6.5 ka Levantine chalcolithic DNA

It might have nothing to do with agriculture. See the blond tropical horticulturalists in Melanesia.

So what does ( apparently ) two different genes who are stopping the melanine process tells us about it? Some sort of Esthetical Same-Specie convergent evolution? I dont buy it.

Why is there Blue Eyes in some Wolves and Foxes if this is a recessive trait and probably always was a minority. Do Wolves and Foxes understand Esthetics? Both Species are Monogamous, are they searching for the perfect mate, just like Humans?
 
So what does ( apparently ) two different genes who are stopping the melanine process tells us about it? Some sort of Esthetical Same-Specie convergent evolution? I dont buy it.

Why is there Blue Eyes in some Wolves and Foxes if this is a recessive trait and probably always was a minority. Do Wolves and Foxes understand Esthetics? Both Species are Monogamous, are they searching for the perfect mate, just like Humans?

So why couldn't Near Easterners have been fair? :unsure:
 
So why couldn't Near Easterners have been fair? :unsure:

Near Easterners is like talking of WHG from Spain and EHG from Karelia as something related. Natufians, Anatolians HG, CHG, Iran HG, were all different groups more divergent than WHG and EHG. It's also different to say " Near Easterners at some point had fair features " wich is fair enough. To say, " fair features came from neolithic farmers ". Wich the latter is used by scientists in studies.

I'm always so bugged how people are taking conclusions. If you need to put up 100 studies in your life and each one contradict the previous, it's then conclusions are probably not needed for the time being.

Also if Fair Features are unrelated at all with climate or latitudes, why then was it positively selected in high latitudes, pure sapiens coincidence going along evolutionary incidences? Surely not. Those few years studies have open way too much questions that scientists can respond to.
 
I guess somebody thought my reputation was becoming too high for what i worth...
 
I can see in the figure that CA and EBA/MLBA Anatolia have similar proportions, but how did you make the link between them and the CA Peqi'in population? Is there any data/analysis showing this?
And the CA Peqi'in population was said to be migrants of Northern Mesopotamia, meaning from probably the regions of South-Eastern-Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
The CA Anatolia sample seems to be from Central/Western Turkey. Does this mean there was another group of migration from Northern Mesopotamia into Central/Western Turkey during the Chalcolithic period? And these people were genetically different from the Neolithic Anatolia samples? Which Y-DNA is associated with these groups?
And could these people have made migrations into the Italian Peninsula during the Iron Age?

From the paper:

Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be well-modeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_N-related ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region. We additionally find that the Levant_ChL population does not serve as a likely source of the Levantine-related ancestry in present-day East African populations (see Supplementary Note 4)24.

9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.

The Wilerslev paper is behind a paywall.

Raveane et al shows that Anatolians arrived in the Bronze-age, not the IA. However, from the looks of the Wilerslev figure, Southern Europeans certainly went to and lived in central Anatolia in the IA; judging from the second sample.
 
From the paper:



9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.

What I meant was that the ancient dna studies with Y-DNA from Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia found Y-haplogroups like C(AHG), G, H, J. There was no T found in Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia.
So it seems to me that the genetics of Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia could be different. Maybe T is major in Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia(Maybe this is from where the Peqi'in population came from?)?
And in the graph you shared, Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Copper Age(Chalcolithic) Central/Western Anatolia are different from each other. Could this mean that migrations from Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia happened into Central/Western Anatolia during the Copper Age?
 
What I meant was that the ancient dna studies with Y-DNA from Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia found Y-haplogroups like C(AHG), G, H, J. There was no T found in Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia.
So it seems to me that the genetics of Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia could be different. Maybe T is major in Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia(Maybe this is from where the Peqi'in population came from?)?
And in the graph you shared, Neolithic Central/Western Anatolia and Copper Age(Chalcolithic) Central/Western Anatolia are different from each other. Could this mean that migrations from Neolithic Eastern Anatolia/Mesopotamia happened into Central/Western Anatolia during the Copper Age?

I wish I was able to access the Willerslev paper to be able to have a more insight.
 
13. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (15.89) - I0184
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (15.93) - MA2208

Interestingly, I'm slightly closer to Copper-Age Anatolian, than to Bronze-Age Anatolian Hittite in the mytrueancestry samples. Unfortunately, they didn't link the study for I0184.
 
13. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (15.89) - I0184
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (15.93) - MA2208
Interestingly, I'm slightly closer to Copper-Age Anatolian, than to Bronze-Age Anatolian Hittite in the mytrueancestry samples. Unfortunately, they didn't link the study for I0184.

