, what advantage does Farmer diet gives to the selection of this feature? Because Farmers eated plenty of animal food and there is no correlation between genes for fair hairs and fair skin with farmer diet because they were found in early samples unrelated with neolithic. It's not like gluten stops pigmentation.

It might have nothing to do with agriculture. See the blond tropical horticulturalists in Melanesia.

halfalp
17-04-19, 20:07
It might have nothing to do with agriculture. See the blond tropical horticulturalists in Melanesia.

So what does ( apparently ) two different genes who are stopping the melanine process tells us about it? Some sort of Esthetical Same-Specie convergent evolution? I dont buy it.

Why is there Blue Eyes in some Wolves and Foxes if this is a recessive trait and probably always was a minority. Do Wolves and Foxes understand Esthetics? Both Species are Monogamous, are they searching for the perfect mate, just like Humans?

markod
17-04-19, 20:49
So what does ( apparently ) two different genes who are stopping the melanine process tells us about it? Some sort of Esthetical Same-Specie convergent evolution? I dont buy it.

Why is there Blue Eyes in some Wolves and Foxes if this is a recessive trait and probably always was a minority. Do Wolves and Foxes understand Esthetics? Both Species are Monogamous, are they searching for the perfect mate, just like Humans?

So why couldn't Near Easterners have been fair? :thinking:

halfalp
17-04-19, 22:04
So why couldn't Near Easterners have been fair? :thinking:

Near Easterners is like talking of WHG from Spain and EHG from Karelia as something related. Natufians, Anatolians HG, CHG, Iran HG, were all different groups more divergent than WHG and EHG. It's also different to say " Near Easterners at some point had fair features " wich is fair enough. To say, " fair features came from neolithic farmers ". Wich the latter is used by scientists in studies.

I'm always so bugged how people are taking conclusions. If you need to put up 100 studies in your life and each one contradict the previous, it's then conclusions are probably not needed for the time being.

Also if Fair Features are unrelated at all with climate or latitudes, why then was it positively selected in high latitudes, pure sapiens coincidence going along evolutionary incidences? Surely not. Those few years studies have open way too much questions that scientists can respond to.

halfalp
18-04-19, 08:20
I guess somebody thought my reputation was becoming too high for what i worth...

Jovialis
18-04-19, 16:19
I can see in the figure that CA and EBA/MLBA Anatolia have similar proportions, but how did you make the link between them and the CA Peqi'in population? Is there any data/analysis showing this?
And the CA Peqi'in population was said to be migrants of Northern Mesopotamia, meaning from probably the regions of South-Eastern-Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
The CA Anatolia sample seems to be from Central/Western Turkey. Does this mean there was another group of migration from Northern Mesopotamia into Central/Western Turkey during the Chalcolithic period? And these people were genetically different from the Neolithic Anatolia samples? Which Y-DNA is associated with these groups?
And could these people have made migrations into the Italian Peninsula during the Iron Age?

From the paper:


Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be well-modeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_N-related ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region. We additionally find that the Levant_ChL population does not serve as a likely source of the Levantine-related ancestry in present-day East African populations (see Supplementary Note 4 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#MOESM1))24 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#ref-CR24).

9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.

The Wilerslev paper is behind a paywall.

Raveane et al shows that Anatolians arrived in the Bronze-age, not the IA. However, from the looks of the Wilerslev figure, Southern Europeans certainly went to and lived in central Anatolia in the IA; judging from the second sample.

suyindik
19-04-19, 00:44
From the paper:



9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.



What I meant was that the ancient dna studies with Y-DNA from Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia found Y-haplogroups like C(AHG), G, H, J. There was no T found in Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia.
So it seems to me that the genetics of Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia could be different. Maybe T is major in Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia(Maybe this is from where the Peqi'in population came from?)?
And in the graph you shared, Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Copper Age(Chalcolithic) Central/Western Anatolia are different from each other. Could this mean that migrations from Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia happened into Central/Western Anatolia during the Copper Age?

Jovialis
19-04-19, 01:04
What I meant was that the ancient dna studies with Y-DNA from Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia found Y-haplogroups like C(AHG), G, H, J. There was no T found in Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia.
So it seems to me that the genetics of Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia could be different. Maybe T is major in Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia(Maybe this is from where the Peqi'in population came from?)?
And in the graph you shared, Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Copper Age(Chalcolithic) Central/Western Anatolia are different from each other. Could this mean that migrations from Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia happened into Central/Western Anatolia during the Copper Age?

