Teasers: Anatolians of 6300 BC Y DNA G2a, ancestral to EEF

[Angela]

there was replacement after replacement after replacement in the Balkans
we have G2a first farmers
we have J and C-V20 sopot farmers
we have 6 ka wave of proto hitites
we have 5 ka wave, Vucedol etc.
we have 4.3 ka E-V13 expansion
we have iron age J2 and N
we have Celts, Goths and Huns
how much of the 1st G2a do you think is left?

Is that a rhetorical question? We know that not much G2a is left, but that's just y lines. How many times has the data shown us that y lineages are very poor indicators of total genomic structure? Given that, how can a change in y dna prove by itself that there was "replacement" after "replacement"?

The Early European Farmers were not just G2a. There was a lot of "F" (actually H2 and T) among them too. From the abstract, there was also minority y Dna in ancient Anatolia. Yet, in terms of autosomal structure they were very homogeneous. Look at R1b. We've seen R1b in a totally EEF person, in a totally EHG person, in "mixed" Yamnaya people, and we know it is found in SSAfricans.

Or, to use another example, let's assume for the moment that it's been proven beyond any doubt through ancient dna that all the R1a in India is from steppe dwellers. How much actual autosomal change did they bring to India, how much actual "replacement"? Osama Bin Ladin's father had 77 children. Some Saudi princes have hundreds. If the women were all from a different "X" population, how much "replacement" would we see after a thousand years?

As to Sopot, the paper that analyzed those samples didn't show a big difference between them and the early farmers of Central Europe. We don't even know if they'd been in the southern Balkans the whole time. Most of the J in the Balkans is J2b, present at least since Sopot, and as I said we don't know how long they'd been in the area south of the Sopot area. E-V13 was part of the early Neolithic, and just expanded in place. Huns left barely a ripple. I could go on, but there's no point in belaboring the issue. Oh, and I had no idea that we know that "proto" Hittites went to Anatolia.

 

[Angela]

These Anatolians are brothers not parents to Early Neolithic Europeans. They're less than 1,000 years older than the oldest Neolithic Euro genomes. We can't assume 2,000 of 4,000 years earlier people many miles away in the Levant were just like EEF. How do we explain Bedouin today? There are differences outside of ANE between Anatolian of 6300 BC and modern West Asians. There were other people in West Asia at that time than EEF.

Where is your evidence for any of this? This is what the abstract says: "Our analysis reveals a homogeneous population that is genetically a plausible source for the first farmers of Europe". The archaeology cinches the deal.

How do you get from that to a comment that implies that both the Early Farmers of the Near East and the Early Farmers of Europe are descended from some other source? You do know that the archaeology is crystal clear about where the grains and the animals and the technology was developed and where it spread once it left the Near East? The genetics was the only missing piece.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but how does the fact that the Near Eastern farmers are 1,000 years older than the farmers of Europe prove that they're NOT the source? The "parent" population is of course going to be older. Why wouldn't it take around 1000 years for that migration to occur? Whole papers have been done that calculate the movement of grains, animals, etc., and 1000 years is just about right.

Where was this preferred "parent" population located?

Why would you assume that the difference between Anatolians in 6300 BC and Anatolians of today is due to anything other than subsequent gene flows?

I have no idea where you're getting this stuff, Fire-Haired, but I think given how many fanciful internet posts have been proven to be abysmally wrong that we'd be better off sticking to the evidence presented in scientific papers.

 

[Arame]

Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.

 

[LeBrok]

Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.

Good points. About the last one. What is surprising that Neolithic Y was replaced by other Ys, but EEF admixture is still very high in modern Europeans. With your density scenario Y chromosome should be replaced, and also EEF should be replaced at the same time. At 50% of EEF admixture in population with should expect 50% of Neolithic Y hg left, but it is not the case. Something else is in play here. We should take under consideration that almost all people today belong to young subclades of many Y hg. That means that there is a constant replacement, growth, spreading of new successful subclades.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Is that a rhetorical question? We know that not much G2a is left, but that's just y lines. How many times has the data shown us that y lineages are very poor indicators of total genomic structure? Given that, how can a change in y dna prove by itself that there was "replacement" after "replacement"?

The Early European Farmers were not just G2a. There was a lot of "F" (actually H2 and T) among them too. From the abstract, there was also minority y Dna in ancient Anatolia. Yet, in terms of autosomal structure they were very homogeneous. Look at R1b. We've seen R1b in a totally EEF person, in a totally EHG person, in "mixed" Yamnaya people, and we know it is found in SSAfricans.

