Leak: Early Iranian and Turksih Farmers were Genetically Distinct

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

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

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

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

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

EHG is modeled as 80% WHG, 7% Iranian Neolithic and 10% CHG like.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
The Natufians were full of E1b1b and CT Haplogroups. Seems like we have found the source of the Egyptian culture in Natufians. The whole Afro_asiatic family seems to be descend from the Levantine Natufians.

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

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

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

Maybe Natufian is only E1b1b1b2-Z830, we don't know about other E1b1b subclades.
 
Alan said:
HA I knew it I said it, but some people just jumped on wrong conclusions merely out of the fact that they don't like the idea of Yamna possibly being from Iranian Plateau.

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


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

I always said it

Iranian Plateau => Caucasus=> Steppes.

OR Eastern Iranian Plateau => Central Asia => Steppes.
Click to expand...

keep in mind IE are not simply R1a/R1b, you have to narrow down to just 3 subclades : R1b-M269 and M73 and R1a-M417
 
Alan said:
The paper also perfectly proves my hypothesis that THREE distinct groups were living in the Near East at least by Neolithic.

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

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

I gave you a shout out on the other thread. :)

Yes, they make a point of correcting the record that the "Sardinian like" input into East Africa posited by another paper is actually Levant Neolithic.
 
Armenia_ChL (Chalcolithic Armenia)

I1407: L1a
I1632: L1a
I1634: L1a

Iran_Mesolithic (Hotu Cave)

I1293: J(xJ2a1b3, J2b2a1a1)

Iran_N

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




Iran_LN

I1671: G2a1(xG2a1a)

Iran_ChL (Chalcolithic Iran)

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

Natufians

I0861: E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
I1072: E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1685: CT
I1690: CT
I1949: CT

Levant_N

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

Levant_BA

I1705: J1(xJ1a)
I1730: J(xJ1, J2a, J2b2a)
 
bicicleur said:
keep in mind IE are not simply R1a/R1b, you have to narrow down to just 3 subclades : R1b-M269 and M73 and R1a-M417
Click to expand...

Indo Europeans are not just R1b-M269, m73 and R1a-M417 Haplogroups anyway :) I believe these were just the "Lucky lineages". I think many other subclades and other lineages such as J went "lost" in a very patriachal society.
 
bicicleur said:
Maybe Natufian is only E1b1b1b2-Z830, we don't know about other E1b1b subclades.
Click to expand...

I doubt this, as I have said in the past I believe yDNA E represents a backmigration into Africa and was a lucky or dominant ineage. A and B are the proto African Haplogroups, anything below CT is Eurasian imo.

Angela said:
I gave you a shout out on the other thread. :)

Yes, they make a point of correcting the record that the "Sardinian like" input into East Africa posited by another paper is actually Levant Neolithic.
Click to expand...

Can't find the other thread :)
 
Last edited:
bicicleur said:
keep in mind IE are not simply R1a/R1b, you have to narrow down to just 3 subclades : R1b-M269 and M73 and R1a-M417
Click to expand...

Not sure why do you begin with M417 considering that samples of M198(xM417) have been found in IE context, for example in CWC (sample I1534 from Esperstedt dated to 2500-2400 BC was R1a-M198*). Check this map of R1a Relic Branches (but when it comes to Blue Pins - they are basal R1a-M198*, which is descended from Corded Ware culture, so this not a relic branch, only a rare one - CWC sample I1534 / ESP14 from Esperstedt was R1a1a-M198* - https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/ ):

The map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...mbed&ie=UTF8&mid=1xoby146BKX50zmwv052UFNkqYHg

Check also FTDNA R1a Project: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?vgroup=R1a&section=yresults

R1a_Relic_Branches.png


^ The map is incomplete because for example there are also 2 Polish samples of M198*:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...er-haplogroups?p=482020&viewfull=1#post482020

attachment.php


Subclade - formed / TMRCA in years ago (according to YFull):

R1a (M420) - 22800 / 18200
R1a1 (M459) - 18200 / 14300
R1a1a (M198) - 14300 / 8500
R1a1a1 (M417) - 8500 / 5500; including:
-- R1a1a1a (L664*) - 5500 / 4700
-- R1a1a1b (Z645) - 5500 / 5000; including:
---- R1a1a1b1 (Z283) - 5000 / 5000
---- R1a1a1b2 (Z93) - 5000 / 4800

*Actually it is CTS4385->L664.

Karelian hunter lived 8800-7950 years ago (according to most recent dating), but he belonged to basal R1a1-M459* and tested negatively for R1a1a-M198 mutation which had emerged 14300 years ago - long before he lived.

This means, that Karelian hunter wasn't ancestral to 99% of modern R1a, which is all M198+ (for example among Polish people with R1a, 99.83% belong to M198+ and 99.67% to M417+ subclades). Mesolithic Karelian branch of R1a was a "dead end" which got extinct at some point, or at least it didn't suceed in multiplying. No living descendants has been found so far.

But a branch related to Karelian - YP1272 (descended directly from R1a1-M459) - has been found among men of the Szpakowski family from Belarus and among a few other men throughout the world (including one guy from Tunisia):

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP1272/

Apart from Bazyl Szpakowski from Belarus, also for example Ibrahim Mehrez from Tunisia has it.
 