Combined: (23 v5, Anc, Liv.DNA, NG Helix):
14. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (17.41) - MA2208
18. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (19.71) - I0184

23andme v4:

15. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (17.36) - MA2208
18. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) (19.79) - I0184
 
F68fKST.png


Sardinians are the darkest people in Italy, as demonstrated by this map.

I wonder, if it is true that the Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolians did help bring light features to the Ancient Mediterranean peoples (As sometimes depicted in artwork); was it the Sardinian-like ancestry that made them darker?

Of course, the northern regions get an extra boost to the average, from celtic and northern European sources.
 
Sardinians are the darkest people in Italy, as demonstrated by this map.

I wonder, if it is true that the Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolians did help bring light features to the Ancient Mediterranean peoples (As sometimes depicted in artwork); was it the Sardinian-like ancestry that made them darker?

Artworks only become realistic with the Roman era. Hard to judge older artworks that reflect more certain tastes.
 
Artworks only become realistic with the Roman era. Hard to judge older artworks that reflect more certain tastes.

That is true.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that lions had blue hair in the early bronze age.

KeXABUU.jpg
 
From the paper:



9 of the 10 samples were haplogroup T. Nevertheless, the early dominate lineages of the Levant were E, who were overtaken by J in by the Bronze-Age.

The Wilerslev paper is behind a paywall.

Raveane et al shows that Anatolians arrived in the Bronze-age, not the IA. However, from the looks of the Wilerslev figure, Southern Europeans certainly went to and lived in central Anatolia in the IA; judging from the second sample.


more info on this is that they originally came from modern georgia on the black sea and when they left the levant they went towards southern coastal turkey
 
I know that this is an old post, but pre-Villabruna Europe belonged to a different HG population. So what if the entire UHG population is closely related to Villabruna cluster while older European HGs like Aurignacians weren't? This would explain why Villabruna + UHG cluster has blue eyes while the Aurignacian and in general non-Villabruna clusters didn't.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say.

Phenotype changes as new groups arrive. Whether the old phenotype survives is a question of the size of the new migration and, to some extent, to chance. Isolated areas will preserve it more.
 
I find it quite possible, even likely that the Afro-Asiatic linguistic component was originally absorbed by (or imposed onto) the Anatolian & Iranian ("northern") population that probably merged with Levant_Neolithic ones, hypothetically because they were highland immigrants in a more technologically advanced region or something like that. But that would've happened before the consolidation of a Proto-Semitic language and culture, before its expansion to other areas, probably still during the Late Neolithic,, and during that "gestation period" it's possible that the foreign elements eventually became dominant even before Proto-Semitic was spread elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent. I say that because I find it hard to believe that Afro-Asiatic came originally from too much north or east of the Levant, considering the distribution of the rest of the family (all other branches in Africa, some of them with possible older links to Southwest Asia, like Cushitic) and the heavy Natufian affinities in other heavily AA regions like North Africa and Egypt.
Just found this thread now.

Have to through my 2 cents into the room here.

There are several reasons that speak against the idea that Semitic evolved further North. At least one major reason that would ultimately force us to place the origin of Egyptian further North too.

Within the Afro Asiatic language family we have Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic and Omotic. 4 of 5 of these are exclusively located in Africa. and 4 out of 5 are geographically very close to the South Levant. Within this family. Egyptian and Semitic have the closest relationship.


Which means that these two must have seperated from each other the latest. Egyptian is also the only language that has clear Levant_Chl influx like Semites and shares with the Semites the only other major yDNA (J) other than E1b. Also it's not like Semites are J by large majority and therefore "unlikely for them to take the "language of the local non J's. South Levantines(Jordania as example which is the core for the hypothetical homeland) is as much E1b as it is J1.

There is no reason to assume the original Semites came from further North and East if their close relatives live West of them and their closest relative has a very similar paternal yDNA admixture to them. So this Guys (herders) from the Northeast had to have likely arrived in the Levant before Semite and Egyptian split.

And on top we have significant historic evidences which rather counter this idea. South of Mesopotamia was pretty much inhabidet by non Semite speaking Sumerians. Who are assumed to be derived from the Chalcolthic Ubaid period. When the Assyrians arrived in Mesopotamia they took over the former Sumerian lands and a huge influx on the Assyrian culture was visible. When the Assyrian King Assurbanipal invaded the North he called himself "King of the Gutian and Subarian lands".

Which clearly implicates this region was not familiar to them to begin with.