Or, to use another example, let's assume for the moment that it's been proven beyond any doubt through ancient dna that all the R1a in India is from steppe dwellers. How much actual autosomal change did they bring to India, how much actual "replacement"? Osama Bin Ladin's father had 77 children. Some Saudi princes have hundreds. If the women were all from a different "X" population, how much "replacement" would we see after a thousand years?

As to Sopot, the paper that analyzed those samples didn't show a big difference between them and the early farmers of Central Europe. We don't even know if they'd been in the southern Balkans the whole time. Most of the J in the Balkans is J2b, present at least since Sopot, and as I said we don't know how long they'd been in the area south of the Sopot area. E-V13 was part of the early Neolithic, and just expanded in place. Huns left barely a ripple. I could go on, but there's no point in belaboring the issue. Oh, and I had no idea that we know that "proto" Hittites went to Anatolia.

correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?

and yes, sometimes the newcomers took local women
but that don't mean no new women arrived
just look at early neolithic and middle neolithic mtDNA
if you don't look at the subclades, you'll find the same components but not in the same proportion, there are clear shifts
in the early neolithic the main components are T and K
in the middle neolithic many of them are replaced by H
if you then look at the subclades, you'll notice even more differences

the first European farmers didn't have a monopoly on EEF
otherwise it would be impossible for R1b to become totally EEF

 

[Aaron1981]

The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.

 

[Aaron1981]

correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?

Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G-P303, I don't recall which branch, was found in a La Tene burial, as well as 2 R1b haplotypes. Something similar was found in medieval Austria with 2 Gs and 4 R1bs.

 

[Fluffy]

Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G


Like G2a L497?

 

[Alan]

Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.

@Awood

"
Modern Middle Eastern people, including people from the Levant have the Teal component which is found in Yamnaya. If NW Anatolia = true farmer, or let's call it a Stuttgart on EEF steroids, then I suspect there will be no "Teal", unlike all ME populations today. "

The main shift that happened in the Levant is a "Southern/Southwestern Farmer" expansion which came via the Afro_Asiatic speakers. Modern Levantines don't really have that much ANE what shifts them more away from EEF is the significantly higher Red Sea Element which is most likely the result of Afro_Asiatic expansion evident from acient samples of Armenia where we see a constant increase of Red Sea element.

Teal or what I call the Eastern farmers were probably around the Iranian Plateau, Southeast Caucasus Mesopotamia and East Anatolia by mid-late neolithic. Mesopotamia, East Anatolia and Caucasus must have been the connection point of East and West farmers by late neolithic. And modern Jordan the meeting point of South and West farmers. South farmer expansions into northern Levant and East/South farmers expansions into Anatolia must have almost completely eradicated the Western farmers. This is also clearly evident by historic context. Assyrian, Aramaic and Arab expansion towards North, Iranic, Turkic and other Indo European expansion from the Iranian Plateau/East Anatolia/Transcaucasus into Central/West Anatolia and as far as Levant.


Coldmountains said
"So Y-DNA I among EEFs could originate from Anatolia in the end and not from assimilated WHGs? "

possibility is there but not necessary, because some Balkanian farmers had already additional (~5-20%) real WHG admixture, so I could have been catched up there. While ironically Central European farmers were mostly identical to Anatolian farmers.


I think the explanation for this is simple. Here we are dealing with a farming complex of Anatolian farmers and their descend the Balkanian farmers who probably absorbed real WHG admixture.

Now it's not like Central European farmers had to have arrived automatically from those Balkanian farmers after they earlier left from Anatolia. Think about it. What forces farmers to migrate?

Shortage of land. Now imagine first Anatolian farmers reaching Balkans. A second group from Anatolia starting it's journey but Balkans are already occupied by farmer groups. So the most logical thing is you migrate a step further into Central Europe. Now other waves of farmers leave the Balkans and Anatolia for new farmland. This is probably how some Iberian farmers end up being identical to Balkan farmers while other identical to Anatolian. This is not because they absorbed allot of additional WHG in Iberia but because they are descend of those Balkan farmers who already absorbed real WHG in the Balkans!

And about Haplogroup I, I think it was a Haplogroup spaning the region between Europe all the way into the Iranian Plateau and Levant.

 

[Maciamo]

Maciamo

Well generally I agree with Your explications about why some old lineages get extinct but there are also others events that happen when two different groups contacts.

When Europeans first contacted with Aztecs, more than a million native Americans died just because they had no immunity against smallpox. So the adaptive immune system fitness (which itself is related to HLA system ) can play a major selective role.

Another factor of selective pressure especially on males is the 'immunity' against the alcohol and other natural 'antidepressants'. Many Siberian populations have very poor tolerance of alcohol for example.

