Migration from the Steppe to Anatolia was 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC)

[MOESAN]

The reason why you didn't post any of the Iran_Neo samples was because you know exactly what this would mean for your theory and you are trying too hard to deceive the people. That is not the fine English way.

Here is an Iran_Neo samples used with K14 Neolithic.

Population

N_Amerindian	-
Afansievo_Yamnaya	24.30
Kalash	14.55
Siberian	-
S_Amerindian	-
Sub_Saharan	0.23
SE_Asian	-
E_African	-
SW_Asian	25.53
Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers	16.88
SHG_WHG	-
Early_European_Farmers	-
S_Indian	18.51
Papuan	-

This calculator doesn't have an Iran_Neo or CHG component simple as that. Therefore the Iran_Neo component get split up in other "likely categories".

And Yamnaya is just possible shared ancestry.

In fact from Iran_Neo to Armenian EBA and Anatolia_CHL the "Steppe" admixture shrinks rather than rises. This is why Armenian EBA samples are basically a mixture of Iran_CHL and Anatolian_Chl. And Anatolian_CHL itself is Anatolian_Neo with Iran_Neo admixture. No Steppes or anything akine there.

I agree in some way.
All these auDNA autopsies mixing "basic" componants of different ages are beginning to bore me; they mix arbitrary theorical componants (not without value it's true) with real historical pops, not always of the same time and they do magy; even scientists don't produce the same results for the same pops because they use some pops as unbroken componants to evaluate (break) other pops; by instance in K14 'afanasyevo/yamana' is ancient pop, kalash is a modern pop, SW Eurasian an articifial modern componant (I suppose at least): what a mess; everybody will keep on arguing on until the coming centuries? LOL; shared ancestry from ancient pops doesn't tell us which precise ancestry is shared without help of IBD. It's true graphics without precise explanations are confusing...

 

[Angela]

I think he was talking about Kum6 that actually is quite diferent culture from Kum4. Actually there is almost 1000 years of absence of people there from one to the other.

We've been discussing both Kum 4 and 6. The "yellow" on the Hofmanova graphic, which is present in both samples, and which it was claimed was EHG, is actually CHG. It seems that everyone is in agreement about the "ethnic" make up of both samples except some people posting here.

The interesting fact is that Kum 6, which some papers maintain blended into Troy seems to be, in fact, as stated above, Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG. Of course, there are many levels at Troy, so perhaps there was opportunity for migrations from other places.

 

[MOESAN]

Sorry SW-Asian here could be neolithic, I don't know the composition of K14 'neol';
and without speaking of IBD, we can see in K14 the absence of something like CHG for West-Asian (gedrosia, caucasus) except maybe Kalash and of EHG, so Afanasyevo-Yamanya seems covering both CHG (west-asian for a big part) and EHG, and we don' know more about the precise 'afan-yamna' present in Kum6 or others; other breakings could be as bad all the way; BTW Iran-neo would not be a better standard.
we are in front of the limits of admixture calculators, maybe.
it's easy to see relations but not to see who are the donors and receivers and how it occurred, in my personal case at least;

 

[Angela]

For clarity, the results from the Haak et al paper are based only on ancient genomes. Plus, it is not a standard Admixture analysis.

 

[bicicleur 2]

We've been discussing both Kum 4 and 6. The "yellow" on the Hofmanova graphic, which is present in both samples, and which it was claimed was EHG, is actually CHG. It seems that everyone is in agreement about the "ethnic" make up of both samples except some people posting here.

The interesting fact is that Kum 6, which some papers maintain blended into Troy seems to be, in fact, as stated above, Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG. Of course, there are many levels at Troy, so perhaps there was opportunity for migrations from other places.

Yellow is indeed CHG.
We don't know how the yellow got into Kum4/6. It is very unlikely to have gotten there via some unadmixed CHG.

One came make different conclusions e.g. for K=3 and for K=5.
There are no clear conclusions at all, except that Kum4 is different from Kum6.
Kum6 was probably part of the Kumtepe founding population ca 4800 BC.
Kum4 is part of or admixed with the people that arrived in Kumtepe ca 3700 BC.
Furthermore coverage on Kum4 is'nt great, and Y- nor mtDNA are known.

Level I (the oldest) of Troy is unknown.
If I recall well David Anthony claims a shrine in level II to be IE.

 

[Angela]

Yellow is indeed CHG.
We don't know how the yellow got into Kum4/6. It is very unlikely to have gotten there via some unadmixed CHG.