That is why the theory of a proto Afro_Asiatic homeland in the south of Levant from where the Berber, Omotic/Chadic speakers first split during the Neolithic makes more sense. The Proto Semitic/Egyptian speakers remained still behind until Iran Chalcolthic type people migrated into the region with new ideas and genes mixed into the population (The Egyptian Pyramids clearly influenced by common idea with the Mesopotamian Ziggurats). After that we see the split between Egyptians and Semitic. With the Proto Egyptian speakers moving into modern Egypt.

Of course it is also possible that after the Chadic,Omotic and Berber people split away. A group of Proto Proto Semites moved further Northeast mixed with Iran_CHL like people moved than back into the South Levant and "infected" the Proto Egyptians" before they left for Egypt.

The first theory looks allot more likely to me tbh.
 
Last edited:
Why do people on this site find blue eyes so surprising? Didn't the ancient Sumerians portray their people with fair skin and blue eyes?
serveimage


There is Deeper connection between Sumerians, Elamites and the Harrapans which all seem to be connected by Iran_N Dna. Those guys were pigmentationwise predominantly what we would call Olive skinned and dark haired/eyed. They even called themselves the "black heads".


The Sumerians had sculptures with people in many different eye colors. Even reddish once. All it means is that the Sumerians knew people had different eye colors but just as the Greeks they probably even had a small % of people with these traits.
 
This bullshit that ancient peoples of the Middle East and Egypt could not possibly have had blue eyes needs to end:

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html
mate we literally have ancient Egyptian DNA at hand. And they do not look like your blue eyed guys. Of course if we had blue eyed people in the Levant why shouldn't it be possible to find blue eyed persons in Egypt too? but some of you sound like the Middle East was once full of blue eyes and completely replaced by brown. Not like Blue eyes existed in decent percentages before and still exist in similar number today.
Here you have a modern Egyptian man with blue eyes
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/02/bb/3e02bb87f7baeebcd01cf67664df09a6.jpg

It's not like we suddenly have a very extreme genetic change in the Near East since these ancient Civilization. What the hell is wrong with you people? The genetic shifts we see in modern Near Easterners compares to the ancient once are predominantly from surrounding other Near East areas. And if there is one thing we have learned from ancient DNA, it is that the only "outside" admixture the regions where once we have seen these civilization came rather from the North.

If anything modern Iranians, Anatolians, even Greeks and Italians are more "northern" shifted than Bronze or even Iron Age people of the same region. The only exception being the Egyptians who seem to have received a little Sub Saharan African admixture but still are like 92% derived from their ancestors.

I mean, I see some guy make the assumption that the frequency of blue eyes went so far down possibly because of Iran_N admixture, in one post.
Just to show sculptures of Sumerians with "blue eyes" in another. Totally missing the fact that these Sumerians have a heavy connection to the Iranian Plateau themselves via the Jiroft culture and this very region most likely being the source of the Iran_CHL dna in the Levant_CHL. You see the paradoxon here? Also for the people who might have missed or forgotten it.

One of the Iran_N samples had the mutation for blue eyes in OCA2/HERC2 too. So it's not like it was completely absent with them. Take in mind the genetic flow into the Levant was from Iran_CHL, who had a slightly different pigmentation profile.

blue eyes and pigmentation are defined by few SNP's. Some blue eyed Lebanese who is genetically identical to his brown eyed brother will still be simply a Lebanese.

And why are some people here calling Natufians light skinned and eyed? Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
There is Deeper connection between Sumerians, Elamites and the Harrapans which all seem to be connected by Iran_N Dna. Those guys were pigmentationwise predominantly what we would call Olive skinned and dark haired/eyed. They even called themselves the "black heads".


The Sumerians had sculptures with people in many different eye colors. Even reddish once. All it means is that the Sumerians knew people had different eye colors but just as the Greeks they probably even had a small % of people with these traits.

can be true

the egyptians paintings had, libyans as white skin, nubians as black skin and themselves as brown skin ................so there is always a high % of truth in these sculptures etc
 
These sculptures don't tell us who (what ethny) they represent.
And keep in mind that rare variants are often overexemplified.
I never rely on representations.
If you look at Greek statues, almost all the guys and girls have the same kind of mouth. Do you think it was the case in reality?
Lybians are a case. We know some Berbers have SOME OF THEM light pigmented, not everywhere, and not the majority of individuals, even if in the regions where it is true, they are strikingly "fair" compared to the very dark people around them. If it was the case among Lybians of the time, the Egyptians could have been pushed to represent the most typicla of them (stereotype, wellkown reaction).
 

This thread has been viewed 98438 times.

Back
Top