Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 412

Thread: The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

  1. #26
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    Mota Cave HG E1b1a didn't have Neanderthal, probably Natufian E-Z830 didn't have either before coming to Asia.
    It hints at arrival of E-Z830 from Africa.

    I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
    The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.
    The authros don't think Basal Eurasian came from Africa, because Basal Eurasian peaks in Neolithic Iranians.

  2. #27
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,908
    Points
    17,959
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,959, Level: 40
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 91
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    @Maleth,
    It appears that the Natufians carry the precursor to E-M34. Thought you'd want to know. :)
    This is really exciting. And I thought we would never get any results from these regions....but here they are.

  3. #28
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a
    population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics:



    MA1, EHG, SHG, Switzerland_HG are consistent with having no Basal Eurasian ancestry, while at least some such ancestry is inferred for the remaining populations.Neolithic Iran and Natufians could be derived from the same Basal Eurasian population but are genetically closer to EHG and WHG respectively We take the model of Fig. S4.9 and attempt to fit Natufians as a mixture of the same Basal Eurasian population that contributes to Iran_N and any other population of the tree. Several solutions are feasible, and we show the best one (lowest ADMIXTUREGRAPH score) in Fig. S4.10.
    We can add both EHG and MA1 as simple branches to the model structure of Fig. S4.10 and show the results in Fig. S4.11. An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two
    populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics: suggests
    that the singleton individual from Hotu (Iran_HotuIIIb) was shifted towards EHG along the Iran_N/EHG cline, albeit it does not reach |Z|>3. There is uncertainty about the date of Iran_HotuIIIb, as it is not certain that it is of Mesolithic age and thus predates the Neolithic of Iran from Ganj Dareh.
    The fact that the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (who are definitely pre-Neolithic) have extra EHG-related ancestry is also supportive of a substantial antiquity of this element in the Caucasus-Iran region. It is not clear whether the hunter-gatherers preceding the Neolithic in Ganj Dareh were similar to Iran_HotuIIIb or the CHG and their EHG affinity was diluted during Neolithization, or whether they are descended from an unsampled hunter-gatherer population that already had this reduced affinity to the EHG....


    Thus it is rather the Mesolithic of Iran that shares more alleles with these eastern European groups than the Neolithic. Tentatively, this might suggest that the pre-Neolithic population of Iran had an affinity to the EHG/Ancient North Eurasians that was diluted during the Neolithic, although the lack of negative f4-statistics does not allow us to discern what is the source of this dilution. Alternatively, there was no dilution, but the Neolithic of Iran was descended
    from an unsampled Mesolithic population.
    Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

    This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

    With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.

  4. #29
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #30
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,695
    Points
    240,601
    Level
    100
    Points: 240,601, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Just finished the Supplement and then took a look at other sites to see the comments. Some were insightful, some very disappointing. Every person whose pet agenda is at all negatively impacted has pulled out the knives. Without being able to point to anything wrong with the analysis, and without having even looked at the actual samples, one blogger stated outright that he's out to disprove the conclusions of the paper. Very sad. Not, of course, that any group of researchers is necessarily correct 100% of the time, but this particular group has a very good track record, and some of them created the very statistical programs being used. So, we shall see.

    Some of the things creating the most controversy are, of course, the blasted "Indo-Europeans". I wonder if there's a genetic predisposition to it? :)

    So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

    That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

    That Iran Chalcolithic is:
    13,4 EHG
    62,3 Iran_N
    20,0 Levant_N
    4,3 WHG

    How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.

    The controversy over the movement south into south central Asia and India is even worse.

    This is the statement which caused all the furor...
    "While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
    match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
    (Steppe_MLBA) is not."

    The latter is Andronovo and Sintashta apparently. Given all those stats that were produced showing how much genetic impact they had on India, I guess that was upsetting, although I thought there was some retreat from that position. If the paper is correct, those more "European" cultures, including any movement from Srubnaya are a dead end, yes?

    However, the complete statement is the following:

    "While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
    match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
    (Steppe_MLBA) is not. Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have beenproposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians9,19, as well as the Srubnaya from easternEurope which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a1b2-Z935. A useful direction of future research is a more comprehensive sampling of ancient DNA from steppe populations, as well as populations of central Asia (east of Iran and south of the steppe), which may reveal more proximate sources of the ANI than the ones considered here, and of South Asia to determine the trajectory of population change in the area directly.

