Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 62 of 62

Thread: Upcoming paper on the Iranian Neolithic

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    248,829
    Level
    100
    Points: 248,829, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Ok I overreacted. You can say I'm jumping the gun too quickly when there isn't a lot of data to look at without being insulting. You don't have to nit pick every little thing I write.
    I've been saying that and similar things to you for what seems like years now. How many times does it have to be said? There are people who read this Board who don't spend eons of time on this kind of research, or they're newbies. I'm not going to let you continue to confuse people by making these kinds of unsupported claims over and over again.

    If you have no evidence for what you claim, then don't make the claim, or learn how to signal that it's a speculation, a hypothesis, or pose it as a question. These are elementary rules of discourse among civilized people.

    You've been given more leeway than any adult would receive, which has cost us a great member, but continue to speak to me like you did above, and there are going to be consequences, do you understand? Not another word...

    Instead, why don't you find that fst data; I'm actually interested in the answer, or at least what that particular kind of data will show, and I'm sure other people would be as well.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #52
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    248,829
    Level
    100
    Points: 248,829, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Do you mean Natufians (if they were the first farmers), or you suspect other source of Basal Eurasian?
    I don't have enough data to do anything but wildly speculate. If it turns out to be the case that the Iranian farmer sample is more "Basal Eurasian" than the CHG sample or the ANF samples we have at present, it's possible that the Basal Eurasian group moved generally north into those areas from a refugia to the south. I think it's been proposed before that there was such a refugia in the Arabian peninsula. The other possibility would be a refugia somewhere around the Persian Gulf, although traces of it may have been destroyed by rising sea levels. I don't know if there is any indication of a refugia more to the east.

    We really need ancient dna from not only the Natufian farmers but also from Mesopotamian farmers. That will tell us a lot. I hope the Reich team has some other, perhaps more eastern hunter-gatherers as well.

    As for where agriculture "first" developed, I know some people are still holding onto the idea that even cereal farming arose in the foothills above the Tigris Euphrates, but there are some papers with earlier dates for it in Natufian areas. Of course, as we've discussed before, it all depends how you define "farming". If a group gathers and stores wild grain, and threshes and grinds it for food, is that farming? I would say not really. What about if they gather the seeds and plant them in areas where through trial and error they've discovered they will grow well, but they haven't actually gotten to the point where they are creating domesticated strains of these grains. I would say that's already farming, but that's my subjective judgment. The same analysis could be done for the domestication of animals. We've discussed how some researchers maintain that some of the animals taken in the first expansion to Cyprus were not yet the domestic strains developed later. Or what about dairying? How long did it take to realize you could make cheese or butter or yogurt from it? How long to figure out a way to keep them lactating?

    I think there's this impression among some people that oh, there's good weather, a surplus of wild grain, some nice animals, and all of a sudden we have farming. Everything I've ever read about it indicates it didn't happen that way. I'm not saying it could have taken place in the Arctic, you needed certain environmental conditions, but it required thousands of years for the "package" to be complete, and a change not only in the plants and animals, but in humans, with humans domesticating themselves as well as plants and animals, in my opinion. Even if people find that far fetched, it's a completely different mindset and way of looking at the world, even if no genetic changes are involved, and it would have taken a long time to be accepted.

    I still maintain, as I think you do as well, that it's possible that the larger populations that could be supported by changing conditions in this part of the world meant that more mutations were present in these populations that might have proved helpful for people trying to develop this technology and selection might have acted upon them. At the very least, I would think that this different technology might put selective pressure on these people, bringing changes that could be traced.

    Perhaps it's too much to hope for that someone will come upon a "pure" Basal Eurasian genome. If they do we'll see if the same kind of analysis can be done comparing that genome with that of the other hunter-gatherers with whom they came into contact as has been done for the Neanderthal AMH enounters. Were their genes selected for, or purged?

    Anyway, we may not ever be able to figure out in which specific area of the Near East farming "first" developed, but it's pretty clear to me that the genetic tie between the ANFs and the IRFs is "Basial Eurasian".

    I must say I retained a bit of skepticism for a long time as to whether "Basal Eurasian" really existed; I thought the Lazaridis paper might have been really out there and they would have to draw it back. Maybe not, however. It will be pretty amazing if they got it right with no ancient genome for it.

  3. #53
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't have enough data to do anything but wildly speculate. If it turns out to be the case that the Iranian farmer sample is more "Basal Eurasian" than the CHG sample or the ANF samples we have at present, it's possible that the Basal Eurasian group moved generally north into those areas from a refugia to the south. I think it's been proposed before that there was such a refugia in the Arabian peninsula. The other possibility would be a refugia somewhere around the Persian Gulf, although traces of it may have been destroyed by rising sea levels. I don't know if there is any indication of a refugia more to the east.
    I see, pretty much a ghose ancestor. I'll be happy if we set base admixtures at the end of Ice Age. Before that the samples will be scarce and bad quality and will take ages to figure out how it exactly went around between populations.