I wish I was able to access the Willerslev paper to be able to have a more insight.

Jovialis
19-04-19, 01:22
13. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (15.89) - I0184
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (15.93) - MA2208

Interestingly, I'm slightly closer to Copper-Age Anatolian, than to Bronze-Age Anatolian Hittite in the mytrueancestry samples. Unfortunately, they didn't link the study for I0184.

Salento
19-04-19, 03:40
13. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (15.89) - I0184
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (15.93) - MA2208
Interestingly, I'm slightly closer to Copper-Age Anatolian, than to Bronze-Age Anatolian Hittite in the mytrueancestry samples. Unfortunately, they didn't link the study for I0184.

Combined: (23 v5, Anc, Liv.DNA, NG Helix):
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (17.41) - MA2208
18. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (19.71) - I0184

23andme v4:
15. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (17.36) - MA2208
18. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (19.79) - I0184

Jovialis
28-08-19, 21:05
https://i.imgur.com/F68fKST.png

Sardinians are the darkest people in Italy, as demonstrated by this map.

I wonder, if it is true that the Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolians did help bring light features to the Ancient Mediterranean peoples (As sometimes depicted in artwork); was it the Sardinian-like ancestry that made them darker?

Of course, the northern regions get an extra boost to the average, from celtic and northern European sources.

Pax Augusta
28-08-19, 21:10
Sardinians are the darkest people in Italy, as demonstrated by this map.

I wonder, if it is true that the Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolians did help bring light features to the Ancient Mediterranean peoples (As sometimes depicted in artwork); was it the Sardinian-like ancestry that made them darker?

Artworks only become realistic with the Roman era. Hard to judge older artworks that reflect more certain tastes.

Jovialis
28-08-19, 21:13
Artworks only become realistic with the Roman era. Hard to judge older artworks that reflect more certain tastes.

That is true.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that lions had blue hair in the early bronze age.

https://i.imgur.com/KeXABUU.jpg

Jovialis
30-08-19, 18:42
I think I've found a new avatar. :)

torzio
30-08-19, 21:36
From the paper:



9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.

The Wilerslev paper is behind a paywall.

Raveane et al shows that Anatolians arrived in the Bronze-age, not the IA. However, from the looks of the Wilerslev figure, Southern Europeans certainly went to and lived in central Anatolia in the IA; judging from the second sample.


more info on this is that they originally came from modern georgia on the black sea and when they left the levant they went towards southern coastal turkey

aleph
02-12-19, 17:56
I've long thought that the presence of the blue eye gene in the Anatolian Neolithic may have come from the UHG, but so far as I know there's not enough data to prove that. It may be part of background variation in hunter gatherers related to the Villabruna group, because it wasn't present in the earlier hunter-gatherers of Europe. I'm not sure about the impact of selection. Again, so far as I know, no one has really found the environmental factor tied to selection for it. Perhaps social selection played a role.


I know that this is an old post, but pre-Villabruna Europe belonged to a different HG population. So what if the entire UHG population is closely related to Villabruna cluster while older European HGs like Aurignacians weren't? This would explain why Villabruna + UHG cluster has blue eyes while the Aurignacian and in general non-Villabruna clusters didn't.

Angela
02-12-19, 18:18
I know that this is an old post, but pre-Villabruna Europe belonged to a different HG population. So what if the entire UHG population is closely related to Villabruna cluster while older European HGs like Aurignacians weren't? This would explain why Villabruna + UHG cluster has blue eyes while the Aurignacian and in general non-Villabruna clusters didn't.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say.

Phenotype changes as new groups arrive. Whether the old phenotype survives is a question of the size of the new migration and, to some extent, to chance. Isolated areas will preserve it more.

