Teaser: EEF was 90% Anatolian

Fire Haired14

Banned
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
582
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b DF27*
mtDNA haplogroup
U5b2a2b1
Another teasar from authors with 34 (6300 BC)Neolithic Western Anatolian genomes: Close genetic relationship of Neolithic Anatolians to early European farmers:

BTW: By EEF I mean Early Neolithic European genomes from Hungary, Croatia, Germany, and Spain dating between 5000 and 5500 BC.

This abstract is consistent with ANE K8 results Davidski got for a low coverage Neolithic Western Anatolian(see results here). By most estimates I've seen this makes all modern Europeans at least 30%+ Neolithic Anatolian. It makes some over 50%, there's a lot of regional variation. Neolithic Anatolian ancestry is highest in Southern Europe.

There's certainly Neolithic Anatolian-type ancestry in West Asia today as well it's just harder to detect because we don't know who the other ancestors of West Asians. We know Yamnaya and WHG-types are main other ancestors of Europeans and therefore can model them more easily.
 
3 hundred Yankee's lie stiff in southern dust, we got 3 hundred thousand before they conquered us.
 
Another teasar from authors with 34 (6300 BC)Neolithic Western Anatolian genomes: Close genetic relationship of Neolithic Anatolians to early European farmers:

BTW: By EEF I mean Early Neolithic European genomes from Hungary, Croatia, Germany, and Spain dating between 5000 and 5500 BC.

This abstract is consistent with ANE K8 results Davidski got for a low coverage Neolithic Western Anatolian(see results here). By most estimates I've seen this makes all modern Europeans at least 30%+ Neolithic Anatolian. It makes some over 50%, there's a lot of regional variation. Neolithic Anatolian ancestry is highest in Southern Europe.

There's certainly Neolithic Anatolian-type ancestry in West Asia today as well it's just harder to detect because we don't know who the other ancestors of West Asians. We know Yamnaya and WHG-types are main other ancestors of Europeans and therefore can model them more easily.

Where are you getting your "estimates"? It's pretty easy to "estimate" just by using the EEF numbers in Lazardis et al. Very few European groups only have 30%, and most of those are low population countries.
Lazaridis et al 3 population figures.jpg
 
3 hundred Yankee's lie stiff in southern dust, we got 3 hundred thousand before they conquered us.

what's is this comment all about?:startled::confused:............are your ancestors from one of the 4 northern slave-states ( Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware )
 
Another teasar from authors with 34 (6300 BC)Neolithic Western Anatolian genomes: Close genetic relationship of Neolithic Anatolians to early European farmers:

BTW: By EEF I mean Early Neolithic European genomes from Hungary, Croatia, Germany, and Spain dating between 5000 and 5500 BC.

This abstract is consistent with ANE K8 results Davidski got for a low coverage Neolithic Western Anatolian(see results here). By most estimates I've seen this makes all modern Europeans at least 30%+ Neolithic Anatolian. It makes some over 50%, there's a lot of regional variation. Neolithic Anatolian ancestry is highest in Southern Europe.

There's certainly Neolithic Anatolian-type ancestry in West Asia today as well it's just harder to detect because we don't know who the other ancestors of West Asians. We know Yamnaya and WHG-types are main other ancestors of Europeans and therefore can model them more easily.

you do realise that Laz only ever mentioned EEF and that the ENF term was fabricated by amateurs based on suspect numbers.
 
what's is this comment all about?:startled::confused:............are your ancestors from one of the 4 northern slave-states ( Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware )

No no. I was just listening to the song I'm a good ol rebel and felt like saying that.
 
Where are you getting your "estimates"? It's pretty easy to "estimate" just by using the EEF numbers in Lazardis et al. Very few European groups only have 30%, and most of those are low population countries.
View attachment 7442

Near Eastern ancestry that is not EEF raises EEF scores. Ashkenazi Jews are the best example of this. There's SW Asian and Steppe-derived Near Eastern ancestry in Europe.
 
Near Eastern ancestry that is not EEF raises EEF scores. Ashkenazi Jews are the best example of this. There's SW Asian and Steppe-derived Near Eastern ancestry in Europe.