    We really need ancient dna from not only the Natufian farmers but also from Mesopotamian farmers. That will tell us a lot. I hope the Reich team has some other, perhaps more eastern hunter-gatherers as well.

    As for where agriculture "first" developed, I know some people are still holding onto the idea that even cereal farming arose in the foothills above the Tigris Euphrates, but there are some papers with earlier dates for it in Natufian areas. Of course, as we've discussed before, it all depends how you define "farming". If a group gathers and stores wild grain, and threshes and grinds it for food, is that farming? I would say not really. What about if they gather the seeds and plant them in areas where through trial and error they've discovered they will grow well, but they haven't actually gotten to the point where they are creating domesticated strains of these grains. I would say that's already farming, but that's my subjective judgment. The same analysis could be done for the domestication of animals. We've discussed how some researchers maintain that some of the animals taken in the first expansion to Cyprus were not yet the domestic strains developed later. Or what about dairying? How long did it take to realize you could make cheese or butter or yogurt from it? How long to figure out a way to keep them lactating?

    I think there's this impression among some people that oh, there's good weather, a surplus of wild grain, some nice animals, and all of a sudden we have farming. Everything I've ever read about it indicates it didn't happen that way. I'm not saying it could have taken place in the Arctic, you needed certain environmental conditions, but it required thousands of years for the "package" to be complete, and a change not only in the plants and animals, but in humans, with humans domesticating themselves as well as plants and animals, in my opinion. Even if people find that far fetched, it's a completely different mindset and way of looking at the world, even if no genetic changes are involved, and it would have taken a long time to be accepted.
    Right, becoming a farmer it was a long process, thousands of years, if only reading clues from Natufians and pre Natufians excavated villages. Now if it was thousands of years long process it is pretty much impossible that natural selection didn't enhance "pro farming" genes. Especially taking under consideration how different diet and lifestyle is of farmers versus HGs.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  4. #54
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    NatufianSpread 18.jpg

    the first Natufian permanent settlement arose 14.5 ka in the southern Levant
    13.5 ka some moved to Abu Hureya, upper Eufrates
    during younger dryas all settlements were abandonned except Mureybet, a new Natufian settlement upstream from Abu Hureya
    there were no more gazelles to be hunted in Abu Hureya, but they were in Mureybet
    Khiam_point.png
    people in Mureybet were not just Abu Hureya people, they were a Natufian tribe making 'khiam points', originating from west of lake Tiberias
    Mureybet was the first site where rye and cereals were grown, during or right after youngest dryas

    Bezoarziege by F. Spangenberg at wikipedia.org.jpg

    beozars (ancestral to goats) were selectively hunted (only adult males) near Great Zab river, Zagros Mts, it was the 1st step in domestication of female beozar
    the female beozar were not killed, as they always attracted fresh beozar males coming from further away
    on the contrary, the hunters protected the female beozars from predators like wolves
    during younger dryas this area was abondonned, the tribe split :
    - south to Lorestan (where I guess the women's DNA in this study is situated)
    - north to upper Tigris, where they also domesticated pig
    during younger dryas people from upper Tigris came with beozar herds west to the Göbekli Tepe area, where they build their temple (inspired by the shrines in the upper Tigirs settlements)
    the Göbekli Tepe temple is just 80 km east of Mureybet as the bird flies

    what I learn from the abstract is that these beozar hunters near Great Zab river would have been CHG

  5. #55
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    so there would be a divide for 10.000 years or more
    I would guess there could be a divide between Mesopotamia and the Zagros
    as I mentioned earlier, the cereal farmers descending from Natufians were not the same as the hunters and later herders that domesticated the goat in the Zagros and the pig in the Eastern Taurus Tigris river area
    there was the divide between Summerians and Elamites, and there is a theory about relation between Elamite and Dravidian language
    the Bronze Age Semitic people invaded Mesopotamia but not the Zagros, nor Anatolia
    the Persians conquered Mesopotamia, but unlike the Assyrians before them, they didn't displace whole tribes

    it is possible, but I think it is best to await the publication of the paper to draw conclusions

    furthermore I think that todays people in the Levant and Mesopotamia are more related to the Semitic invaders than to the neolithic people descending from Natufians
    it could be that Europeans are more related to Natufians than Middle Easterners
    Perhaps Sumerian is a very old union between EEF and "Iranian Neolithic" (Proto-Elamite/Elamo-Dravidian). I've always had a tendency to theorize that Sumerian was an Elamite language just because there's no agreement on the classification, but this doesn't appear to be the case. A lingua franca between two farming groups seems most likely at this point.