Alan
04-03-20, 02:37
I find it quite possible, even likely that the Afro-Asiatic linguistic component was originally absorbed by (or imposed onto) the Anatolian & Iranian ("northern") population that probably merged with Levant_Neolithic ones, hypothetically because they were highland immigrants in a more technologically advanced region or something like that. But that would've happened before the consolidation of a Proto-Semitic language and culture, before its expansion to other areas, probably still during the Late Neolithic,, and during that "gestation period" it's possible that the foreign elements eventually became dominant even before Proto-Semitic was spread elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent. I say that because I find it hard to believe that Afro-Asiatic came originally from too much north or east of the Levant, considering the distribution of the rest of the family (all other branches in Africa, some of them with possible older links to Southwest Asia, like Cushitic) and the heavy Natufian affinities in other heavily AA regions like North Africa and Egypt.
Just found this thread now.

Have to through my 2 cents into the room here.

There are several reasons that speak against the idea that Semitic evolved further North. At least one major reason that would ultimately force us to place the origin of Egyptian further North too.

Within the Afro Asiatic language family we have Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic and Omotic. 4 of 5 of these are exclusively located in Africa. and 4 out of 5 are geographically very close to the South Levant. Within this family. Egyptian and Semitic have the closest relationship.


Which means that these two must have seperated from each other the latest. Egyptian is also the only language that has clear Levant_Chl influx like Semites and shares with the Semites the only other major yDNA (J) other than E1b. Also it's not like Semites are J by large majority and therefore "unlikely for them to take the "language of the local non J's. South Levantines(Jordania as example which is the core for the hypothetical homeland) is as much E1b as it is J1.

There is no reason to assume the original Semites came from further North and East if their close relatives live West of them and their closest relative has a very similar paternal yDNA admixture to them. So this Guys (herders) from the Northeast had to have likely arrived in the Levant before Semite and Egyptian split.

And on top we have significant historic evidences which rather counter this idea. South of Mesopotamia was pretty much inhabidet by non Semite speaking Sumerians. Who are assumed to be derived from the Chalcolthic Ubaid period. When the Assyrians arrived in Mesopotamia they took over the former Sumerian lands and a huge influx on the Assyrian culture was visible. When the Assyrian King Assurbanipal invaded the North he called himself "King of the Gutian and Subarian lands".

Which clearly implicates this region was not familiar to them to begin with.

That is why the theory of a proto Afro_Asiatic homeland in the south of Levant from where the Berber, Omotic/Chadic speakers first split during the Neolithic makes more sense. The Proto Semitic/Egyptian speakers remained still behind until Iran Chalcolthic type people migrated into the region with new ideas and genes mixed into the population (The Egyptian Pyramids clearly influenced by common idea with the Mesopotamian Ziggurats). After that we see the split between Egyptians and Semitic. With the Proto Egyptian speakers moving into modern Egypt.

Of course it is also possible that after the Chadic,Omotic and Berber people split away. A group of Proto Proto Semites moved further Northeast mixed with Iran_CHL like people moved than back into the South Levant and "infected" the Proto Egyptians" before they left for Egypt.

The first theory looks allot more likely to me tbh.

Alan
04-03-20, 04:06
Why do people on this site find blue eyes so surprising? Didn't the ancient Sumerians portray their people with fair skin and blue eyes?
https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancientpages.com%2 Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Fblueeyessumer.jpg&sp=35ac7e5e95616634d9a6666823e82c3e


There is Deeper connection between Sumerians, Elamites and the Harrapans which all seem to be connected by Iran_N Dna. Those guys were pigmentationwise predominantly what we would call Olive skinned and dark haired/eyed. They even called themselves the "black heads".


The Sumerians had sculptures with people in many different eye colors. Even reddish once. All it means is that the Sumerians knew people had different eye colors but just as the Greeks they probably even had a small % of people with these traits.

Alan
04-03-20, 04:31
This bullshit that ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt could not possibly have had blue eyes needs to end:

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html
mate we literally have ancient Egyptian DNA at hand. And they do not look like your blue eyed guys. Of course if we had blue eyed people in the Levant why shouldn't it be possible to find blue eyed persons in Egypt too? but some of you sound like the Middle East was once full of blue eyes and completely replaced by brown. Not like Blue eyes existed in decent percentages before and still exist in similar number today.
Here you have a modern Egyptian man with blue eyes
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/02/bb/3e02bb87f7baeebcd01cf67664df09a6.jpg

It's not like we suddenly have a very extreme genetic change in the Near East since these ancient Civilization. What the hell is wrong with you people? The genetic shifts we see in modern Near Easterners compares to the ancient once are predominantly from surrounding other Near East areas. And if there is one thing we have learned from ancient DNA, it is that the only "outside" admixture the regions where once we have seen these civilization came rather from the North.

