Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is interesting that Jews plot with Neolithic Levant and Palestinians with Bronze Age Levant. Like Jews were sheltered from Bronze Age genetic influence. Well, they really must have hidden in a desert, not for 40 but 1,000 years. Bedouins and Saudis are closer to Natufians though.
Any idea why Figure 1c is not in tune with Figure 4b? According to 1c Anatolian N is mixture of mostly Natufian/Levant farmer with WHG. According to 4b mostly Iranian N, then Levant N, and some WHG. 1b PCA chart also plots Anatolian and European farmer between position of Natufians and WHG. Iranian N being very far away.
Looking at PCA, post above, it is interesting how Steppe Late Neolithic/Early Bronze is composed pretty much of two elements the EHG and Iranian N/Chl (Steppe EMBA). No EEF farmer input what so ever. Also in Extended figure 5.
By mid Bronze Age the Steppe group is strongly influenced only by Anatolian/European Neolithic farmer genetics at strong 30% level, Steppe MLBA. Strong EEF genetic flow. I'm assuming this could have been done by mixing heavily with Cucuteni farmers in West Yamnaya. Or EMBA was East Yamnaya and MLBA West Yamnaya. If I understood the paper this latter MLBA became dominant in the Steppe.
Ancestral = Negative, He doesn't belong to P322.
It's a bit disappointing that thy didn't test (or didn't report yet?) any Natufian mtDNA. It's hard to believe that they couldn't sequence any when mtDNA is the easiest part of the genome to sequence.
HA antoher one, I know I sound selfish and like a broken recorder but I pointed out the similarities between Kura Araxes and Steppic folks. I did point out Kura Araxes had both Kurgan and pit graves and horses there predate horses in Sintashta by several hundred years.Some of you may have seen this tweet from Lazaridis already:
Iosif Lazaridis @iosif_lazaridis
I1635 (Armenia_EBA) is R1b1-M415(xM269). We'll be sure to include in the revision. Thanks to the person who noticed!
This is Kura Araxas.
Nope, all the other Jews in the area, especially the Libyan and Tunisian Jews. Look at modern population PCA in Extended Figure 1. Compare it to PCA Figure 1b@LeBrok,
Do you mean the Ashkenazim? They don't plot near ancient Levantine farmers from what I can see. They plot right near the Sicilians and Maltese. If I'm reading the modern PCA correctly, it's parallel to the Anatolian Chalcolithc sample. It's true though that a lot of Jews carry E-M123, but so do some Palestinians, I think.
Another handy graphic:
The only squeaky wheel in it is that Anatolian farmers have 34% of autosomal Levant Neolithic in them. I see two possibilities to explain. Either Levant Y and mtDNA got deleted by better fit Iranian and local types uniparental DNA, which is not impossible knowing how fast they can bloom and die due to bottlenecking (8.2k event) and other evolutionary forcings. Second solution is that 34% of what appears to be Levant DNA is actually from a group of very related to them HGs in Central Anatolia, possibly carriers of G2a. Therefore all farmers genes come from Iranian Farmers, the rest from local hunters. That's quite a twist to what we assumed just days ago, but it is what it is. Well, possible by now, till dust settles.Just as I expected there was no R1b, J1 or J2 in the Levant at the time. R1b-V88 would have arrived from the northern Fertile Crescent with cattle herders a bit later in the Neolithic, with J1 and J2 could have come with some goat herders in the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic. More of them certainly came during the great Bronze Age expansions of the Indo-Europeans (R1a, R1b) and of the Kura-Araxes culture (J1, J2, G2a).
I wasn't sure about when E-M123 had entered the Levant from Africa. We now know that it was at least since the Mesolithic with the Natufians. That's interesting because it would mean that E-M123 wasn't brought by Proto-Semitic people during the Chalcolithic. Or else perhaps Proto-Semitic did really arrive in the Chalolithic but with a different wave of E-M34 people. In that case the E-M123 or other E1b1b would only be distantly related and all/most of these Natufian E1b1b lineages are now extinct, just like CT. This second hypothesis seems the most likely.
It's a bit disappointing that they only managed to test a single Natufian mtDNA sample. It's hard to believe that they couldn't sequence any when mtDNA is the easiest part of the genome to sequence. It turns out to belong to haplogroup N1b, which is almost exclusively found in the Middle East today.
The mtDNA from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant is K1a4b, R0a and T1a2, three almost exclusively Middle Eastern lineages today (K1a4b is found chiefly among the Druzes). This, combined with the Y-DNA results, strongly suggests that the Levantine Neolithic is not the source of any European Neolithic culture.Early Iranian Neolithic samples only yielded mt-haplogroup X2 (found all over Europe today) and J1c10, (found nowadays in central and western Europe, continental Italy, Sardinia and Morocco). Both were found among European Neolithic farmers.
Therefore, based on the (very scarce) Y-DNA and mtDNA data, it looks like European farmers came from Anatolia and Iran, or more probably a common source in the northern Fertile Crescent around modern Kurdistan, but not from the Levant.