    So, this hardly seems cut and dried on their part. Perhaps people should chill out a little.

    Rather than accept this formulation, it was stated that the intrusive population to the steppe might be a combination of EHG, CHG and CT or "Old Europe" presumably, and that Lazaridis et al never bother to test that possibility. Well, uh, they did test it, and show the results in the Supplement for a possible admixture of EHG, CHG and Anatolia Neolithic explaining the non-EHG part of Yamnaya, with the latter coming, presumably, from CT. This group is well aware that admixtures can be modeled in different ways, and usually present all of them; it's just that what's put in the body of the paper is their estimate of the better alternative. In order to really pin it down, they need even older samples from the Near East and Central Asia. Again, though, I don't get why admixture from CT would be more acceptable. Maybe it has to do with having so vehemently denied in the past than any Near Eastern farmers went over the Caucasus into the steppe?

    I find the argument that the steppe numbers for South Asian populations may be inflated more persuasive. The percentages seem very high for far South Indian groups. Perhaps the numbers are indeed inflated by "EHG like" populations in Central Asia that were absorbed on the move into India? Again, though, they seem very aware that there are more "proximate" populations which need to be sampled.

    In that regard, this is the group that has had Caucasus and, I think, perhaps some Central Asian samples for quite a while, yes? So, presumably, they might already have a good idea about that?

    Just parenthetically, this need to get more than one paper out of the data they have is totally understandable, but it puts the authors of the papers at something of a disadvantage it seems to me, since they may know much more than they can say. This was part of the problem with the Mathiesen et al paper.

    Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

    Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)

    It looks as if the yDna "J" got to the southern Levant rather late, not until the Bronze Age.

    I don't understand the following:
    "Northwest Anatolians—with ancestry from a population related to 322 European hunter-gatherers (Supplementary Information, section 7)—are better modelled if 323 this ancestry is taken as more extreme than Bichon (Supplementary Information, section 10)."


    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

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

    Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)
    Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.

  7. #32
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

    This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

    With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.
    This paper includes lots of Middle Eastern hunter gatherers. They all had Basal Eurasian. In Iran and Levant, the later farming population's were the decendants of previous hunter gatherers in Iran and Levant. Basal Eurasian has nothing to do with farming. pre-farming Iranians were had ANE but weren't ANE-rich, at least compared to EHG and Native Americans.

  8. #33
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    I haven't been able to read the study properly, will do so in a few days. But ..
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

    That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

    That Iran Chalcolithic is:
    13,4 EHG
    62,3 Iran_N
    20,0 Levant_N
    4,3 WHG

    How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.
    could that 43 % be the Maykop component?

    if I recall well EHG were R1a while I1945 Iran neolithic is P1xQ which is R

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenjager View Post
    Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.
    I1707 = T
    age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
    found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
    SNP's = 152234
    MtDNA = R0a

    I1707
    : T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
    This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
    defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
    P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
    T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
    East9
    and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
    communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
    Neolithic of central Europe6.


    While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
    Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
    Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
    autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

    The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries

    T-P322 is mostly found in the Levant , Armenia and Germany
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  10. #35
    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



    The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic. Can someone "in know" look at these clades and explain their relation to Asia and Europe and Bronze Age? I'm not surprised we can find some R1 haplogroups there, but that they were farmers. Next surprise is right after, in LN and beyond they were gone! Why these clades didn't emigrate with Iranian farmers to Anatolia?
    I was one of proponents of North-South movement of HG tribes or trans Caucasus movement. But R1 farmers in Iran, that's a surprise.

    Can someone explain "Figure 1" from the paper, the PCA distances and chart with colored admixtures. How come Anatolian and European Neolithic is represented by mixture of Natufians and WHGs only? On PCA European Neolithic is exactly between Natufian N and WHGs, while Iranian N is the furthest group away?
    Isn't it a contradiction with Figure 4b?

    Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.

    Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.

    Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.