Last edited:
I believe yDNA E represents a backmigration into Africa
Click to expand...

In my opinion it represents a back-migration across the Sahara, but not necessarily into Africa.

It is possible that E expanded from North Africa both into Eurasia and back across the Sahara.

IMHO those "Basal Eurasians" who had "little if any" Neanderthal admixture were mostly DE:

They likely lived from North Africa to South-West Asia, despite an "exclusively Eurasian" name:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a 'basal Eurasian' lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
Click to expand...

basal_Eurasians.png
 
Tomenable said:
In my opinion it represents a back-migration across the Sahara, but not necessarily into Africa.

It is possible that it expanded from North Africa into both Eurasia and back across the Sahara.

Probably those Basal Eurasians who had little or zero of Neanderthal admixture were mostly E.
Click to expand...

But No Haplogroup E found in Iranian Neolithic, I know as I always say we only have few samples and could indeed find some E Haplogroups in future. But than if Basal Eurasian was from Africa you would expect Natufians to have more of it, in fact however Natufians and Iranian Neolithic have similar amount and the Iran Hotu Cave sample even has the most of this admixture.
 
But No Haplogroup E found in Iranian Neolithic
Click to expand...

Maybe female-mediated admixture. But how much "Basal Eurasian" were those Iranians?

My understanding of this paper, is that Natufians were as much as ~50% Basal Eurasian.

Iranian farmers were genetically very distinct from Natufians - were they also 50% BE?

========================

Anyway - DE is the only Y-DNA haplogroup which had separated from the rest of Non-African male lineages, before that rest of Non-African male lineages started to separate from each other. There is nothing special about J or G - all of them descended from CF haplogroup. Only DE is special, because it is not descended from CF, unlike all other of Non-African Y-DNA haplogroups.

So when it comes to Y-DNA, it seems that "Basal Eurasians" were originally DE (or even just E).

On the other hand, we still don't know what were mtDNA haplogroups of "Basal Eurasians".
 
in fact however Natufians and Iranian Neolithic have similar amount and the Iran Hotu Cave sample even has the most of this admixture
Click to expand...

OK.

Well, autosomal DNA doesn't correlate very well with Y-DNA in long terms. It probably correlates better with mtDNA.

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

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

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

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

Figure S4.10 models Iran_N as 38% Basal, 12.4% brother of WHG, 49.6% pre-K14 split(ANE?) and Natufian as 45% Basal, 55% cousin of WHG. These are similar to the results we've been getting with D-stats for the last 6 months. This model doesn't work though because we lack the right ancient genomes.
 
Last edited:
Tomenable said:
Maybe female-mediated admixture. But how much "Basal Eurasian" were those Iranians?

My understanding of this paper, is that Natufians were as much as ~50% Basal Eurasian.

Iranian farmers were genetically very distinct from Natufians - were they also 50% BE?
Click to expand...

Yes they were, and the Hotu Cave sample even ~60% also another thing that made the authors dubious about the African origin of Basal Eurasian is that Natufians showed no sign of more African shift than any other Eurasians. Basal Eurasians interestingly showed no or very little Neanderthal admixture which makes these "Basal Eurasians" indeed the most Basal Eurasians who didn't had mixed with Neanderthals possibly hiding in some Persian gulf or Arabian refugium.
 
The highlight of the paper is Table S7.25, where they give a list of qpADM results they got for ancient West Eurasians. Here are results for Metal Age Middle Easterners. They make a lot of sense.

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

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

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

Once these ancient Middle Eastern genomes are made available and we imitate some of the techniques used in the study we'll learn a lot more about West Eurasian. An important detail I think we'll learn is who the Middle Eastern people who moved into Southern Europe after the Neolithic were. I think they came mostly from the Levant, so Levant_BA should be a good proxy.
 
Basal Eurasians probably split from other Non-African humans between 88 and 65 thousand years ago.

While haplogroup J formed only 43 thousand years ago, and haplogroup G only 49 thousand ya (per YFull).

So original Basal Eurasians couldn't be J or G, because these haplogroups simply didn't yet exist.

When Basal Eurasian autosomal component emerged, there was just A, B, DE, CF and now-extinct lineages.

Also a matter of fact, all of CF carriers are admixed by Neanderthals.

Even D carriers (such as Andamanese Islanders) have this admixture, but they probably got it during expansion of D haplogroup into Eurasia (after the split from DE), rather than before the separation of haplogroups D and E from DE.

So IMO Neanderthal admixture happened after the split of DE and CF.

DE initially avoided that admixture, explaining why many Sub-Saharans with E don't have it.
who didn't had mixed with Neanderthals possibly hiding in some Persian gulf or Arabian refugium.
Click to expand...

Most likely either in North Africa or in the Arabian Peninsula (areas without Neanderthals):

neanderthal%2Brange.jpg
 
Basal Eurasian split like 60,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean G can't be of Basal Eurasian origin. Just as R is of Crown Eurasian origin but is 30,000 years old while Crown Eurasian formed 10,000s of years before that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 73946 times.

Back
Top