Also one should take into account the population density. When the technology develops there is a possibility to a population density increase. For example if one territory has 100% of G2a with density of 10 people on sq.km. A new technology brought by J2 that increase the population density to 20 people/sq.km. This will bring down the G2 frequency by two times to 50%, without any killing.

The situation of the Europeans reaching the Americas is completely different because the two groups had been genetically separated for over 15,000 years and they evolved in completely different natural environments during that time, exposed to different microbes. In Eurasia all populations constantly had some sort of contact with their immediate neighbours - if not every year, at least once in a generation for at least one individual in the group, which is enough for diseases to spread and for immunity to get roughly evened out at the continental level.

Novelties like alcohol could also spread faster among neighbouring populations than the speed of natural selection to modify the gene pool.

Anyway, if immunity played any role in "wiping out" Neolithic lineages, it should have affected both paternal and maternal lineages, which isn't the case at all. Nowadays over 60% of European mtDNA can be traced back to Neolithic farmers. I am not just referring to top level haplogroups like H or K, but very deep subclades that haven't changed at all since the Neolithic, such as H1e1a, H1e1a3, K1a3a3, K1a4a1, T2a1b1, T2c1d2, etc. And as I said above, autosomally it is clear that over half of European DNA was inherited from Neolithic farmers. That is definitely not a sign of massive population replacement. Only on the paternal side.

 

[Maciamo]

Actually all the G branches found to date in the European Neolithic are rare ones today, so neither they nor the H2 branch were all that successful. However, the fact that NW Caucasus yields a high % of the common G variation in Europe today might offer some clues that one of these waves was successful in Europe. It should be of note that the common G haplotype in Europe which is under G-P303, I don't recall which branch, was found in a La Tene burial, as well as 2 R1b haplotypes. Something similar was found in medieval Austria with 2 Gs and 4 R1bs.

That's exactly why I have maintained for the last 6 years that most G2a in Europe (L141.1, what I am used to call G2a3b, even if the nomenclature has changed since) is descended from Bronze Age Indo-Europeans like R1b1a2, and that this G2a-L141.1 originated in the Maykop culture alongside R1b lineages found in Europe today. We should soon know if that was correct (at least if they test enough Maykop samples to have something representative).

 

[Angela]

I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.

Therefore, if we're going to be precise in our terminology and not confuse people once more, the Anatolian farmers did not have WHG.

So, it seems there were at least two groups of hunter-gatherers in the ancient Near East who combined to form the first farmers. There's this population ancestral to the WHG whom we could perhaps call the UHG, and some "Basal Eurasian" hunter-gatherers.

I certainly hope that the Reich Lab clarifies the issue, including the origin and nature of this "Basal Eurasian" hunter gatherer component, and its proportional presence in the first farmers of Anatolia.

If they can't do it maybe it's time that they let it go or modify it, like they modified their initial formulation that Europeans had an "Amerindian" component.

 

[epoch]

Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.

A lot of the Mediterranean soils are very rich soils - terra rossa e.g. - whereas Central European fertile soils are restricted to loess and river clay. The latter is not easily worked. LBK settlement very roughly matches loess soils. I tend to think this led to enough space left in LBK areas - The areas had huge peat bogs, fenns and non-productive forests - for WHG to keep living alongside LBK, whereas in the Mediterranean contact was inevitable. We know later Middle European neolithics got admixed with WHG and Haak et al does state that immediately before the big Corder Ware turn over there was an *additional* surge of WHG. That must have been remaining WHG groups.

Davidski once said we Middle Europeans are roughly 1/4 EEF, 1/4 local WHG and 1/2 Steppe. That may not be the exact numbers but we do show enough affinity to Loschbourg and KO1 to warrant such an idea.


http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/soil_atlas/pages/87.html

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/LBK_culture.png

https://helemaalloss.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/european_loess_map_hires7613.jpg

 

[epoch]

I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

No, can't be. Lazardis derived the proportion of EEF versus WHG from Stuttgart and Loschbour, which would lump the Near Eastern WHG decent in EEF. Still, everybody in Europe came out with a proportion of WHG. Also, Haak had this table which clearly states something similar:

 

[Sile]

No, can't be. Lazardis derived the proportion of EEF versus WHG from Stuttgart and Loschbour, which would lump the Near Eastern WHG decent in EEF. Still, everybody in Europe came out with a proportion of WHG. Also, Haak had this table which clearly states something similar:

As i stated in post#11 ...............there is no teal in LBKT_EN and this orange is in central Germany ..............the age difference between these new "troad" Anatolians of 6300BC to the orange of LBK_EN in germany is less than 800 years

you will find nearly zero of WHG in these troad people

 

[Angela]

correct, there was a lot of "F" too
how much of this is left? practically none
why would the original first G2a still be there then?

and yes, sometimes the newcomers took local women
but that don't mean no new women arrived
just look at early neolithic and middle neolithic mtDNA
if you don't look at the subclades, you'll find the same components but not in the same proportion, there are clear shifts
in the early neolithic the main components are T and K
in the middle neolithic many of them are replaced by H
if you then look at the subclades, you'll notice even more differences

the first European farmers didn't have a monopoly on EEF
otherwise it would be impossible for R1b to become totally EEF

This is the Brandt et al analysis of ancient mtDna. I know we now have more samples, but maybe this can serve just to get the discussion going.