    So where G2a EEF came from? Communities in Central/Eastern Turkey or wherever? Looking at always fluent dominant Y haplogroup in Neolithic farmers, it points to the story of many collapses of population, bottleneck, founder effect and natural selection, that favoured one haplogroup over others followed by strong expansion of the "lucky" one. Amazing.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  11. #36
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    777
    Points
    10,375
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,375, Level: 30
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Netherlands



    @bicileur

    Villabruna was R1b with no sign of any contact with this area: Be it basal admixture of mtDNA. We do have a EHG with J, but we do also have some mtDNA H there.

  12. #37
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Coriolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-12-12
    Posts
    176
    Points
    7,547
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,547, Level: 25
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Switzerland



    Looks like Maciamo was right about haplogroup T originating with cereal farmers in the Fertile Crescent. The haplogroup page mentions specifically early farmers from the Levant and shows Middle Eastern farmers in the top banner pictures.

    Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

  13. #38
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    777
    Points
    10,375
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,375, Level: 30
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic.
    I didn't read that. The paper states:

    This individual belonged to haplogroup P1 on the basis of mutation P282. It was ancestral for downstream haplogroups Q (F1237.1, FGC4603), R1b1a2 (CTS12478), R1a1a1b1a1b 52 (CTS11962), R1a1a1b1a3a (L448), and R1a1a1b2a2a (Z2123). Thus, it could be designated P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b , R1a1a1b1a3a , R1a1a1b2a2a).


    Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.
    CHG was paleolithic and mesolithic.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.
    A very short look at archaeology could have told you that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.
    No, the 50/50 basis for Yamnaya hasn't changed.

  14. #39
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    777
    Points
    10,375
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,375, Level: 30
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Netherlands



    What I find surprising is that we can't seem to find a trace of Cucuteni-Tripolye until Middle Bronze age on the steppe. It was supposed to be of great influence to Sredny Stog. We should see if D-stats have Corded Ware prefer Anatolia over Chalcolithic Iran. If so, Western Yamnaya has different ME admixture than Eastern Yamnaya.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,083
    Points
    8,654
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,654, Level: 27
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 96
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    The absence of Neanderthal admixture in these populations is logical; the paper statistics don't say 0% but the authors prefer to assume none as it's near the stat error. If the area was more fertile and peopled than cold glaciar Europe, of course the relation Sapiens / Neanderthal will be more leveled in Europe, above all if the Sapiens were better adapted to Near Eastern ecosystems. Also the high Y-DNA diversity in the area points to a high population (more people, more mutations). The Gulf oase would be even "overpopulated" with its big rivers and side rivers coming from the Zagros.

    Natufians / PPNB displaying E-Z830 in the right epoch for Afroasiatic language matches quite well with the dispersal of such language family in Africa, above all among Berbers and their E-M81 linage (nephew to Z830 and formed in the time of the Natufians). The back-to-Africa migration related to herders and farmers might have carried there the R1b-V88 and the Chadic subfamily: being R Eurasian, some R1b might live among the Levantines (an European origin is not conceivable if Chadic branches from AA). The stricking case is to see J in Levant_BA, the time of Semithics arriving in the Levant and Mesopotamia... from the south?

  16. #41
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    777
    Points
    10,375
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,375, Level: 30
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    The authors don't think Basal Eurasian came from Africa, because Basal Eurasian peaks in Neolithic Iranians.
    But while HG's all had Basal, no one was a pure Basal. It clearly is not African - this paper reaffirms that - so how can that be?

    It must therefore be something very old and it needs to have happened before the UP. So, Basal remained in ME, admixture with Neanderthals happened in the Caucasus or Anatolia and the latter back migrated. Then diversified.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    I1707 = T
    age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
    found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
    SNP's = 152234
    MtDNA = R0a

    I1707
    : T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
    This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
    defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
    P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
    T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
    East9
    and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
    communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
    Neolithic of central Europe6.


    While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
    Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
    Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
    autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

    The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries

    T-P322 is mostly found in the Levant , Armenia and Germany
    Ancestral = Negative, He doesn't belong to P322.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    This could be a scenario:

    The authors found that I1945 belong to P1-P282 but was negative for R1b1a2-CTS12478. This would mean that R1b1a2-M269 is necessarily discarded? NO!

    According to YFULL R1b1a2-M269 have been formed 13600ybp BUT TMRCA for all descendants is only 6400ybp!

    Anyone knows when CTS12478 appeared? Because between 6400ybp and 10.000ybp there are 3600 years for accumulate new mutations! What if CTS12478 is younger than the sample?