    But this recent genetic evidence combined with the archaeology and linguistics strongly supports the notion of Elamo-Dravidian.

  6. #56
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    248,829
    Level
    100
    Points: 248,829, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    NatufianSpread 18.jpg

    the first Natufian permanent settlement arose 14.5 ka in the southern Levant
    13.5 ka some moved to Abu Hureya, upper Eufrates
    during younger dryas all settlements were abandonned except Mureybet, a new Natufian settlement upstream from Abu Hureya
    there were no more gazelles to be hunted in Abu Hureya, but they were in Mureybet
    Khiam_point.png
    people in Mureybet were not just Abu Hureya people, they were a Natufian tribe making 'khiam points', originating from west of lake Tiberias
    Mureybet was the first site where rye and cereals were grown, during or right after youngest dryas

    Bezoarziege by F. Spangenberg at wikipedia.org.jpg

    beozars (ancestral to goats) were selectively hunted (only adult males) near Great Zab river, Zagros Mts, it was the 1st step in domestication of female beozar
    the female beozar were not killed, as they always attracted fresh beozar males coming from further away
    on the contrary, the hunters protected the female beozars from predators like wolves
    during younger dryas this area was abondonned, the tribe split :
    - south to Lorestan (where I guess the women's DNA in this study is situated)
    - north to upper Tigris, where they also domesticated pig
    during younger dryas people from upper Tigris came with beozar herds west to the Göbekli Tepe area, where they build their temple (inspired by the shrines in the upper Tigirs settlements)
    the Göbekli Tepe temple is just 80 km east of Mureybet as the bird flies

    what I learn from the abstract is that these beozar hunters near Great Zab river would have been CHG
    This is very important information. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you have Natufians who were growing grains moving to the upper Euphrates, and people from the Zagros mountains who were starting the process of the domestication of animals moving to the upper Tigris and then actually into central Anatolia.

    Certainly there was a transfer of the "technology" both ways. Now, given that we have both Natufians and Zagros farmers in the foothills of the Tigris/Eurphrates Valley we have to see if the genetics of people like the later Mesopotamian farmers shows that there was any admixture of these two groups. I would be very surprised if there wasn't.

    Likewise, the genetics of the people in Central Anatolia are very important. I speculated on prior threads that perhaps some of the increasing CHG that starts to appear in the farmers of northwest Anatolia very early came with people from central Anatolia, as the archaeology seems to indicate that there is a trail from there to the northwest. This might all hang together.

  7. #57
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Perhaps Sumerian is a very old union between EEF and "Iranian Neolithic" (Proto-Elamite/Elamo-Dravidian). I've always had a tendency to theorize that Sumerian was an Elamite language just because there's no agreement on the classification, but this doesn't appear to be the case. A lingua franca between two farming groups seems most likely at this point.
    this is not likely, as the origin of the Ubaid culture is known, it is the Samarra culture in central Mesopotamia

    I think there was a 'Natufian language' all the way from the Levant down to south Mesopotamia prior to the Semitic invasion.

  8. #58
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is very important information. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you have Natufians who were growing grains moving to the upper Euphrates, and people from the Zagros mountains who were starting the process of the domestication of animals moving to the upper Tigris and then actually into central Anatolia.

    Certainly there was a transfer of the "technology" both ways. Now, given that we have both Natufians and Zagros farmers in the foothills of the Tigris/Eurphrates Valley we have to see if the genetics of people like the later Mesopotamian farmers shows that there was any admixture of these two groups. I would be very surprised if there wasn't.

    Likewise, the genetics of the people in Central Anatolia are very important. I speculated on prior threads that perhaps some of the increasing CHG that starts to appear in the farmers of northwest Anatolia very early came with people from central Anatolia, as the archaeology seems to indicate that there is a trail from there to the northwest. This might all hang together.
    yes there should have been admixture, but farmers to Europe were still in majority all the same G2a2 Y DNA
    and why didn't farmers have domesticated animals during PPNA? during PPNA they were relying on hunting for their meat

  9. #59
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    248,829
    Level
    100
    Points: 248,829, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    yes there should have been admixture, but farmers to Europe were still in majority all the same G2a2 Y DNA
    and why didn't farmers have domesticated animals during PPNA? during PPNA they were relying on hunting for their meat
    We're talking about changes over long periods, as I've been saying repeatedly. I haven't yet checked for the latest papers, but this Wiki article seems rather in line with what I recall reading on the subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B