Well, let's follow this through logically then. If steppe ancestry raises EEF (presumably through the half "modern Near Eastern" in the Yamnaya), and any other post Neolithic gene flows into Europe from the area of the Near East raise EEF (presumably through people who were a mix of EEF/ANE), then if we take 10 points off that EEF figure, what's left might be an approximation for "early Near Eastern farmer" in modern Europeans, yes? It has to be the same genes, doesn't it, or it wouldn't raise the EEF number?

So, IF that's correct, we have the following for early Neolithic farmer ancestry in Europe:
The isolated far north east: Estonians 22%, Lithuanians 26%
Scots, Belorussians: 30-32%
Ukrainians: 36%
English, Czechs (perhaps a good stand in for Germans?) 40%
Hungarians 46%
Southern French (Southwest France) 58%
Northern Italians/Bulgarians 61%
Tuscans 64%
Spaniards 71%
Sicilians 80%

and so on.

This isn't very far from the numbers your source provided. At least 30% for far northern Europe. The difference is that it's closer to around 60% at least for southern Europe, not 50%, and from 40 to close to 50% for northwest and central Europe.

Those happen to be the kind of numbers I've been proposing for years, but of course, I'm an amateur. When the paper comes out later this week we'll see what the experts have to say about it.

Oh, and you keep saying that SWAsian came to Europe post Neolithic Fire-Haired, and I keep showing you that it was in the Neolithic farmers:

See:K7 and K12 for ancient samples.jpg

Now, how precisely do you know that the SW Asian in northern Italians, for example, which is 5.3, less than in Oetzi (7.8 in Tuscans, which is just about the same) is all from post Neolithic gene flow and does not survive from the Neolithic? The answer, Fire-Haired, is that you can't know, and neither can anyone else until we get ancient dna showing that it was all wiped out and then re-introduced.

I think we should all have learned by now to stick to comparisons with ancient samples instead of "extrapolating" components, yes?
 
Wasn't Barcin Neolitich farmer about 20% Red Sea? And how much SWA would he score? 25%?
 
Wasn't Barcin Neolitich farmer about 20% Red Sea? And how much SWA would he score? 25%?

I don't have any data for Red Sea for Barcin. The only thing I ever saw was the following, which doesn't make much sense to me because it shows Stuttgart with over 10% SWAsian, and Barcin with none.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rTFReasuRyyWY169OhCjoW9bvVByu-Lrb50Xqu76Pak/edit#gid=0

Stuttgart would have been Barcin like with 10% European hunter-gatherer, so how could LBK have more SWAsian than Barcin?

Perhaps the Barcin sample is so low coverage that it's giving false results?
 
Oh, and you keep saying that SWAsian came to Europe post Neolithic Fire-Haired, and I keep showing you that it was in the Neolithic farmers:

See:View attachment 7443

Now, how precisely do you know that the SW Asian in northern Italians, for example, which is 5.3, less than in Oetzi (7.8 in Tuscans, which is just about the same) is all from post Neolithic gene flow and does not survive from the Neolithic? The answer, Fire-Haired, is that you can't know, and neither can anyone else until we get ancient dna showing that it was all wiped out and then re-introduced.

I think we should all have learned by now to stick to comparisons with ancient samples instead of "extrapolating" components, yes?

I have not looked at any data recently. I'll wait for more research. Davidski thinks there was movements from SW Asia into SE Europe in the Bronze and Iron ages. He thinks there was lots of contact with SW Asians in those periods. I don't know what archaeology/history says about that. From what I remember it isn't much of a stretch to model most SE Europeans as EEF+Yamnaya or EEF+Yamnaya+SW Asian. I'm undecided on this topic(except for some like Sicilians with very low WHG and still ANE). mtDNA wise there isn't much of a West Asian signal(see here), but typical West Asian clades do appear. I want to see Y DNA data. I know there's a lot of J2 and E1b in SE Europe but apparently it's of differnt clades than what's in SW Asia. It's confusing, who could be the source, an unsampled people?

I think we should be more open-minded about possible origins like people were before ancient DNA. We can generally model everyone in a big region in the same ancestral components but within every region/ethnicity there's 1,000s of years and generation after generation of specificity. EEF in one region isn't the same as EEF in another region. Labels like EEF, WHG, etc. are real but mask diversity.

My philosophy on genetics is: No one in the past knew much about history or geography, beyond their little region and a few generations. If given the opportunity to mix with someone who is genetically very differnt most of the time populations will do that to some degree. Ancestral origins are complicated. They're only simple if a population remains isolated which rarely happens. Even in genetically uniform(eg America) regions you have lots of differnt ethnic groups who mix with each other.