  19. #44
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Just finished the Supplement and then took a look at other sites to see the comments. Some were insightful, some very disappointing. Every person whose pet agenda is at all negatively impacted has pulled out the knives. Without being able to point to anything wrong with the analysis, and without having even looked at the actual samples, one blogger stated outright that he's out to disprove the conclusions of the paper. Very sad. Not, of course, that any group of researchers is necessarily correct 100% of the time, but this particular group has a very good track record, and some of them created the very statistical programs being used. So, we shall see.
    the "reasonings of this blogger you mean are so pathethic, he doesn't even try to hide his agenda. He always jumps out with a knife when it is about that I1945: P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a) individual and despite knowing nothing, "Assumes" it must be R2 without any reasonable reasoning and his believers who seem to not be able to think for themselves just swallow it ^^
    Especially some of those guys on Anthrogenica are the worst. I haven't seen such a bunch of non thinking individuals on one place for long time. You can't even read their coments properly without account as if they are some kind of special organisation but all I see is that roughly 90% of the freakn Forum are too lazy to think for themselves and eat everything out of the hand of him. He doesn't even need to give a reasoning, He could write "it is so because I said so" and several of these individuals including the Admin would give him just out of their "principles" a thumps up. Remember I got blocked there not because I insulted anyone but because I was one of the few who tackled that "prophetic bloggers" words. They blocked me with the reasoning of creating too much "controversy" lol. So you are only allowed to be in this special group if you swallow what a few individuals spit.

    When you ask how is that this individual is going to be "R2" ( chance of 1 to possibly 1/4 at least considering how many R1a and R1b subclades are possible) all you get as answer is a "Haha no R1 in ancient Near Eastern. " while the sample is most likely some branch of R1a or R1b. And take in mind where R2 is there shouldn't be R1 far off either.

    By so much pathethic ness I just wish R1 is going to be found somewhere in Africa just to piss them off ^^




    Now about the EHG in Calcolthic Iran, I think I did write this under this bloggers comments once, We might even find some EHG on the Iranian Plateau because I believe there has to have been something ANE or even Proto EHG like in South_Central Asia. So I believe this EHG indeed might have come from South_Central Asia.
    Another possibility is that this is very ancient relationship between the CHG like and EHG like ancestry.

    [QUOT]Eather than accept this formulation, it was stated that the intrusive population to the steppe might be a combination of EHG, CHG and CT or "Old Europe" presumably, and that Lazaridis et al never bother to test that possibility. Well, uh, they did test it, and show the results in the Supplement for a possible admixture of EHG, [/QUOTE]

    Yup Lazaridis just doesn't know what he is talking about because he didn't test the possibility of EHG, CHG and CT (sarcasm), everything just don't come too close to a possible Iranian Plateau origin of PIE lol.
    Last edited by Alan; 18-06-16 at 21:37.

  20. #45
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    This paper includes lots of Middle Eastern hunter gatherers. They all had Basal Eurasian. In Iran and Levant, the later farming population's were the decendants of previous hunter gatherers in Iran and Levant. Basal Eurasian has nothing to do with farming. pre-farming Iranians were had ANE but weren't ANE-rich, at least compared to EHG and Native Americans.


    Please Fire_Head read the study, above I directly quoted from the study. The Iranian Plateau farmers are rich in ANE, or have rich ANE like ancestry.

    The paper clearly showes Mal'ta (Proxy for ANE) being labeled as ~28% Iranian Mesolithic/Neolithic like, 10% CHG like. So the Authors assume that ANE itself has a huge chunk of Iranian related DNA. This is why Iranian Neolithic doesn't show any ANE admixture. What they believe there is ancestry from the Iranian Plateau in ANE and not vica versa.

  21. #46
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    User with most referrers

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    25,862
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,862, Level: 49
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 688
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But while HG's all had Basal, no one was a pure Basal. It clearly is not African - this paper reaffirms that - so how can that be?

    It must therefore be something very old and it needs to have happened before the UP. So, Basal remained in ME, admixture with Neanderthals happened in the Caucasus or Anatolia and the latter back migrated. Then diversified.