One came make different conclusions e.g. for K=3 and for K=5.
There are no clear conclusions at all, except that Kum4 is different from Kum6.
Kum6 was probably part of the Kumtepe founding population ca 4800 BC.
Kum4 is part of or admixed with the people that arrived in Kumtepe ca 3700 BC.
Furthermore coverage on Kum4 is'nt great, and Y- nor mtDNA are known.

Level I (the oldest) of Troy is unknown.
If I recall well David Anthony claims a shrine in level II to be IE.

I thought Eurogenes just claimed that it was the Kum 6 which was low coverage? I don't remember, frankly, which one it was. If you have a citation, that would be great.

What we have is what we have, unfortunately (I would think they tried to analyze all the Kumtepe samples available), and what we have doesn't indicate any EHG in either of these samples. As the technology gets better perhaps they can revisit the samples and clear it up for us.

I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

 

[Olympus Mons]

...
I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

Angela. Yes. Its called Shulaveri Shomu. They lived for almost 1500 years at the heart of Kotias and Satsurblia land. And by 4900bc were gone. Really gone as in settlements totally abandonment.

Probably Kum6 is a related shulaveri women. As its about them that Krause and Haak are postulating as the movement from south Caucasus taking CHG into steppe. So Khavlinsky is them mixing with local population almost completely EHG.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I thought Eurogenes just claimed that it was the Kum 6 which was low coverage? I don't remember, frankly, which one it was. If you have a citation, that would be great.

What we have is what we have, unfortunately (I would think they tried to analyze all the Kumtepe samples available), and what we have doesn't indicate any EHG in either of these samples. As the technology gets better perhaps they can revisit the samples and clear it up for us.

I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

what we have in Kumtepe is an admixture of admixed people
and that leaves room for a lot of hocus pocus

 

[Angela]

what we have in Kumtepe is an admixture of admixed people
and that leaves room for a lot of hocus pocus

Who, pray tell, is engaging in hocus pocus?

I'm certainly not the one making false claims here, or engaging in wild speculation either.

I'm not addressing whether Anthony is correct that the Anatolian languages entered Anatolia from the Balkans. He may be correct about that.

I'm addressing the specific issue, raised by Tomenable, of whether the Kumtepe samples show clear evidence of EHG. They don't. Period.

That doesn't mean we won't find a sample somewhere in Anatolia at the right time period and with the right culture which does.

 

[MOESAN]

The "WHG " in Anatolia is not real "WHG" but ancestral component to WHG that merged with Basal EUrasians. Anatolian_Neo itself is ~50% WHG like.

What Angela means is real WHG admixture that happened in Europe. That is 5-10%

Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

 

[davef]

Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

I see where you're going, MOESAN. Seems that every month we have to tweak a few things and discover a new subset of west hunter gatherer or european farmer and their ancestors/descendants/cousins/aunts/uncles/in laws (lol). That's how it goes and if its based on fact and not from individuals who want to twist the picture around to separate themselves from populations they don't like I'm ok with that.

I'll admit I too was shocked to hear Anatolia neo is half whg like (I'm not doubting you Alan, I'm not of the expertise to) even if it isn't from an actual, authentic whg population from Europe.

 

[MOESAN]

For clarity, the results from the Haak et al paper are based only on ancient genomes. Plus, it is not a standard Admixture analysis.

Angela, can you give me the clues for this Haak paper if I can have the complete work free, it would help me to discuss more seriously? Thanks

 

[MOESAN]

I see where you're going, MOESAN. Seems that every month we have to tweak a few things and discover a new subset of west hunter gatherer or european farmer and their ancestors/descendants/cousins/aunts/uncles/in laws (lol). That's how it goes and if its based on fact and not from individuals who want to twist the picture around to separate themselves from populations they don't like I'm ok with that.

I'll admit I too was shocked to hear Anatolia neo is half whg like (I'm not doubting you Alan, I'm not of the expertise to) even if it isn't from an actual, authentic whg population from Europe.

I agree, but, what kind of facts? Can we compare Allentoft and Lazaridis, by instance?
I looked at your "pedigree" your "about me": can I help you in some way? I 've my own problems: married two times, a small peniss (I write a second 's' to lengthen it), a poor sexual life, addiction to alcohol but too less bottles at home, no social help to buy more, and one of my sons play drums!!! So I know what hard life signifies.

 

[Angela]

Angela, can you give me the clues for this Haak paper if I can have the complete work free, it would help me to discuss more seriously? Thanks

This is the paper, which was made available by the Reich Lab, since Lazaridis is co-lead author.
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14317.pdf

This is the link to the extended data and figures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#extended-data.