And so considering how big West Asia, Europe, Central Asia is and how many generations and years we're talking about there's 1,000s of possibilities.
 
As to the following, we agree:
Fire-Haired:I think we should be more open-minded about possible origins like people were before ancient DNA. We can generally model everyone in a big region in the same ancestral components but within every region/ethnicity there's 1,000s of years and generation after generation of specificity. EEF in one region isn't the same as EEF in another region. Labels like EEF, WHG, etc. are real but mask diversity.

My philosophy on genetics is: No one in the past knew much about history or geography, beyond their little region and a few generations. If given the opportunity to mix with someone who is genetically very differnt most of the time populations will do that to some degree. Ancestral origins are complicated. They're only simple if a population remains isolated which rarely happens. Even in genetically uniform(eg America) regions you have lots of differnt ethnic groups who mix with each other.

And so considering how big West Asia, Europe, Central Asia is and how many generations and years we're talking about there's 1,000s of possibilities.

As to the other part of your comment, I'm totally open to whatever the ancient dna will show. I would add, however, what I said to someone else just recently. It doesn't matter when certain genetic material entered your family or "ethnic" line, or with what particular culture. It's the same genes. So, I disagree that the EEF, for example, or more precisely the early Near Eastern farmer ancestry somehow became "different" because it was packaged with different genes at different times. As Lazaridis pointed out, all the many migrations into Europe and within Europe were just different combinations, in different proportions, of the same basic ancient populations. Many of the distinctions that get made just smack to me of unattractive "isms" of one sort or another. I'll leave it at that.
 
How so? Bronze and Iron Age Armenians had zero SWA, while modern Armenians are actually Northern Iraqis with about 5% Indo Europeans admixture from proto Armenians. If S Euros have additional SWA compared to Oetzi, it comes from Barcin like farmers.

Yamnaya got its middle eastern ancestry from a Georgian like people who also have zero SWA.
 
How so? Bronze and Iron Age Armenians had zero SWA, while modern Armenians are actually Northern Iraqis with about 5% Indo Europeans admixture from proto Armenians. If S Euros have additional SWA compared to Oetzi, it comes from Barcin like farmers.

Yamnaya got its middle eastern ancestry from a Georgian like people who also have zero SWA.

Are you addressing me?

I'm not quite sure I understand you, but if you mean that it's very strange that Barcin could have 0 SWAsian, and Stuttgart over 10% and Oetzi over 7%, I agree. The Barcin sample isn't very good, so maybe we can't capture the finer points. I also hope it's included in the new Lazaridis paper so we can see what they make of it.

The argument that I believe Fire-Haired is repeating is that somehow all the SW Asian in Neolithic Italians got wiped out and was then replaced by migrations in the Bronze Age and Iron Age and perhaps in the Roman era. As I think you're implying, Bronze Age migrations would imply "Yamnaya", yes? They presumably wouldn't have any. Unless perhaps they're talking about Bronze Age migrations by way of Crete, which might have picked up some? By Iron Age, Fire-Haired's sources would seem to perhaps mean the Etruscans. Even if we assume that they or some part of their ancestry came from the northern Aegean/Anatolia, I'm not sure they would have had any at that time. Then there's the Roman era.

My general point was that I am increasingly skeptical about any conclusions drawn totally from modern dna. Only ancient dna will tell us whether the SW Asian brought to Italy in the Neolithic is totally absent in subsequent eras only to reappear specifically, perhaps, in the Roman era.
 
It occurred to me to check the SW Asian for some European groups:

Belorussians: 1.9

Bulgarians: 6.4 (more than the North Italians, but slightly less than Tuscans)

Finns: 2.6

Georgians: 0

Greeks: 10.1

Hungarians 3.0

Lezghins: .6

Turks: 10.3

This would seem to indicate that the SW Asian did not come with Yamnaya. So, that 3% in Hungarians and 2.6% in Finns is probably a hold over from the EEF? Therefore, I suppose one could infer that at least half if not more of the SW Asian in northern Italians, as just one example, might be a remnant from the Neolithic, but as I said I think the only reliable answers will come from ancient dna.
 
