The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

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.
 
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.
 
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/Aşıklı_Höyük
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.
 
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/article?id=10.1371/journal.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.

image

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_Emergence_of_Neolithic_Life_in_South_and_East_Marmara_Region
I take it these epipaleolithic people account for the haplogroup I found
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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-Uralic_languages#Some_possible_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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Take a look at this: Are these loan words?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages#Some_possible_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:
[h=3]Ancient[edit][/h]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."
 
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 TGhazal-I
IDI1707 AG83_5 Poz-81097
Y DNAT-PF7466 (xT1a1-FGC3945.2, T1a2a1-P322)
 
@Alan,

Is this the study to which you were referring?

http://meeting.physanth.org/program...thic-cultural-diffusion-in-the-near-east.html

It was discussed in this eupedia thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...t-Central-Anatolian-farmers?highlight=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?"
 
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:
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.

image

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/thread...Europe-(Paschou-et-al-2014)?highlight=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.ne.../F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

This site has some interesting information on the Greek Neolithic:
http://armchairprehistory.com/2015/...neolithic-following-the-ophiolite-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/profil...CE-to-3800-BCE-used-in-our-analysis-Sites.png

Neolithic Shelter Catal Hoyuk:
http://www.mitchellteachers.net/Wor...nsProject/Images/paleovneolithic/Shelter2.jpg
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

I mean CHG may be the source of metallurgy
 
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
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 217634 times.

Back
Top