This is the supplementary data, which is really the guts of the paper. Just click on supplementary information
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#supplementary-information

 

[Alan]

Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

No it wouldn't be more useful because Levant Neo itself is still 40% WHG like. So it's not like Levant farmers were Basal Eurasian proto farmers and mixed with Anatolian HG. In fact Basal Eurasian came to Levant and Anatolia either from the south coast of Iran, Persian Gulf or Arabia. Those HG mixed with the Anatolian and Levant HG and created the new Farmers. The only difference from Anatolian farmers to Levant farmers is the propotion of Basal Eurasian vs WHG like admixture. You can split the component always further back, the only question is at which point does it still matter?

 

[davef]

I agree, but, what kind of facts? Can we compare Allentoft and Lazaridis, by instance?
I looked at your "pedigree" your "about me": can I help you in some way? I 've my own problems: married two times, a small peniss (I write a second 's' to lengthen it), a poor sexual life, addiction to alcohol but too less bottles at home, no social help to buy more, and one of my sons play drums!!! So I know what hard life signifies.

I appreciate your support MOESAN, but I'm getting along well these days. I'm not addicted to alcohol thanks to intervention from my mother but I do drink recreationally and feel physically as healthy as a 20 year old, but I am very unhealthy mentally and rely on medication (which in itself isn't sufficient) and normal people don't seem to grasp those who aren't "normal" so they question why I'm "this" or why I act "this' way or why I struggle with "this".

But, thanks to companies who appreciate and realize my talent in programming as well as my parents who want to see me thrive in spite of my pecularities, I'm doing well for myself.

I apologize for straying from the thread's topic, btw

 

[arvistro]

Who, pray tell, is engaging in hocus pocus?

I'm certainly not the one making false claims here, or engaging in wild speculation either.

I'm not addressing whether Anthony is correct that the Anatolian languages entered Anatolia from the Balkans. He may be correct about that.

I'm addressing the specific issue, raised by Tomenable, of whether the Kumtepe samples show clear evidence of EHG. They don't. Period.

That doesn't mean we won't find a sample somewhere in Anatolia at the right time period and with the right culture which does.

Do they show clear evidence of not having ehg or just their ehg like thing has also some other explanation?

 

[Fire Haired14]

Laz's Anatolia Chl. genomes probably have EHG ancestry. There's analysis suggesting they do. If they have EHG they certainly got it from the Caucasus not the Steppe though.

 

[Angela]

Do they show clear evidence of not having ehg or just their ehg like thing has also some other explanation?

I'm not aware of any analysis showing they have EHG, or additional WHG, for that matter.

Everyone seems to agree they have CHG.

@Moesan,
For a long time the big emphasis among amateurs was on clearly delineating the "European" or "aboriginal" hunter-gatherers from the Near Eastern "farmers". That of course ignored the fact that the WHG, or EHG for that matter, didn't materialize out of the rocks. They came from elsewhere, either the Near East or Siberia.

The other problem, as I kept repeating, is that everybody was a hunter-gatherer originally. It also became apparent with time that the hunter-gatherers living in Europe shared ancestry with the hunter-gatherers in the Near East. It's just that the hunter-gatherers in the Near East who invented agriculture and became Anatolian Neolithic farmers and Levant Neolithic farmers also had ancestry from another type of hunter-gatherer group, the Basal Eurasians, who may have split off earlier from the main Out of Africa group. (You'll find all of this in the Haak paper.)

Does that matter? Not to me. The question which I wanted answered, and which everyone not obsessed by "racial identity" politics wanted answered is "Did farming come to Europe through cultural diffusion or through the actual migration of people from the Middle East?" The answer is clearly that it was brought by the migration of people.

The second question was did the "Indo-European" languages spread through the world largely through the migration of people from somewhere in the east? The picture is almost complete and the answer to that is also yes.

The genetic make-up of modern Europeans is mostly the result of the admixture which resulted from these migrations, although in different proportions depending on the area.

That's it.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with using EEF, so long as people understand what it means. It means the Early European farmer signature based on Stuttgart, or LBK.

 

[MOESAN]

I appreciate your support MOESAN, but I'm getting along well these days. I'm not addicted to alcohol thanks to intervention from my mother but I do drink recreationally and feel physically as healthy as a 20 year old, but I am very unhealthy mentally and rely on medication (which in itself isn't sufficient) and normal people don't seem to grasp those who aren't "normal" so they question why I'm "this" or why I act "this' way or why I struggle with "this".

But, thanks to companies who appreciate and realize my talent in programming as well as my parents who want to see me thrive in spite of my pecularities, I'm doing well for myself.

I apologize for straying from the thread's topic, btw

We was making joke, but you're right. It's a bit out of topic. But I was pleased by your presentation of yourself.