Well, if we assume that proto IE is actually Iranian Neolithic, which fed Anatolian Neolithic, which fed European Neolithic, it makes European Neolithic proto IE too. Meaning all old Europe spoke proto IE language, plus half of Middle East. It makes irrelevant whichever farmers, Maykop or Cucuteni, taught language to Steppe people via farming and mingling, it was all proto IE. Actually it would make it easier to understand why the steppe invaders were so successful teaching all Europe and half Asia to speak their language. It was already very similar to local languages.samples belonged to I1c, K1a12a (2x), H29, U3a'c and U7a, the Armenian Chalcolithic belonged to K1a8 (2x), H2a1 and U4a, while the Anatolian Chalcolithic had just one K1a17. Those lineages are still typical of the northern Middle East today and are much rarer in Europe than the Neolithic mtDNA from Anatolia and Iran. The only exceptions are I1c, H2a1 and U4a, which are found especially in central and eastern Europe today, but did not show up in Europe until the Indo-European invasions with the Corded Ware culture. It is highly interesting that these were found in Chalcolithic Armenia and Iran, as it appears to confirm that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in that region before crossing the Caucasus to found the Yamna culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. More intriguing still, these three lineages (H2a1, I1c and U4a) are actually linked to the R1a-dominant Corded Ware and Catacomb cultures, not the R1b-dominant Yamna culture. We still have to determine what could be the link between Armenia-Iran and the northern forest steppe of Russia. It could be the same population that brought CHG admixture to both Yamna and Corded Ware and it does appear to have been maternally mediated, as clearly Chalcolithic Armenians and Iranians had completed different Y-DNA from Steppe people (L1a, G1, G2a and J vs R1a and R1b).
I do expect to find G2a among Early Farmers further north though, either in Syria or southern Turkey. They had to come from somewhere, and it is extremely unlikely that cereal farming spread almost exclusively through diffusion from the southern Levant to Anatolia while it spread almost exclusively by migration from Anatolia to all Europe.
Also I think Basal Eurasian comes from South Asia.
Thanks I have to look into f3 stats to understand better.If I understand it all correctly ADMIXTURE takes a whole lot of f3 stats and plots them. If it finds some samples clustering (i.e. a number of instances all with very low different f3 stats) it will consider it a population and measure the "distance" of others towards it as admixture proportions. You can imagine that for very old samples this will not work. They will have contributed for instance to population A as well as population B and C. The old samples will also have their own - lost - drift. This will be calculated as a mixture of A, B and C even if it is not.
Hmmm, in 1c figure 1 they distinguish Iranian N by green colour, as distinct admixture. I think if you enlarge the chart you should see a little squares of green in Anatolian Neolithic. Anyway, Iranian Ch contains both Levant and Iranian N, blue and green. Why wouldn't Anatolian then?ADMIXTURE will try to find a new cluster each step it takes.
So as long as Levant_N and Anatolia_N aren't considered different populations 1c is valid. As soon as both are considered separate populations 4b. In other words: 1c means K=11, 4b means K>11.
The only squeaky wheel in it is that Anatolian farmers have 34% of autosomal Levant Neolithic in them. I see two possibilities to explain. Either Levant Y and mtDNA got deleted by better fit Iranian and local types uniparental DNA, which is not impossible knowing how fast they can bloom and die due to bottlenecking (8.2k event) and other evolutionary forcings. Second solution is that 34% of what appears to be Levant DNA is actually from a group of very related to them HGs in Central Anatolia, possibly carriers of G2a. Therefore all farmers genes come from Iranian Farmers, the rest from local hunters. That's quite a twist to what we assumed just days ago, but it is what it is. Well, possible by now, till dust settles.
Well, if we assume that proto IE is actually Iranian Neolithic, which fed Anatolian Neolithic, which fed European Neolithic, it makes European Neolithic proto IE too. Meaning all old Europe spoke proto IE language, plus half of Middle East. It makes irrelevant whichever farmers, Maykop or Cucuteni, taught language to Steppe people via farming and mingling, it was all proto IE. Actually it would make it easier to understand why the steppe invaders were so successful teaching all Europe and half Asia to speak their language. It was already very similar to local languages.
Well, one of possibilities at the moment.
I don't think there's any way of knowing at this stage where the Basal Eurasian was hiding, but one of the points against an Arabian refugia is that Levant Neolithic has less of it than Iranian hunter-gatherer (44% to 64%). On the other hand, both Levant Neolithic and Iranian Neolithic have about the same amount-44%-so the argument could be made that Basal was diluted in the west by something WHG like and in the east by something EHG or maybe ANE like.
The other alternative often mentioned is a Persian Gulf refugia, which is actually I think what Alan said?
@Holderlin,
I've considered that too. It would certainly explain why we haven't stumbled upon it yet, given that we have nothing really old from that region.
@Alan,
That makes sense to me, and I think the statements in the paper alluding to perhaps more "proximate" contacts was included. So, not that there wasn't actual steppe movement to India, but that there are older processes which may be inflating the figures.
This thread has been viewed 220832 times.