    Yes this ^

    Basal Eurasian must have been somewhere where there wasn't much Neanderthal population, let's say somewhere like the coastle area of Iran. While the other non Basal Eurasian, Eurasian people went up into Anatolia, more North of the Iranian Plateau, Caucasus and mixed for the first time with Neanderthals.

    Later these Neanderthal mixed people mixed with the Basal Eurasians, and there we have what we call A_Farmer, L_Farmer and I_Farmers, CHG.

    The authors even assume that the only difference between Iranian_Farmers and CHG is that the former got effected more by a Basal Eurasian population while the letter less.

    And the relationship of Levant Neolithic to Anatolian Neolithic is exactly the same as the relationship of Iranian Neolithic to CHG.

    The letter seems to have less Basal Eurasian than the former.

    Means Basal Eurasian came and mixed into a WHG like population in the Levant and a ANE like population in the Iranian Plateau.

    Now Basal Eurasian could be from anywhere in the coastle Iranian region to Arabia.

  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,695
    Points
    240,601
    Level
    100
    Points: 240,601, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I've been looking at the modern PCA in the paper. Does anyone know of a site somewhere where it's explained where the modern samples for this data set were collected? I'm interested, for example, in whether those are all mainland Greek samples. I'd also like to know if the "North Italy" samples include Tuscans. It looks like it to me, but I hesitate to say so without knowing more about the data set.

    For ease of reference to the PCA with the ancient samples:


    Look at what happened to the Anatolian population from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. There's obviously been a lot of gene flow from the Caucasus. I think my brain is overloaded. Is the Anatolian Chalcolithic sample the Kumtepe 6 one just prior to Troy? If so, what some of us saw in the Hofmanova results is correct?

    You can definitely see the European samples being dragged over by the WHG admixture over time, but not very much.

    I don't know how much weight to put on where they fall versus modern populations. Did anyone notice in the methodology where they described how the projections were done? I just skimmed much of that.
    Last edited by Angela; 18-06-16 at 22:04.

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,695
    Points
    240,601
    Level
    100
    Points: 240,601, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Someone on anthrogenica posted the fst table for Anatolian Neolithic. Interesting, yes?

    Lazaridis Neolithic paper-FST (1).PNG



    The actual Middle Eastern populations are much more distant. Surprisingly to me, so are the Ashkenazim. That's just more fodder for the political wars, of course, although the difference is small.

    The Canary Islanders keep coming up with a high relationship. Their more "exotic" ancestry is too small, I guess, to pull them very far away.

    Of course, the absolute winners are the Adygei, Abkhasians, and Albanians.

    I've been thinking about the routes of the Neolithic into Europe. Perhaps what we're seeing here is the Cardial route group having relatively more Levant Neolithic because they took off from further north near modern day northern Syria/southeastern Turkey? The group that went due north quite a bit later perhaps had more CHG? (although the paper models them as being part Levant Neolithic) That might explain the slight differences between the Hungarian Neolithic and the Spanish Neolithic?
    Last edited by Angela; 18-06-16 at 22:17.

  24. #49
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,296
    Points
    34,222
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,222, Level: 56
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 17.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

    This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

    With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.

    What you say seem logical until a certain point (the Basal Eurasian would have been sent by Neolithic southern farmers?); a point seems less certain to me: the "iranian mesolithic" label for EHG; perhaps are you thinking CHG and not EHG? Could you confirm or infirm it?

  25. #50
    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
    Someone on anthrogenica posted the fst table for Anatolian Neolithic. Interesting, yes?

    Attachment 7812

    The actual Middle Eastern populations are much more distant. Surprisingly to me, so are the Ashkenazim. That's just more fodder for the political wars, of course, although the difference is small.

    The Canary Islanders keep coming up with a high relationship. Their more "exotic" ancestry is too small, I guess, to pull them very far away.

    Of course, the absolute winners are the Adygei, Abkhasians, and Albanians.

    I've been thinking about the routes of the Neolithic into Europe. Perhaps what we're seeing here is the Cardial route group having relatively more Levant Neolithic because they took off from further north near modern day northern Syria/southeastern Turkey? The group that went due north quite a bit later perhaps had more CHG? (although the paper models them as being part Levant Neolithic) That might explain the slight differences between the Hungarian Neolithic and the Spanish Neolithic?
    Angela, the attachments don't work in both posts.

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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