Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 412

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

  1. #101
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-12-15
    Posts
    419
    Points
    5,570
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,570, Level: 22
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 480
    Overall activity: 16.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.
    .
    i have one question. Is there a culture difference between proto-Uralic and original steppe people?

    I think both of them were based upon siberian shamanism, especially sun.

  2. #102
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,003
    Points
    13,109
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,109, Level: 34
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 241
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Latvia



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    i have one question. Is there a culture difference between proto-Uralic and original steppe people?

    I think both of them were based upon siberian shamanism, especially sun.
    Culturally there are differences. World tree is Uralic. Also world egg. Sun, Sky God. Those are common. Although not sure if World Tree goes back to PIE or is regional feature.
    But then there is layer which seems absent in proto-Uralic. Culture heroes (Loki, Prometeus,..), Bulls, Chariots, (Horse) Twins... I am not sure if proto-Uralic featured any of this.

  3. #103
    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
    As far as I remember there were some leaks that Harrapans have been already sampled and the leak says those Harrapans had some R1a z93 prior to the known Indo_Aryan invasion which made some people speculate that even earlier some Iranic tribes might have reached the Indus Valley from Afghanistan.

  4. #104
    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
    something else : 'Anatolian' is actually NW Anatolian, 'Sea of Marmara' would be a better label
    we are missing the 'central Anatolian' DNA, i.e. DNA from Asikli Hoyuk or Catal Hoyuk, which I think is different from 'Anatolian' and from Levantine
    Asikli Hoyuk Neolithic was very early, ca 11 ka and allready before it was the most important source of obsidian for the Natufians
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9...%C3%B6y%C3%BCk
    furthermore central Anatolians were one of the early adopters of metallurgy

    'Anatolian' and European neolithic are just ca 8.4 ka (starting ca 9 ka with some few settlements, but ca 8.4 ka new farmers arrived who were responsible for start of the expansion)
    Actually no, there were some leaks and even a study as far as I remember that Catal Hoyuk has been sampled and those almost identical to EEF.

  5. #105
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Is it possible it's an admixture of Levantine Neolithic and some Iranian Neolithic and that's how the CHG starting reaching Northwest Anatolia?

    As we discussed on another thread, the archaeology does point to influences on northwest Anatolia from Central Anatolia.
    I think central Anatolian is an admixture like you suggest.
    But the common ancestor of NW Anatolian and European (starting in Greece) neolithic did not come from central Anatolia.
    That is at least what I get from this paper.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0099845
    The common ancestor came along the sea.
    And that both NW Anatolian and European neolithic are very related genectically, you can see in PCA charts.


    this map actually shows 2 migrations to NW Anatolia ca 6500 BC
    one overseas with ovicaprids
    one overland via Catal Hoyuk with cattle (Bos)
    and onother with pig ca 5800 BC ; I've read somewhere these were cardial ware people

    the 'Anatolian Neolithic' samples have only 2 sources : Barcin and Mentese
    and are all from a narrow period, 6500-6200 BC

    this study says clearly epipaleolithic people were present before the first farmers arrived
    https://www.academia.edu/1581680/The...Marmara_Region
    I take it these epipaleolithic people account for the haplogroup I found
    Last edited by bicicleur; 20-06-16 at 22:25.

  6. #106
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Actually no, there were some leaks and even a study as far as I remember that Catal Hoyuk has been sampled and those almost identical to EEF.
    If you can recall which leaks and study, let me know.

  7. #107
    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
    Proto-Uralic has had a large influence on PIE and vice versa. A large number of linguistics think it is possibly of the same origin as PIE. Take a look at what exactly is related, it seems very deep.
    So has Kartvelian on PIE. Also the influence of Proto Uralic and vica versa seems to be mainly on the Indo_Iranian branch, I haven't heard much of an influence on other subgroups.


    First, ANE brought forth a number of languages, some of which were isolates: The American-Indian languages. Secondly, we don't know how languages originated. Take for instance New Guinea where Papua's speak over 850 languages, with large families as well as dozens (!) of isolates. Some larger families have ties with the world around them.
    Good and if ANE could have brought multiple languages, why shouldn't this be the case with CHG like or even AF? Just food for thoughts.

    On the basis of what exactly do you exclude WHG as source?
    What all Indo Europeans have in common is a ANE like admixture, be it through CHG, Iranian Neolithic or EHG admixture. Of course we can't exclude WHG as source but it just doesn't seem that plausible to me.


    But the relation between PIE and proto-Uralic runs very, very deep. Read about it.
    I have red a bit about it and most similarities between Uralic and Indo European seem to be with the Indo_Iranian group. For example I don't know of any Uralic type influence on Hititte, which is the most archaic known Indo European language.



    No, the best hypothesis is a language originating between proto-Uralic and the Caucasus. And not just because influences of those, also because PIE roots for animals and certain trees limit its possible places or origin. So the steppe origins is independently derived from archaeology, language roots and language contacts. As we now have seen DNA supports that.
    As I have already said, I believe the Steppes could be the origin of the merging point, but the Steppes could as well be just a second homeland for a large part of the Indo European subgroups. But than we can't even be sure were Kartvelian and Uralic originated. Kartvelian for example seems to be rather Anatolian_Farmer derived tongue. While Uralic could as well originate in South_Central Asia, based on the origin of N Haplogroup.

    Apart from that: PIE was not a creole language, as these are simplified languages: i.e. non-speakers adapt a simplified version and make it their own. PIE was highly complicated indicating it originated from native speakers.

    Every language family in this world started as a creole of two or many other imo. But let's agree to disagree. Maybe it wasn't a creol language true.

  8. #108
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I think the Iranian hunter-gatherer had the most; I think it was something close to 66%. I think Basal did get into NWAnatolia and then EEF via the other two Neolithic groups. The question, as we've been discussing, is where is the source? It would seem it diffused from the south, but given there's more to the east, perhaps not from Arabia.



    I'm not sure about this one. At first I thought E1b1 might be the Basal lineage, but it is an African lineage and there seems to be no connection between Basal and SSA, contrary to what was vociferously championed by a lot of people. If "E" were actually Eurasian and all that "E" in Africa were the result of a back migration, that would solve that problem, but the authors of the paper maintain that basal "E" is African. Of course, the Natufians carry it and there's no SSA in them, which just goes to show again how disconnected yDna can become from autosomal signatures. If this is correct, so much for all those videos showing "African" looking people as Natufians. :)

    So, I don't know...maybe G2a? Or could it be "H"?



    According to the authors, not precisely Natufian, but rather Levant Neolithic, yes?



    It seems like it to me, except I'm not sure about the bolded part. That's where you get into direction of movement across the Caucasus. It certainly doesn't seem like a barrier to migration...and I think the migration did go both ways.[/INDENT][*][/LIST]
    according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG (which was probably native along the Marmara Sea shores)
    now I think there was another important unknown component which I refer to as 'the common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo'
    this common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo has a lot of G2a2 which has nowhere been found in this study

    I think it is clear that E is African, E2, E1a, E1b2 and E1b1a (Mota and Bantu) all are, the Natufian E1b1 or it's suclade E1b1b1b2 must have arrived from Africa
    E1b1 has the right TRMCA for that.

    I'm starting to think the same, Basal Eurasians were G people or it came from India with that H2 which appears in both Levant, Anatolian and European Neo.

    And yes, I'm imprecise, it is Levant Neo that brought African Neo.
    It meant a backmigration to Africa of some of the E1b1.

    so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?

    it looks like that, but I put a question mark behind
    I find this study very intersting, but these are the first samples in this area, so probably these samples are not representative enough to make conclusions about the whole picture
    I guess when more DNA will become available we'll be in for some more surprises
    it's a very nice start though, and I like doing some speculations

  9. #109
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As far as I remember there were some leaks that Harrapans have been already sampled and the leak says those Harrapans had some R1a z93 prior to the known Indo_Aryan invasion which made some people speculate that even earlier some Iranic tribes might have reached the Indus Valley from Afghanistan.
    If I remember well, we can expect some DNA from that area as well.
    But if there is such leak, I'd take it with a big pinch of salt.
    There may have been some R1a-Z93 in India prior to Indo-Aryans, but I don't expect any of that at the source of the Indus civilization.
    If so, it will be the biggest surprise of the year, and there have allready been a few now.

    I think R1a-Z93 is a bit to young for the roots of the Indus civilization.
    If there is one scenario which has been confirmed by DNA till now, it is about the origin of IE.
    It is not compatible with R1a-Z93 at the roots of the Indus civilization.

  10. #110
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    So has Kartvelian on PIE. Also the influence of Proto Uralic and vica versa seems to be mainly on the Indo_Iranian branch, I haven't heard much of an influence on other subgroups.
    Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-U...sible_cognates

    Furthermore, the theory for instance linguists such as Kortlandt are pushing is that PIE is derived from a common Indo-Uralic stem, on a Caucasian substrate. Almost all serious scenario's have two major influences: Uralic and Caucasian. Hence the positioning of the original Urheimat roughly in between these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Good and if ANE could have brought multiple languages, why shouldn't this be the case with CHG like or even AF? Just food for thoughts.
    It probably would. But for a non-steppe origin of PIE you have to make the case for that, not just beg the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    What all Indo Europeans have in common is a ANE like admixture, be it through CHG, Iranian Neolithic or EHG admixture. Of course we can't exclude WHG as source but it just doesn't seem that plausible to me.
    EHG is partly WHG, so maybe that was a vector. Frankly, I don't have a clue. But I wouldn't connect ANE that strictly to a language group if I were you. Proto-Uralic is not connected to all American Indian languages for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I have red a bit about it and most similarities between Uralic and Indo European seem to be with the Indo_Iranian group. For example I don't know of any Uralic type influence on Hititte, which is the most archaic known Indo European language.
    "Watar", ne- for negation, "me" for I, me, etc. See the list above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As I have already said, I believe the Steppes could be the origin of the merging point, but the Steppes could as well be just a second homeland for a large part of the Indo European subgroups. But than we can't even be sure were Kartvelian and Uralic originated. Kartvelian for example seems to be rather Anatolian_Farmer derived tongue. While Uralic could as well originate in South_Central Asia, based on the origin of N Haplogroup.
    Haplogroups are not languages, even as they sometimes, or even often, have a relationship. Furthermore, if you want to propose a different origin, make the case for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Every language family in this world started as a creole of two or many other imo. But let's agree to disagree. Maybe it wasn't a creol language true.
    As I said, nobody has much of a clue how new languages come about, especially isolates. However, creole languages are an exception to that.

  11. #111
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    505
    Points
    4,927
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,927, Level: 20
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 123
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: Greece



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-U...sible_cognates

    Furthermore, the theory for instance linguists such as Kortlandt are pushing is that PIE is derived from a common Indo-Uralic stem, on a Caucasian substrate. Almost all serious scenario's have two major influences: Uralic and Caucasian. Hence the positioning of the original Urheimat roughly in between these.
    I believe it's political. In the first table the 'locative singular' and 'locative plural' in the Greek examples are 'datives'. It is said that locative, dative and instumental merged in Greek and probably he considers that the case ending of the greek 'dative' was originally that of the 'instrumental' but he doesn't say anything about that and it's most likely wrong. There where suffixes like -then, -ze / -de. They are not considered cases but functioned like it Athenathen = from Athens, Athenaze = to Athens, oikode= to home. The greek dative had other uses apart from the typical one. It was used as instrumental too for example quite often. En + dative (e.g. en Athenais) indicated location but the case wansn't locative. Below other uses of the case he labels 'locative'.

    From Wikipedia:
    Ancient[edit]

    In addition to its main function as the dativus, the dative case has other functions in Classical Greek:[7] (The chart below uses the Latin names for the types of dative; the Greek name for the dative is δωτική πτώση, like its Latin equivalent, derived from the verb "to give"; in Ancient Greek, δίδωμι.)

    • Dativus finalis: The dativus finalis, or the 'dative of purpose', is when the dative is used to denote the purpose of a certain action. For example:
      • "τῷ βασιλεῖ μάχομαι"
        • "I fight for the king".

      • "θνῄσκω τῇ τιμῇ"
        • "I die for honour".

    • Dativus commŏdi (incommodi): The dativus commodi sive incommodi, or the 'dative of benefit (or harm)' is the dative that expresses the advantage or disadvantage of something for someone. For example:
      • For the benefit of: "πᾶς ἀνὴρ αὑτῷ πονεῖ" (Sophocles, Ajax 1366).
        • "Every man toils for himself".

      • For the harm or disadvantage of: "ἥδε ἡ ἡμέρα τοῖς Ἕλλησι μεγάλων κακῶν ἄρξει." (Thucydides 2.12.4).
        • "This day will be the beginning of great sorrows for the Greeks (i.e., for their disadvantage)".

    • Dativus possessivus: The dativus possessivus, or the 'dative of possession' is the dative used to denote the possessor of a certain object or objects. For example:
      • "ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἀγαθοί." (Thucycdides 1.86.3).
        • "For others have a lot of money and ships and horses, but we have good allies (i.e., To others there is a lot of money..)".

    • Dativus ethicus: The dativus ethicus, or the 'ethic or polite dative,' is when the dative is used to signify that the person or thing spoken of is regarded with interest by someone. This dative is mostly, if not exclusively, used in pronouns. As such, it is also called the "dative of pronouns." For example:
      • "τούτῳ πάνυ μοι προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν." (Demosthenes 18.178).
        • "Pay close attention to this, I beg you (i.e., please pay..)".

      • "ὦ μῆτερ, ὡς καλός μοι ὁ πάππος." (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 18.178).
        • "Oh, mother, how handsome grandpa is (I've just realized!)".

    • Dativus auctoris: The dativus auctoris, or the 'dative of agent,' is the dative used to denote the doer of an action. Note, however, that in Classical Greek, the agent is usually in the genitive after ὑπό (by, at the hands of). The agent is in the dative only with theperfect and pluperfect passive, and after the verbal adjective in -τέος. For example:
      • "πολλαὶ θεραπεῖαι τοῖς ἰατροῖς εὕρηνται." (Isocrates 8.39)
        • "Many cures have been discovered by doctors."

    • Dativus instrumenti: The dativus instrumenti, or the 'dative of instrument,' is when the dative is used to denote an instrument or means of a certain action (or, more accurately, as the instrumental case). For example:
      • "με κτείνει δόλῳ." (Homer, Odyssey 9.407)
        • "He kills me with a bait (i.e., by means of a bait)."

    • Dativus modi: The dativus modi, or the 'dative of manner,' is the dative used to describe the manner or way by which something happened. For example:
      • "νόσῳ ὕστερον ἀποθανόντα." (Thucydides 8.84)
        • "having died of (from) a disease."

    • Dativus mensurae: The dativus mensurae, or the 'dative of measurement,' is the dative used to denote the measurement of difference. For example:
      • "τῇ κεφαλῇ μείζονα." (Plato, Phaedo 101a)
        • "taller by a head."

      • "μακρῷ ἄριστος." (Plato, Laws 729d)
        • "by far the best."

  12. #112
    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



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    on T ( i1707 )

    Haplogroup T is found among the Late MPPNB inhabitants from 'Ain Ghazal but was not found among the early and middle MPPNB populations. Is thought that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B poplutation is mostly composed of two different populations, the Natufians which trace their origins to the Earlier Natufian and a second population coming through a northerly influx from the region of northeastern Anatolia. Natufians have been found to belong mostly to the E1b1b1b2 lineage, which is found among 60% of the whole PPNB population and 75% of the 'Ain Ghazal population, being present in all three MPPNB stages. The complete abscence of T-PF7466 among Natufians and the earlier MPPNB stages could mean that haplogroup T arrived later with the northerly influx.

    As previously found in the early Neolithic settlement from Karsdorf, a mtDNA R0 descendant have been found together with Y-DNA T.
    Ain Ghazal T Ghazal-I
    ID I1707 AG83_5 Poz-81097
    Y DNA T-PF7466 (xT1a1-FGC3945.2, T1a2a1-P322)
    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.

  13. #113
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,833
    Points
    250,081
    Level
    100
    Points: 250,081, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    @Alan,

    Is this the study to which you were referring?

    http://meeting.physanth.org/program/...near-east.html

    It was discussed in this eupedia thread:
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=Paschou


    "Based on material culture studies, it has been suggested that Neolithic culture first spread from Central Anatolia to the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, by cultural diffusion.

    Unfortunately it seems to have been withdrawn. The reason isn't given.

    Fwiw, this is the abstract, Mehmet Somel et al:

    "Sedentism, farming, and herding in West Eurasia first started in the Fertile Crescent around 11,500 BP. From there, Neolithic culture spread into Central Anatolia and the East Mediterranean, and eventually, reached Southwestern Europe. The demographic dynamics behind these processes has long been of interest. Recent archaeogenomics studies showed that the arrival of farming in West Europe happened through migrating Neolithic populations. But where had these migrations themselves initiated? Based on material culture studies, it has been suggested that Neolithic culture first spread from Central Anatolia to the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, by cultural diffusion. But this hypothesis has not yet been tested by genetic data.from different Neolithic sites (10,000-8,000 BP). Four of these were sequenced to >0.1X cover Here we address this question by screening the genomes of 15 Central Anatolian individuals age, and the data was combined with published Neolithic genomes. Our results indicate that Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals genetically resembled the first migrant Neolithic populations found in Europe, rather than modern-day Anatolians. At the same time, Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals appear to cluster together, to the exclusion of other Neolithic populations. Using simulations, we evaluate demographic models that could explain these patterns. Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis. We discuss our results in the context of material cultural exchange patterns of the Neolithic period."

    I don't know how much weight to put on any of this given that it's been withdrawn, but at any rate, resemble European farmers is different from being identical to them, as I said in the eupedia thread about this abstract, and they are picking up that there are different clusters, and the central Anatolian cluster is somewhat distinct from the others, which is in line with the information from the Lazaridis and LLorente papers.

    I hope Bicicleur doesn't mind, but this comment he made on that thread is very apropos of our discussion:

    "Some Natufians from the Levant founded Abu Huryera 13 ka and moved 50 km further north to Mureybet at the onset of the youngest dryas. There they were joined by more Natufians (with khiam points) from the Levant.
    After youngest dryas these farmers expanded to the Levant, southern Anatolia and Louristan.
    Mureybet is along the Euphrates, west of Göbekli Tepe. Maybe these populations mixed?"


    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

  14. #114
    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'm not sure about this one. At first I thought E1b1 might be the Basal lineage, but it is an African lineage and there seems to be no connection between Basal and SSA, contrary to what was vociferously championed by a lot of people. If "E" were actually Eurasian and all that "E" in Africa were the result of a back migration, that would solve that problem, but the authors of the paper maintain that basal "E" is African. Of course, the Natufians carry it and there's no SSA in them, which just goes to show again how disconnected yDna can become from autosomal signatures. If this is correct, so much for all those videos showing "African" looking people as Natufians. :)
    One of a big surprises for me was to learn how "transferable" and "mobile" Y DNA can be giving couple of thousands of years. It is like it has an independent life and history within our genome.
    Last edited by LeBrok; 21-06-16 at 05:11.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  15. #115
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,833
    Points
    250,081
    Level
    100
    Points: 250,081, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG (which was probably native along the Marmara Sea shores)
    now I think there was another important unknown component which I refer to as 'the common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo'
    this common ancestor of Anatolian and European Neo has a lot of G2a2 which has nowhere been found in this study
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0099845
    The common ancestor came along the sea.
    And that both NW Anatolian and European neolithic are very related genectically, you can see in PCA charts.


    this map actually shows 2 migrations to NW Anatolia ca 6500 BC
    one overseas with ovicaprids
    one overland via Catal Hoyuk with cattle (Bos)
    and onother with pig ca 5800 BC ; I've read somewhere these were cardial ware people

    the 'Anatolian Neolithic' samples have only 2 sources : Barcin and Mentese
    and are all from a narrow period, 6500-6200 BC

    this study says clearly epipaleolithic people were present before the first farmers arrived
    https://www.academia.edu/1581680/The...Marmara_Region
    I take it these epipaleolithic people account for the haplogroup I found
    This is what I think some of the commentary about this paper has been missing. I think there's also some unwarranted conclusions being drawn, in my opinion. The Paschou et al paper was criticized in some quarters because it was only based on modern mtDna, but it did trace some of this movement up the coast, which is partially highlighted in your map, and I think it may turn out that it had some insights to offer about the timing of the early movements into the Aegean, which were earlier in some cases than the settlements around the Sea of Marmara. Whether they were correct about there being a movement into the Islands and then a bifurcation either by sea west or into the Balkans, or whether there was also some movement directly from Anatolia north is another issue.

    An agricultural "package" of all these animals, pulses, and grains as well moved north along the coast from that juncture point between the northern Levant and southeastern Anatolia. From there, indeed, there was some early movement into Cyprus before some of the animals were actually domesticated. That is one of the places in Anatolia from which we have as yet no ancient dna. I think it may turn out that not only do we see a rather "complete package" at that point and by that time, but the "admixtures", or most of them, may have already taken place.

    Perhaps that is where we will find G2a, or at least some of it? Perhaps the G2a came from further in the interior of Anatolia? Maybe they were more "Iranian Neolithic like", or at least had some influence from them. As per Bicicleur's comment in the prior post, there seems to have been movement of Natufians to near by areas. Some "G" went to the Caucasus, but some of them may have mingled with Natufians. Maybe they were just very adventurous, or maybe there was conflict with "E" heavy populations and they moved up the coast and then at some point took to the sea, eventually moving extraordinarily long distances all the way to Iberia. Ancient dna will have to give us the answers.

    That leaves the WHG to be explained. I agree about the Epipaleolithic people in that area probably being yDna "I", but I think they may have been more widespread, or it may have diffused further. Or, as the agriculturalists moved north along the coast, they may have absorbed more "WHG Like" people.

    As I said at the time the Paschou paper came out, it may be that far from being the source of the "Anatolian Neolithic" in Europe, the Marmara region people actually were on the receiving end of that migration, which got to them at about the same time it arrived at some places in the Aegean. Of course, further migration into Europe could have taken off from that point later.

    Here is the Eupedia thread on Paschou et al, where much of this is discussed:
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=Paschou

    Post number 17 has a map of the sea currents in the Mediterranean, which show how a good part of the agriculturalists might have navigated the Mediterranean to head farther west.

    These maps show some of the dating for these sites although they seem to change periodically...
    http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net...600&carousel=1

    This site has some interesting information on the Greek Neolithic:
    http://armchairprehistory.com/2015/1...te-trail-west/

    This map is interesting as well as it shows the narrow band in which they moved, which makes sense because their agricultural package was adapted to this kind of climate.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ysis-Sites.png

    Neolithic Shelter Catal Hoyuk:
    http://www.mitchellteachers.net/Worl...c/Shelter2.jpg

  16. #116
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    according to figure 4a NW Anatolian Neo is a mixture of 39 % Iran Neo + 34 % Levant Neo + 27 % WHG
    That model had high standard errors and is therefore not a realistic model for Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N doesn't fit well as a mixture of other ancient genomes. We need more ancient genomes to learn who the ancestors of Anatolia_N were. It probably has some Iran_Neolithic ancestry but not a lot, definitely not 34%. Anatolia_N is also definitely not 27% WHG. Anatolia_N appears to be a brother to Levant_N.

    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?
    Iran Chl is a mixture of CHG(or Iran Neolithic. Both were similar) and Levant_Neolithic. Armenia_EBA is a mixture of CHG, Levant_Neolithic(or Anatolila_Neolithic. Both were similar), and EHG.

  17. #117
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    That model had high standard errors and is therefore not a realistic model for Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N doesn't fit well as a mixture of other ancient genomes. We need more ancient genomes to learn who the ancestors of Anatolia_N were. It probably has some Iran_Neolithic ancestry but not a lot, definitely not 34%. Anatolia_N is also definitely not 27% WHG. Anatolia_N appears to be a brother to Levant_N.
    yes the number of samples is to small to make overall conclusions
    furthermore I believe a component is missing, it is the common ancestor to NW Anatolian and European Neo.

  18. #118
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    so CHG is the source of both Iran Chl and Armenia EBA ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post

    Iran Chl is a mixture of CHG(or Iran Neolithic. Both were similar) and Levant_Neolithic. Armenia_EBA is a mixture of CHG, Levant_Neolithic(or Anatolila_Neolithic. Both were similar), and EHG.
    I mean CHG may be the source of metallurgy

  19. #119
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    Perhaps that is where we will find G2a, or at least some of it? Perhaps the G2a came from further in the interior of Anatolia? Maybe they were more "Iranian Neolithic like", or at least had some influence from them. As per Bicicleur's comment in the prior post, there seems to have been movement of Natufians to near by areas. Some "G" went to the Caucasus, but some of them may have mingled with Natufians. Maybe they were just very adventurous, or maybe there was conflict with "E" heavy populations and they moved up the coast and then at some point took to the sea, eventually moving extraordinarily long distances all the way to Iberia. Ancient dna will have to give us the answers.

    That leaves the WHG to be explained. I agree about the Epipaleolithic people in that area probably being yDna "I", but I think they may have been more widespread, or it may have diffused further. Or, as the agriculturalists moved north along the coast, they may have absorbed more "WHG Like" people.
    As for WHG, Gravettian seems to have spread till Karain cave, NW of Antalia.
    I guess there were paleo/meso I living along the Anatolian coast all the way till Antalia. From there on they could be picked up by farmers.