The total lack of the "U" lineages in the early Neolithic goes along with the findings that there was virtually no H/G introgression in the early phases of the Neolithic in Europe. The uptick in the Middle Neolithic could correlate with the uptick in WHG ancestry in late Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans. Interestingly, that occurs before the changes to mtDna brought about by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, which, if you're using just those lineages labelled Early Bronze Age, aren't very large. (Some of those are obviously "EHG" type lineages.)

The problematic lineage is "H", given those somewhat controversial Mesolithic "H" samples in Iberia, and the later high frequencies of "H" in Neolithic Portugal. It will be very informative to see what specific lineages of "H" were present in the Anatolian Neolithic. Most importantly, was there "basal" H1 and H3? When we have that information it will be much easier to figure out if, whether or not a few very basal "H" lineages made it to Iberia in the Mesolithic, the vast majority of it is Neolithic Near Eastern, and which sub-lineages went "west" to go with the EEF into Europe "early", and which "H" and other lineages (U3?) went east into the Caucasus, then the steppe and only then entered Europe from the east.

 

[Angela]

Some comments I made on Eurogenes comment section and which I think make some sense.

To prove this scenario you'd actually need Balkan (and or Greek) farmer samples from before the date of LBK which show introgressed "actual" WHG, wouldn't you?

Maybe I've lost track. Do we even have contemporaneous, much less earlier farmer samples (as compared to LBK) from the Balkans which show more "WHG" even as defined by blogger calculators?

Or is the increase from mid to late Neolithic samples?

 

[epoch]

The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.

No, the gist of it was that KO1, a Hungarian HG contemporary to neolithics, was more related to farmers than all other HGs and therefore they concluded admixture in the Balkans was the most probable scenario.

This also clearly shows the re-uptake of HG by later, local neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker. See Gok2's higher affiliation to Loschbour.

 

[Alan]

I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.

Therefore, if we're going to be precise in our terminology and not confuse people once more, the Anatolian farmers did not have WHG.

So, it seems there were at least two groups of hunter-gatherers in the ancient Near East who combined to form the first farmers. There's this population ancestral to the WHG whom we could perhaps call the UHG, and some "Basal Eurasian" hunter-gatherers.

I certainly hope that the Reich Lab clarifies the issue, including the origin and nature of this "Basal Eurasian" hunter gatherer component, and its proportional presence in the first farmers of Anatolia.

If they can't do it maybe it's time that they let it go or modify it, like they modified their initial formulation that Europeans had an "Amerindian" component.

Absolutely agree.

Here one of my comments about that matter on Eurogenes comment section.

Alberto said

"I certainly didn't mean that there were WHGs as such (Loschbour types) in Syria or the Levant. Here we should probably notice that we're talking about the same kind of component and it's just a degree of it that changes."

Right, as I said in one of my earlier posts. we are dealing with a West Eurasian Hunther and Gatherers population ancestral to WHG too but pre WHG.

What is here showing up as "WHG" in EEF is not really WHG but a relative population of WHG which was in the Near East since the beginning and might even be (Probably) ancestral to WHG itself.

Just look at this graph it explains the relation of EEF and WHG well.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png

 

[Alan]

To prove this scenario you'd actually need Balkan (and or Greek) farmer samples from before the date of LBK which show introgressed "actual" WHG, wouldn't you?

Maybe I've lost track. Do we even have contemporaneous, much less earlier farmer samples (as compared to LBK) from the Balkans which show more "WHG" even as defined by blogger calculators?

Or is the increase from mid to late Neolithic samples?

My thoughts were made because of the Vinca individual and that a recent paper appeared saying Iberian farmers are directly descend from Balkan farmers. It was merely a speculation but I still think that is the case and we have it to do with a farming complex along Anatolia and Balkans. In this scenario Balkans are a secondary homeland to the earliest fertile crescent farmers who reached the Balkans and mixed there probably with real WHG people and might have catched up yDNA I there (If not "I" was present in Western Asia already).