If anything modern Iranians, Anatolians, even Greeks and Italians are more "northern" shifted than Bronze or even Iron Age people of the same region. The only exception being the Egyptians who seem to have received a little Sub Saharan African admixture but still are like 92% derived from their ancestors.

I mean, I see some guy make the assumption that the frequency of blue eyes went so far down possibly because of Iran_N admixture, in one post.
Just to show sculptures of Sumerians with "blue eyes" in another. Totally missing the fact that these Sumerians have a heavy connection to the Iranian Plateau themselves via the Jiroft culture and this very region most likely being the source of the Iran_CHL dna in the Levant_CHL. You see the paradoxon here? Also for the people who might have missed or forgotten it.

One of the Iran_N samples had the mutation for blue eyes in OCA2/HERC2 too. So it's not like it was completely absent with them. Take in mind the genetic flow into the Levant was from Iran_CHL, who had a slightly different pigmentation profile.

blue eyes and pigmentation are defined by few SNP's. Some blue eyed Lebanese who is genetically identical to his brown eyed brother will still be simply a Lebanese.

And why are some people here calling Natufians light skinned and eyed? Did I miss something?

torzio
04-03-20, 06:58
There is Deeper connection between Sumerians, Elamites and the Harrapans which all seem to be connected by Iran_N Dna. Those guys were pigmentationwise predominantly what we would call Olive skinned and dark haired/eyed. They even called themselves the "black heads".


The Sumerians had sculptures with people in many different eye colors. Even reddish once. All it means is that the Sumerians knew people had different eye colors but just as the Greeks they probably even had a small % of people with these traits.

can be true

the egyptians paintings had, libyans as white skin, nubians as black skin and themselves as brown skin ................so there is always a high % of truth in these sculptures etc

MOESAN
05-03-20, 19:57
These sculptures don't tell us who (what ethny) they represent.
And keep in mind that rare variants are often overexemplified.
I never rely on representations.
If you look at Greek statues, almost all the guys and girls have the same kind of mouth. Do you think it was the case in reality?
Lybians are a case. We know some Berbers have SOME OF THEM light pigmented, not everywhere, and not the majority of individuals, even if in the regions where it is true, they are strikingly "fair" compared to the very dark people around them. If it was the case among Lybians of the time, the Egyptians could have been pushed to represent the most typicla of them (stereotype, wellkown reaction).

Riverman
05-05-20, 19:04
Ancient Lybians seem to have had a higher percentage of light pigmented individuals and if considering that modern Berbers have significant later Near Eastern and even Subsaharan admixture, practically all of them, the high incidence of light skin, but even light eye and hair color among them is even more telling. There are people which attributed this to Greeks, Romans and Germanics, but the ancient Egyptian sources tell us they looked not just similar then, but were even lighter.

So the fact remains that the Berbers, and even some Guanches, had at least significant amounts of light coloration allels, even if they might have been never the majority. So the idea of light skin pigmentation being spread by late incomers is wrong, it was present among E1b1b dominated North Africans already, latest in Neolithic times.

torzio
05-05-20, 20:03
Ancient Lybians seem to have had a higher percentage of light pigmented individuals and if considering that modern Berbers have significant later Near Eastern and even Subsaharan admixture, practically all of them, the high incidence of light skin, but even light eye and hair color among them is even more telling. There are people which attributed this to Greeks, Romans and Germanics, but the ancient Egyptian sources tell us they looked not just similar then, but were even lighter.

So the fact remains that the Berbers, and even some Guanches, had at least significant amounts of light coloration allels, even if they might have been never the majority. So the idea of light skin pigmentation being spread by late incomers is wrong, it was present among E1b1b dominated North Africans already, latest in Neolithic times.


all Egyptian murals depict Libyans as very fair skin compared to all others that they painted...............early middle eastern marker was by the Phoenicians, firstly around circa 800BC , but this was virtually eliminated by roman migration and later vandal and visigoth settlements .................the arabs arrived circa 650AD