I am not sure I've understood your post... Anyway I was addressing Fire Haired and his argument that Italians have additional post neolitich SWA ancestry from Anatolia.
 
I am not sure I've understood your post... Anyway I was addressing Fire Haired and his argument that Italians have additional post neolitich SWA ancestry from Anatolia.

That's fine. From now on if you don't want other people to respond to your posts perhaps you should specifically address the person to whom you're responding.

As for my post, no problem. I think there are others who will understand it.
 
How so? Bronze and Iron Age Armenians had zero SWA, while modern Armenians are actually Northern Iraqis with about 5% Indo Europeans admixture from proto Armenians. If S Euros have additional SWA compared to Oetzi, it comes from Barcin like farmers.

Yamnaya got its middle eastern ancestry from a Georgian like people who also have zero SWA.

I'm not saying SW Asian-type blood in Italians is from Yamnaya. I'm saying it from unknown Bronze and Iron age people(s) from the Near East(Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.). ADMIXTURE isn't law and the components should be taken as trends not percentages of ancestry from real populations(SW Asian components don't represent a real group of people). So, if Neolithic farmers score in SW Asian that doesn't take away other lines of evidence there's SW Asian ancestry in Italy.

Anyways, this is an idea I'm flirting with and waiting for more data. I'm not 100% for any theory. I don't know anything about history which might dis agree with SW Asians moving to Italy and Balkans in Bronze and Iron ages. The pieces of evidence I have are from methods that can't be taken too literally, like ADMIXTURE and PCA. The most legitimate evidence is Y DNA. But for Sicilians there's no debate. We know they have Near Eastern ancestors who were not EEF. It makes sense from what I've heard of Sicilian history(not saying I know a lot).

If SW Asians moved in large numbers to Italy in 1500-800 BC we'd have no idea because there were no written records. No one had a world map back then and SW Asians would just be seen as another ethnic group. No one would write down later that "SW Asians" came to "Italy" they'd say "Bla Bla people from the sea" mixed with "Italic tribes". Besides we don't have many written records preserved and oral tradition of ethnic groups mixing in the past wasn't wroth writing about.
 
Near Eastern ancestry that is not EEF raises EEF scores. Ashkenazi Jews are the best example of this. There's SW Asian and Steppe-derived Near Eastern ancestry in Europe.

There seems to be three sources of farmer/herder (Western farmers aka EEF, Eastern farmers aka Teal and Southern farmers) DNA which get eaten up as EEF by some amateur calculators true, But not in Lazaridis paper which in fact does seem to differ roughly between EEF, Teal like and South farmers.

SW Asian is not necessary South farmer or Late Neolithic. Since all farmer groups share good majority of their ancestry it is very likely that there is overlap in their overall DNA. Means South farmers might have been around 70% SW Asian but EEF probably had some (<10%) SW Asian too. Teal on the other hand seems to lacked SW Asian almost completely.
 
How so? Bronze and Iron Age Armenians had zero SWA, while modern Armenians are actually Northern Iraqis with about 5% Indo Europeans admixture from proto Armenians. If S Euros have additional SWA compared to Oetzi, it comes from Barcin like farmers.

Yamnaya got its middle eastern ancestry from a Georgian like people who also have zero SWA.

1.Some correction here. Bronze Age Armenian samples had zero SWA, by Iron Age the SWA was slowly appearing and rising from 2 to 6%. A Semite origin is obvious in that case because this is the time period when Assyrians and related tribes were penetrating into Mesopotamia and Urartu.

2. Modern Armenians are not like "North Iraqis (if by North Iraqi you mean Kurds) + 5% Indo European" in fact it seems the opposite. Armenians seem to be a some percentages more EEF shifted(with minor more South farmer admixture) than North Iraqis what can be explained with an origin slightly further West and with contacts to Semite populations of the Levant type (probably catched up in Cilicia). North Iraqis (I think you mean Kurds) have more of the Gedrosian and North European elements which drifts them rather to Indo Europeans.

But all this is very complicated between the Neolithic and middle ages there were dozens of back and forth migrations totaly changing the genetic landscape.

Bronze and Iron Age Armenians were like halfway Teal and halfway EEF, they can be "best" described like a mix of North Caucasians and Italians (Tuscans) with Tajik/Yaghnobi(minus the East Eurasian) admixture.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 49188 times.

Back
Top