    "Cultural tendencies of this period differ from that of the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic A(PPNA) period in that people living during this period began to depend more heavily upondomesticated animals to supplement their earlier mixed agrarian and hunter-gatherer diet. In addition the flint tool kit of the period is new and quite disparate from that of the earlier period. One of its major elements is the naviform core. "

    This is very interesting as well:
    "
    they found evidence of a fully established PPNB culture at 8700 BC at Aswad, pushing back the period's generally accepted start date by 1,200 years. Similar sites to Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin of the same age were found at Tell Ramadand Tell Ghoraifé. How a PPNB culture could spring up in this location, practicing domesticated farming from 8700 BC has been the subject of speculation. Whether it created its own culture or imported traditions from the North East or Southern Levant has been considered an important question for a site that poses a problem for the scientific community."

    Maybe the question will be settled by genetics. :)

    And this:
    "T
    he PPNB culture developed from the Earlier Natufian but shows evidence of a northerly origin, possibly indicating an influx from the region of north eastern Anatolia. The culture disappeared during the 8.2 kiloyear event, a term that climatologists have adopted for a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,200 years before the present, or c. 6200 BCE, and which lasted for the next two to four centuries. In the following Munhatta andYarmukian post-pottery Neolithic cultures that succeeded it, rapid cultural development continues."

    The next sequence shows influence from the south.
    "
    Work at the site of 'Ain Ghazal in Jordan has indicated a later Pre-Pottery Neolithic C period which existed between 8,200 and 7,900 BP. Juris Zarins has proposed that a Circum Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex developed in the period from the climatic crisis of 6200 BCE, partly as a result of an increasing emphasis in PPNB cultures upon animal domesticates, and a fusion with Harifian hunter gatherers in Southern Palestine, with affiliate connections with the cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Cultures practicing this lifestyle spread down the Red Sea shoreline and moved east from Syria into southern Iraq.[12]"

    If archaeologist can learn from geneticists, the opposite is true as well. In analyzing these ancient genomes people should be keeping the archaeology in mind, not just jumping to wild conclusions.

    That applies to admixture analyses as well. I'm reminded of the "Red Sea" component that Dienekes was exploring.Another thing I noticed is that the prior house structures were round, in contrast to the rectangular form, which eventually made its way to LBK, which was from the subsequent PPNB period. If I remember correctly, the early northwest Anatolian farmers were still using the round form.

  10. #60
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    this is not likely, as the origin of the Ubaid culture is known, it is the Samarra culture in central Mesopotamia

    I think there was a 'Natufian language' all the way from the Levant down to south Mesopotamia prior to the Semitic invasion.
    I don't think it's that simple. I don't think Samarra->Ubaid->Uruk was a continuous EEF population speaking a Natufian language. The Ganj Dareh sample is hinting at this.

    This would explain both the unclear origins of Sumerian Civilization and the "unclassified" language.

  11. #61
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,728
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,728, Level: 63
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 1,222
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    I don't think it's that simple. I don't think Samarra->Ubaid->Uruk was a continuous EEF population speaking a Natufian language. The Ganj Dareh sample is hinting at this.

    This would explain both the unclear origins of Sumerian Civilization and the "unclassified" language.
    the farmers coming from the Samarra area probably had a high Natufian content
    but Summerians were supposed to be a mixture of these farmers with local fisher/hunters from the lagoons and with local herders

    I guess the Ganj Dareh sample is more representative for the later Elamites
    If I recall well goat herders combining with pulse gathering were allready at Ganj Dareh before cereal farming was introduced around 10.3 ka

    anyway we are talking about an area of which no DNA has been published uptill now
    I hope this paper will be published soon

  12. #62
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Is it really surprising? The Vedas are IE too and I'm sure modern Brahmans look nothing like, say for example Andronovo samples. In fact it looks like the abstract says that Brahmans may very well resemble these Neolithic samples as well. It's doesn't change that the Avestan and Rig Veda were written in IE. There's many non-IE loanwords in Indo-Iranian as well which were no doubt taken from whatever it was that BMAC people spoke. Probably Elamite or something related.

    Remember Indo-Iranians were a foreign superimposition, and almost certainly a minority in the region. It's no surprise that Iranian speakers of today might still resemble neolithic samples. It's not like in Europe where you had a ton of WHG and EHG all around. And there's actually still parts of IE speaking Europe that are mostly EEF.
    I red the I-Ean period in India was less "racist" (Oh! I speak now as Goga) than subsequent India (castes system later): reports of non-I-Ean names of people incorporated in the administrative I-Ean system and non-I-Ean divinities the same way. By the way it could explain the discrepancy in current India (in some cses, not in all) concerning languages, castes and DNA...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •