The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

[Alan]

I haven't seen any facial reconstruction of Natufians, but from the data I can imagine from their genome, my impression is that they resembled more closely modern South Egytians or even Ethiopians than modern Levantines or Saudis.

I agree that they didn't look that much like Arabians or Levantines because those have obvious Iran_Neo admixture (even Arabians) and some SSA admixture, but Ehtiopians are even more different aDNA wise, in being halfway SSA admixed which is even more different to Natufians aDNA than WHG is. From the wording of the paper and How I understood it Natufians were basically Basal Eurasian+ a WHG like people themselves. Also the West Eurasian in East Africans is actually Levan_Neo and not Natufian derived.

What I believe is that they were very dolichocephalic people similar to how you find them today in Ethiopia, the reason why probably some anthropologists of the past thought they look "Sub Saharan". Though this is quite weird considering the jaw/teeth region of the Natufians looked not really like that of Sub Saharans. I assume the authors used Ethiopians as Sub Saharan proxy than, since they have Jaws more similar to that of West Eurasians => http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/...g_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/444315202.jpg

They were hyperdolichocephalic like many people in Ehtiopia, Egypt and South_Levant. However I don't believe that they were identical based on skin pigmentation or facial features to any of them. Most Ehtiopians are simply Black pigmentated, while modern Levantines are slightly too light pigmented. I think they had facial features that is still exclusive to this circle region of South Levant, Northwest Arabia and Egypt and Ethiopia. Occasionally you find facial features that connect Sub Saharan mixed Ethiopians with South_Levantines even. I often see faces in Ethiopians that scream Egyptian or "Arab" derived if it wasn't for their SSA pigmentation.

In my opinion the Natufians were basically a dark pigmened physically West Eurasian people. They can't have been physically different if they were genetically very much like Levant_Neo.

I believe we find occassionally Natufian derived facial features, all in the Levant, Ethiopia, Egypt and Arabia but I don't think any of these people show a special resemblence to the Natufians by majority of their respective populations.

This is one of the faces I think could be Natufian derived. Have seen Ethiopians with very simlilar facial structur. Darker skin, brown eyes and dark hair, fits well the description of the Natufians.
https://lovingtelaviv.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/boazmauda31.jpg

This Egyptian has also a face that imo was found among Natufians, and that I have often seen among Ethiopians but with Black pigmentation.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FJGWHM/two...stained-thumbs-after-casting-their-FJGWHM.jpg

Here is some Ehtiopians with similar facial structure. They look like Sub Saharan pigmented versions of those above.
http://www.addisgag.com/uploads/da11e8cd1811acb79ccf0fd62cd58f86.jpg
http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ka/ka6898.JPG
http://thumbs.diretube.com/905Ethiopian_Police.jpg

 

[Angela]

Could you go more into details, please. (I have not read all the paper, for my greater shame, and even if so, I would nee to read it more than a time, so poor is arrived my immediate memory) so if the paper says something precise about it...
Thanks beforehand and buona notte.

Moesan, the quote had to do with not being able to get a migration edge between Samara Eneolithic and Armenian Chalcolithic. It wasn't from the paper; it was from Eurogenes. He also said that the influx seemed to come from the very base of the EHG branch.

Personally, I tend to take all of the experimentation with a large dose of salt until it is confirmed by the academics who created some of these programs and therefore understand better how to use them, and also, I think, may have information from other ancient genomes which will be released in subsequent papers.

However, that suggests to me that we may not yet have any published samples from the population(s) which went into creating the Armenian Chalcolithic.

It does seem to me that in this general area at this point in history there were a number of small groups of people, pretty mobile, with similar but not identical genetics. Some have had an out-sized impact on future demographics and some didn't. We have to find the ones who did.

I think this is what the authors are getting at here on page 8 of the paper:
"Our analysis show that the ancient populations of the Chalcolithic Iran, Chalcolithic Armenia, Bronze Age Armenia and Chalcolithic Anatolia were all composed of the same ancestral components, albeit in slightly different proportions (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Information, section 7)."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

They also say this as to the gene flow from south to north:
"To the north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

I also think the "intervention" by Lazaridis on the Eurogenes blog bears repeating.

"I just wanted to leave a brief comment that the model of Steppe_EMBA as a mixture of EHG+CHG is rejected (Table S7.11), while that of EHG+Iran_ChL is not. Note that in Table S7.11 we are modeling Steppe_EMBA and the references with respect to 13 outgroup populations (the set O9ALNW), not all of which are included in the TreeMix graph."

However,

"It is possible for some models to succeed with a particular set of outgroups (both EHG+CHG and EHG+Iran_ChL are feasible with only the O9 set of outgroups; Table S7.10), but for some of them to be rejected when additional outgroups are introduced (Table S7.11). As we mention further down, that doesn't mean there is no CHG-related ancestry in Steppe_EMBA as we can model it as a 3-way mixture involving CHG as one of the sources. What it does mean, however, is that CHG+EHG cannot be the only sources, as this model is rejected (Table S7.11). A further test of our overall model is that when we withhold Iran_ChL as a source, and infer mixture proportions by intersecting the EHG->Steppe_EMBA and Levant_N+Levant_BA clines (p. 134), we get fairly reasonable agreement (mixture proportions).

If I understand it correctly what they're talking about is that it could be modeled as EHG, plus Iran ChL, plus additional CHG. In the latter section I think they're saying that the model needs something like Levant Neolithic. That is provided by Iran ChL because Iran ChL can be modeled as " as a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG)." (This is also from the paper.)

In terms of gene flow from north to south, that isn't their focus. That will come, I'm sure, with the paper dealing with the Caucasus populations, probably with Patterson as lead author.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Geneticker updated his phenitypr post with reads in each SNP. If I remember correctly most of the four Copper Age Armenians had both light skin mutations and blue eyes. That's surprising.

No lactose mutations. EDAR "East Asian' mutation found in Motala HGs and Afanasievo is in one Copper age Armenian.

Results are mostly expected. As far as I can see Neo/Bronze Levant has same allele frequencies as Levant today. Ancient Iran had low reads but appears to be majority ancestral in everything. Armenia is strangely pale.

 

[Alan]

Geneticker updated his phenitypr post with reads in each SNP. If I remember correctly most of the four Copper Age Armenians had both light skin mutations and blue eyes. That's surprising.

No lactose mutations. EDAR "East Asian' mutation found in Motala HGs and Afanasievo is in one Copper age Armenian.

Results are mostly expected. As far as I can see Neo/Bronze Levant has same allele frequencies as Levant today. Ancient Iran had low reads but appears to be majority ancestral in everything. Armenia is strangely pale.

And it once again, confirms the accounts of historic past. Urartaens (that is Bronze Age Armenia) Subarians and Gutians from North_Central Mesopotamia and (North)West Iran, were described as "Namrum" in general, those people north of th Sumer (North Mesopotamia, NW Iranian plateau and Caucasus) are described as "Namrum" (Light featured) while the Sumerians in South_Mesopotamia who had very similar genetic signature to those in the north and the Iranian Plateau, called themselves "Black heads".

Shows once again that pigmentation is not much more than a combination of enviromental adaption, diet and genetics.

According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale in complexion and blonde. This was asserted on the basis of assumed links to peoples mentioned in the Old Testament.^{[14][15][16][17]} This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, one of its many meanings being "light colored".^[18][19] This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also claimed up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928).^[20][21]

I don't believe that they were "Blonde" in North European context but "Blonde" in being everything lighter than Dark Brown/Black haired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people



Calcolthic Armenia on the other hand is Kura_Araxes culture. So those guys had high frequency of light pigmented people also.

 

[Angela]

Angela:It was the Sahawaris who got that score. However, I'm exercising some caution since this is a preliminary run, and he says Iran Neolithic will increase somewhat in subsequent runs, as I would expect it to. We've known for a long time from other calculators, however, that North Africans don't have very much "Caucasus", so I don't expect the general parameters to be very much different.

Bicicleur: Can you provide me a link Angela?

Here it is; it's Kurd's work.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7551-Neolithic-Near-East-ADMIXTURE-Results

The Sahawaris can be found on page 8. The results vary a bit in terms of CHG, ranging from almost nothing to around 8%, but it's very much a minority "component".

Here is one example:

Anatolia Neolithic:23.69
CHG: 4.14
SSA:21.76
Iranian N: 1.79
Natufian: 43.24

This suggests to me that indeed a population like Levant Neolithic may be the "mixing agent" in North Africa.

There is also data on the Egyptians, who are somewhat different as we might expect.

It's part of his effort to create a gedmatch calculator using these ancient samples. He's very transparent in terms of his methodology and explains all his choices. Within the limits of Admixture, I think the work is valuable. My only complaint is that he is focused on Asians, so he has very few Italian reference populations in his calculators. ):

As he says, and I mentioned above, it's the first stages, and I expect Iran Neolithic will increase for some groups, and CHG numbers may change, although I doubt it will increase a lot for North Africa and East Africa.

As I also mentioned above, although the Lazaridis paper finds that the best fit for a West Eurasian influx into East Africa as well as North Africa is the Levant Neolithic, Somalis in these experiments show basically Natufian and SSA. That may change, however.

If it doesn't, and is ultimately proved to be correct, either the gene flow was earlier than 3,000 years ago, and/or the admixing "agent", perhaps from someplace in southern Arabia or some place in the Sinai or closer to Egypt may have been more "Natufian like" than the people of the southern Levant.

 

[Alan]

And now compare this Calcolthic Armenia samples with the Yamnaya who had roughly ~4% of likely ness of Blue eyes and only ~40% of them had both light skin mutations which is roughly the level you find today on the Iranian Plateau and the Levant. How can people ignore this fact and how atypical their pigmentation was for the Steppes and even most of the Caucasus. Therefore they can't be originally from there. and must have come either from the Iranian Plateau, or a nearby region with similar genetic structure, such as possibly South_Central Asia.

 

[Angela]

Some of you may find this interesting. The usual caveats about using Admixture on ancient samples applies, but it's worth a look, I think:


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...-the-world-s-first-farmers-(pre-print)/page63

Eurogenes К36
M967114 - I1290, Iran_N
0.04% Arabian
12.74% Armenian
5.19% East_Med
2.33% Near_Eastern
0.01% North_Caucasian
0.01% Pygmy
65.70% South_Central_Asian
0.88% West_African
13.09% West_Caucasian


M115616 - I0867, Levant_N
23.54% Arabian
27.97% East_Med
1.78% Italian
18.21% Near_Eastern
11.28% North_African
0.03% South_Chinese
17.19% West_Med


Oracle results for Neolithic levantine on Eurogenes k15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 48.63
2 West_Med 27.80
3 Red_Sea 23.25


Finished reading population data. 207 populations found.
15 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Samaritan @ 24.852867
2 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.554283
3 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.686113
4 Egyptian @ 26.345144
5 Palestinian @ 26.676630
6 Bedouin @ 27.384647
7 Saudi @ 27.511555
8 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.087376
9 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.233204
10 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.675303
11 Jordanian @ 28.966221
12 Cyprian @ 29.736849
13 Italian_Jewish @ 30.398230
14 Tunisian @ 30.747480
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 30.874126
16 Syrian @ 31.324089
17 Algerian @ 31.399315
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.566530
19 Moroccan @ 32.872646
20 Lebanese_Muslim @ 33.289722
And just because I was curious,the oracle results when a coptic sample is included



Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Egyptian_copt @ 21.712453
2 Samaritan @ 24.978455
3 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.766809
4 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.7952
5 Egyptian @ 26.626954
6 Palestinian @ 26.845314
7 Bedouin @ 27.591483
8 Saudi @ 27.62863
9 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.272767
10 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.32722
11 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.845364
12 Jordanian @ 29.161413
13 Cyprian @ 29.856846
14 Italian_Jewish @ 30.562651
15 Tunisian @ 30.998248
16 Sephardic_Jewish @ 31.028747
17 Syrian @ 31.479509
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.654907
19 Algerian @ 31.676992
20 Moroccan @ 33.150526
207 iterations.

Before we get carried away by speculation about the skin tones of the Natufians perhaps we should keep in mind that we're talking about three samples, some of which I understand are not particularly high coverage.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/#comments

 

[Alan]

As expected Iran_Neo is predominantly "Gedrosia" just like the Teal portion in Yamnaya is.

ironic how even Levant__Neo had at least twice as much "West_Med" as even the most West Med part of Anatolia today.

So among modern People these Samaritans are closest to Levant_Neo.

 

[MOESAN]

I haven't seen any facial reconstruction of Natufians, but from the data I can imagine from their genome, my impression is that they resembled more closely modern South Egytians or even Ethiopians than modern Levantines or Saudis.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]

I don't remember if the "HG" taken for comparisons are of immediate proximity or from other parts of Afro-Asia... Sorry for the vagueness, Maciamo.
-Fromdiverse unprecise sources it seems SOME OF THEM presented "negroid"imput, for the most about teeth area, without anybody said if it wasthe result of remote ancestry atavism or recent crossings(admixture). Something proto-mediterranean with some light [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]'[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]negroid'traits, surely not pure "negroid" SSA people [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](ref.Afrocentric fora!)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].
-Morerecent PCA compared them with an "ancient levant" pop, a"recent levant" pop and local HGs. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Andbetween themselves (within) : Aïn Mallah, Haynonim, Nahal Oren.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]& :question : are the « HG » an anterior stage of thesame Natufian population, or something else ? I have no more thepaper at hand, only the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]« [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]screencapture » pictures I did ; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]thatsaid it seems Late Natufians extended rather towards North,indirection to Anatolia, than towards South. But I have not thelocalizations according to periods...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-except"RL" (narrow faces as a whole) all three other old pops hadrather broad faces (no index provided helas!), "AL" >"HG" > "Nat".
but "Nat" as "AL"had rather more [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]receding[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]frontals [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]spitehigh skulls (low frontal angle)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif],small mastoids, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]longprotuding occipital [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]when"HG" had low skull[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]butmore[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]steep[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]frontal[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](pronouncedfrontal angle), strong mastoids and short compact occipital. « Nat »and « AL » had rather compact orbits when « HG »had spaced orbits (what meaning : orbit aperture or orbitposition aside nose ? - boring [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]terminology[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]).Here again « RL » are heterogenous concerning frontal,orbits and occipital.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]LocalNatufians were a bit heterogenous, being Hayonim population the mostdispersed of the three in the study I red.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Whenclassified temporally, Early Nat falled in the range of « HG »,but a bit oriented towards other groups, and Late Nat [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]overlappedover all the others[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](« HG », Earlt Nat, « AL » and « RL ») ;[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]anevolution of « HG » or a crossing of « HG »with something else ? [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Whatseems to me is that « RL » [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]spitemore elongated or narrowed faces, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]receivedsomething else, not directly from a re-admixture with « HG »liketypes [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]nor« Nat »[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif],something separating it from Late Nat and « AL ».[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Natufiansseems very different from Northwest African of the same periods(Afalou and others).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thatsaid, the few measures taken in account in the PCA I red was so vaguethat they could even not serve to statute concerning SSA imput orno-imput ! A door largely open to prejudices of every sort amongpseudo-nationalists, eurosupremacists, afrocentrics or otherblind-brained people.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Iregreat [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]theterminology used, too vague according to me, and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]absenceof a complemetary 'typologiic' description of all this, of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]indexes,[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]absol[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]u[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]temeasures[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif],[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]h[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]apes,including maxillars and teeth, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]andof comparisons with ancient and present people of others places inthe world to rela[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]tivizetheir local diifferences[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].Pict[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ureof a lot of skulls too...[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[MOESAN]

I agree that they didn't look that much like Arabians or Levantines because those have obvious Iran_Neo admixture (even Arabians) and some SSA admixture, but Ehtiopians are even more different aDNA wise, in being halfway SSA admixed which is even more different to Natufians aDNA than WHG is. From the wording of the paper and How I understood it Natufians were basically Basal Eurasian+ a WHG like people themselves. Also the West Eurasian in East Africans is actually Levan_Neo and not Natufian derived.

What I believe is that they were very dolichocephalic people similar to how you find them today in Ethiopia, the reason why probably some anthropologists of the past thought they look "Sub Saharan". Though this is quite weird considering the jaw/teeth region of the Natufians looked not really like that of Sub Saharans. I assume the authors used Ethiopians as Sub Saharan proxy than, since they have Jaws more similar to that of West Eurasians => http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/...g_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/444315202.jpg

They were hyperdolichocephalic like many people in Ehtiopia, Egypt and South_Levant. However I don't believe that they were identical based on skin pigmentation or facial features to any of them. Most Ehtiopians are simply Black pigmentated, while modern Levantines are slightly too light pigmented. I think they had facial features that is still exclusive to this circle region of South Levant, Northwest Arabia and Egypt and Ethiopia. Occasionally you find facial features that connect Sub Saharan mixed Ethiopians with South_Levantines even. I often see faces in Ethiopians that scream Egyptian or "Arab" derived if it wasn't for their SSA pigmentation.

In my opinion the Natufians were basically a dark pigmened physically West Eurasian people. They can't have been physically different if they were genetically very much like Levant_Neo.

I believe we find occassionally Natufian derived facial features, all in the Levant, Ethiopia, Egypt and Arabia but I don't think any of these people show a special resemblence to the Natufians by majority of their respective populations.

This is one of the faces I think could be Natufian derived. Have seen Ethiopians with very simlilar facial structur. Darker skin, brown eyes and dark hair, fits well the description of the Natufians.
https://lovingtelaviv.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/boazmauda31.jpg

This Egyptian has also a face that imo was found among Natufians, and that I have often seen among Ethiopians but with Black pigmentation.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FJGWHM/two...stained-thumbs-after-casting-their-FJGWHM.jpg

Here is some Ehtiopians with similar facial structure. They look like Sub Saharan pigmented versions of those above.
http://www.addisgag.com/uploads/da11e8cd1811acb79ccf0fd62cd58f86.jpg
http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ka/ka6898.JPG
http://thumbs.diretube.com/905Ethiopian_Police.jpg

Natufians had rather broad faces from what I red but I don't know for inferior maxillar (it could change the look from short ovale/triangular to quadrangular). Otherwise I rather agree with you concerning facial features shared by some Ethiopians Erythreans with Arabs and some Mediterraneans.

 

[MOESAN]

As expected Iran_Neo is predominantly "Gedrosia" just like the Teal portion in Yamnaya is.

ironic how even Levant__Neo had at least twice as much "West_Med" as even the most West Med part of Anatolia today.

So among modern People these Samaritans are closest to Levant_Neo.

They show something more "europeanlike" that muslim Levantines. I already remarked some have something "danubian" (Catal Höyük-like) or others have basic 'mediter' without too strong south-Cauucasus-iran imput, or even something 'alpinelike'. All the way almost NO SSA imput compared to TODAY south Arabic people where it is light enough but present.

 

[LeBrok]

They show something more "europeanlike" that muslim Levantines. I already remarked some have something "danubian" (Catal Höyük-like) or others have basic 'mediter' without too strong south-Cauucasus-iran imput, or even something 'alpinelike'. All the way almost NO SSA imput compared to TODAY south Arabic people where it is light enough but present.

Soon we will figure out how all original populations looked like. I find it very exciting for some unexplained reason.

 

[davef]

Some of you may find this interesting. The usual caveats about using Admixture on ancient samples applies, but it's worth a look, I think:


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...-the-world-s-first-farmers-(pre-print)/page63

Eurogenes К36
M967114 - I1290, Iran_N
0.04% Arabian
12.74% Armenian
5.19% East_Med
2.33% Near_Eastern
0.01% North_Caucasian
0.01% Pygmy
65.70% South_Central_Asian
0.88% West_African
13.09% West_Caucasian


M115616 - I0867, Levant_N
23.54% Arabian
27.97% East_Med
1.78% Italian
18.21% Near_Eastern
11.28% North_African
0.03% South_Chinese
17.19% West_Med


Oracle results for Neolithic levantine on Eurogenes k15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 48.63
2 West_Med 27.80
3 Red_Sea 23.25


Finished reading population data. 207 populations found.
15 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Samaritan @ 24.852867
2 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.554283
3 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.686113
4 Egyptian @ 26.345144
5 Palestinian @ 26.676630
6 Bedouin @ 27.384647
7 Saudi @ 27.511555
8 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.087376
9 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.233204
10 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.675303
11 Jordanian @ 28.966221
12 Cyprian @ 29.736849
13 Italian_Jewish @ 30.398230
14 Tunisian @ 30.747480
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 30.874126
16 Syrian @ 31.324089
17 Algerian @ 31.399315
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.566530
19 Moroccan @ 32.872646
20 Lebanese_Muslim @ 33.289722
And just because I was curious,the oracle results when a coptic sample is included



Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Egyptian_copt @ 21.712453
2 Samaritan @ 24.978455
3 Libyan_Jewish @ 25.766809
4 Yemenite_Jewish @ 25.7952
5 Egyptian @ 26.626954
6 Palestinian @ 26.845314
7 Bedouin @ 27.591483
8 Saudi @ 27.62863
9 Tunisian_Jewish @ 28.272767
10 Lebanese_Christian @ 28.32722
11 Algerian_Jewish @ 28.845364
12 Jordanian @ 29.161413
13 Cyprian @ 29.856846
14 Italian_Jewish @ 30.562651
15 Tunisian @ 30.998248
16 Sephardic_Jewish @ 31.028747
17 Syrian @ 31.479509
18 Lebanese_Druze @ 31.654907
19 Algerian @ 31.676992
20 Moroccan @ 33.150526
207 iterations.

Before we get carried away by speculation about the skin tones of the Natufians perhaps we should keep in mind that we're talking about three samples, some of which I understand are not particularly high coverage.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/phenotype-snps-from-the-ancient-near-east/#comments

Interesting stuff; but you always seem to bring up that people need to take results like these with a grain of salt. What incorrect conclusions would some people make of these results? I myself don't actually believe that the neolithic Levantine is 70 percent Yemenite Jew and 30 percent sardinian in spite of what oracle says in the anthrogenica thread you linked. For one, none of his ancestors even stepped toe on that island.

 

[Alan]

Interesting stuff; but you always seem to bring up that people need to take results like these with a grain of salt. What incorrect conclusions would some people make of these results? I myself don't actually believe that the neolithic Levantine is 70 percent Yemenite Jew and 30 percent sardinian in spite of what oracle says in the anthrogenica thread you linked. For one, none of his ancestors even stepped toe on that island.

Mixed mode oracle results have to be not taken literally. They show that you can model Levant_Neo as 70/30 Yemenite/Sardinian, but that doesn't mean something Yemenite and something Sardinian like contributed to them, contrary it means ~30% of Sardinian DNA is identical to that of Levant_Neo and 70% of Yemenite DNA. It could mean that Levant_Neo contributed 30% of their DNA to Sardinians or that something Levant_Neo related but different (Anatolian_Neo) contributed much more DNA to Sardinians.

 

[Angela]

In addition, you can't just take a calculator created for modern populations, run an ancient genome through it and think that the result is the last word. You get terrible fits for one thing. I mean, just look at them.

When Kurd publishes his calculator, specifically created with these ancient genomes, it will be better, but Admixture is not the only way or even the best way of analyzing ancient genomes.

In terms of phenotype perhaps the Samaritans published by Alan are good for the original Levant Neolithic. I don't know. There's another Samaritan type, however.

The Samaritans, in addition to input from the Levant Neolithic, have quite a bit of input from the Iranian Neolithic and Chg, I think.

The best fit is actually Egyptian Copts, who also vary a bit, although they have demonstrable East African in calculators, up to 12% Omotic in some.

These are Copts executed by Muslims:

Some are obviously more SSA admixed:

I have a feeling the more SSA ones may more often be from southern Egypt.

Since Natufians and Levant Neolithic aren't scoring SSA in these same runs, you'd go with the more non SSA admixed looking ones, I guess.

I would agree with other posters. I think the "hawk like" profile came from the Caucasus and moved both north and south.

 

[davef]

@Alan
Thank you! I think I understand this now! So in a nutshell, 30% of Sardinian DNA matches Levant Neolithic. And thus 30 percent of Levant Neolithic matches Sardinian. It doesn't necessarily imply that the Levant Neolithic came to be from a Sardinian like ancestor, which makes sense as I doubt Sardinian like people even existed back then. It seems more likely that Levant Neolithic was a founding population which contribtued 30 percent of its DNA to Sardinians?

@Angela
I see what you mean. The closest match had a fit score of 24? A fit score of 10 is far enough let alone 24. 24 would be as close as Sicilians are to Scots.

 

[Alan]

@Alan
Thank you! I think I understand this now! So in a nutshell, 30% of Sardinian DNA matches Levant Neolithic. And thus 30 percent of Levant Neolithic matches Sardinian. It doesn't necessarily imply that the Levant Neolithic came to be from a Sardinian like ancestor, which makes sense as I doubt Sardinian like people even existed back then. It seems more likely that Levant Neolithic was a founding population which contribtued 30 percent of its DNA to Sardinians?

@Angela
I see what you mean. The closest match had a fit score of 24? A fit score of 10 is far enough let alone 24. 24 would be as close as Sicilians are to Scots.

Yes roughly ~30% is Levant_Neo like. But the source for Sardinian DNA is Anatolian_Neo with most likely some Iran_Neo.

Sardinians share ~80% of their ancestry from Anatolian_Neo.

 

[Alan]

Here is the Dodecad K12b results of Iran_Neo

As seen it is very heavy in Gedrosia (even heavier than modern Baluch are) and indeed supports the idea that the Gedrosia component as the Baloch originate in West Asia since the Iran_Neo samples are from the Zagros mountains. In ANE K7 calculator Iran_Neo scores 28.5% "ANE". But I think this is shared ancestry with Mal'ta via a third ancestral population to both.
the "South Asian" and "SSA" showing up is very archaic Eurasian DNA. It is not atypical for archaic Eurasian DNA to show up as SSA as seen on Ust-Ishm and Kostenki14 results. And the "South Asian" is very ancient mesolithic West Eurasian DNA.

Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Gedrosia 67.02
2 Caucasus 19.91
3 South_Asian 6.25
4 Southwest_Asian 5.28
5 Sub_Saharan 1.55



​

 

[LeBrok]

Here is the Dodecad K12b results of Iran_Neo

As seen it is very heavy in Gedrosia (even heavier than modern Baluch are) and indeed supports the idea that the Gedrosia component as the Baloch originate in West Asia since the Iran_Neo samples are from the Zagros mountains. In ANE K7 calculator Iran_Neo scores 28.5% "ANE". But I think this is shared ancestry with Mal'ta via a third ancestral population to both.
As Elamite weed said above, the "South Asian" and "SSA" showing up is very archaic Eurasian DNA. It is not atypical for archaic Eurasian DNA to show up as SSA as seen on Ust-Ishm and Kostenki14 results. And the "South Asian" is very ancient mesolithic West Eurasian DNA.

Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Gedrosia 67.02
2 Caucasus 19.91
3 South_Asian 6.25
4 Southwest_Asian 5.28
5 Sub_Saharan 1.55



​

Thanks, do you have K12b for CHG?

 

[Angela]

From Open Genomes:

"We know about CHG (and the Iranian Hotu Cave J2a* hunter-gatherer).

We haven't seen any sign yet of a "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" Mesolithic hunter-gatherer population.

This ancestral hunter-gatherer population was very different than any of the Mesolithic European or northern Near Eastern hunter-gatherers. and equally distant from both WHG-SHG-EHG and CHG-IHG, and more distant from than any of these from Kostenki K14, Ust'-Ishim, and ANE, and East Asia.

I think it's accurate to describe this "proto-Anatolian Neolithic" population as "Basal Eurasian" because it's symmetrically related to everyone else in Eurasia - it's closer to no one.

From the PCA, it doesn't seem possible that the Anatolian Neolithic is a three-way mix of WHG, CHG, and Natufian.

One Levantine PPNB sample from 'Ain Ghazal, from a few hundred years before Barcin in Northwest Anatolia, looks like it has a higher percentage of this "ghost population" than the other PPNB Levantines.

It doesn't seem possible that this kind of admixture came from Northwest or even Central Anatolia to the Levant. It seems likely that it originated among hunter-gatherers along the Middle Euphrates, a region with no autosomal aDNA sequences. (mtDNA sequences are available from Tell Halula and presumably these samples are going to be sequenced soon.)

Here is the map of the radiocarbon-dated sites in the Levant and Anatolia during the LGM:
Radiocarbon dated sites in the Near East during the LGM, 21,500-16,000 calBCE (23,500-18,000 ybp)

This is the group that the Ramonian/Mushabians must have encountered when they left Africa and arrived in the Near East c. 18,000 ybp.
Perhaps these people moved north when it became warmer and that's why they were mostly replaced by the recently arrived African-shifted Natufians.

Is there any other explanation for this "third pole of Eurasian diversity" aside from an undiscovered isolated and highly-drifted Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer population?
I think we can see that the Natufians share drift with North Africans, leading toward East Africans. Two Natufians, I0861 and I1690 lie precisely between the Africans and the Anatolian Neolithic. Others appear to be "above the plane" of modern human variation, for some reason. However, another Natufian, 10861, appears to be halfway beween the Africans and CHG.

It seems that the Natufians were mixes between a "North African-like" (proto-Afro-Asiatic?) population and two separate Near Eastern hunter-gatherer populations, one "Anatolian Neolithic-like" and the other, CHG. "

What do you guys think?