    I have a theory about G2a2 as well, but there is no DNA proof for that, because we have no samples from there.
    13 ka (1000 years after the Villabruanans) obsidian from Melos arrived in Franchtii cave along with pulse seeds and pistacho nuts from Anatolia. It would have been brought by tuna fishers in the Aegean.
    12.5 ka Cyprus was discovered by HG and abondonned again soon after, to be recolonised 10.8 ka by the first farmers.
    9.5 ka first fish arrived in grotta dell'Uzo in Sicily.
    Appearently there were some seafaring fishermen active along southern Anatolia, the Aegean and later also southern Italy. They were also doing some horticulutre with pulse seeds.
    This may be the source of G2a2.
    Few of these G2a2 may have picked up cereal farming and domesticates somewhere along the Levantine coast ca 8.5 ka.
    The G2a2 split up in three branches +/- 8.5 ka : NW Anatolia, Eastern Greek peninsula and Carded/Impressed ware, Corfoe.
    In PCA charts all 3 populations* are close to each other, but NW Anatolia and Eastern Greek peninsula are closer to each other than to Carded/Impressed ware.

    * we have no DNA from Eastern Greek peninsula Neo, but we have Sarcevo-Koros and LBK DNA

  20. #120
    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 bicicleur View Post
    yes the number of samples is to small to make overall conclusions
    furthermore I believe a component is missing, it is the common ancestor to NW Anatolian and European Neo.
    European Neolithic is descended of NW Anatolian Neolithic.

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-06-16
    Posts
    72
    Points
    2,020
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,020, Level: 12
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 130
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: France



    in the doc. I am reading
    Supplementary Information 9
    Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians
    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 been
    proposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians as well as the Srubnaya from eastern
    Europe which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup
    R1a1a1b2-Z935.
    Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

    I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha & Andronovo Cultures (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and some of them are R1a but obviously it is not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.

    Also the extended data fig 4 shows that all regions of india, from North to South have similar admixture of Steppe_EMBA meaning that this admixture is not relevant to Indo-Aryan populations, the Indo-European linguistic group in India.
    Last edited by Voyager; 21-06-16 at 16:08.

  22. #122
    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 Voyager View Post
    in the doc. I am reading
    Supplementary Information 9
    Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians


    Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

    I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha Culture (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and most of them are R1a but obviously they are not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.
    The difference between Steppe EMBA and MLBA is that the latter contains some Anatolian/Natufian Neolithic, but EMBA only Iranian Neolithic. Check figure 1c. Perhaps MLBA tribes, coming from West with European farmer admixture, pushed out EMBA tribes out of the Steppe, some of them went south and conquered North India.

    Also interesting is that they model Iberain BA with no Steppe input. Just half Anatolian/Natufian Neolithic and half WHG.

  23. #123
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    European Neolithic is descended of NW Anatolian Neolithic.
    and why do you think so ?

  24. #124
    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 bicicleur View Post
    and why do you think so ?
    Why would you think otherwise? All the recent papers Lazaridis and Lorente says so, by admixtures, numbers, PCA and graphs, and even literally:
    farmers related to those of Anatolia spread
    westward into Europe
    Now, all samples of Anatolian Neolithic came from NW Anatolia. Let's connect the dots.

  25. #125
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,867
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,867, Level: 63
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 1,083
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
    in the doc. I am reading
    Supplementary Information 9
    Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians


    Does the author explain what Steppe_EMBA (Early M Bronze Age) samples were used? because if they correspond to the Yamnaya culture (Haak 2015) samples , these samples all predate by far 2000 BC then they cannot correspond to the supposed invasion of the Indus Culture in 1500BC. Further more, most of them are R1b-L23 not R1a.

    I suppose that Steppe_MLBA samples come from Sintasha & Andronovo Cultures (Allentoft 2015).In this case, we are little bit closer to 1500BC time frame and some of them are R1a but obviously it is not a good genetic match. Nothing is perfect.

    Also the extended data fig 4 shows that all regions of india, from North to South have similar admixture of Steppe_EMBA meaning that this admixture is not relevant to Indo-Aryan populations, the Indo-European linguistic group in India.
    as far as I can tell from figure 1a and 1b steppe eneolithic is Khvalynsk, steppe EMBA is Yamna/Afanasievo and steppe MLBA is Sintashta/Andronovo

    this is strange, it doesn't make sense

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •