Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal the Absence of Maternal Kinship in the Burials o

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Points: 3,545, Level: 17
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 305
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Country: United States

    Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal the Absence of Maternal Kinship in the Burials o


    : Çatalhöyük is one of the most widely recognized and extensively researched Neolithic settlements. The site has been used to discuss a wide range of aspects associated with the spread of the Neolithic lifestyle and the social organization of Neolithic societies. Here, we address both topics using newly generated mitochondrial genomes, obtained by direct sequencing and capture-based enrichment of genomic libraries, for a group of individuals buried under a cluster of neighboring houses from the classical layer of the site’s occupation. Our data suggests a lack of maternal kinship between individuals interred under the floors of Çatalhöyük buildings. The findings could potentially be explained either by a high variability of maternal lineages within a larger kin group, or alternatively, an intentional selection of individuals for burial based on factors other than biological kinship. Our population analyses shows that Neolithic Central Anatolian groups, including Çatalhöyük, share the closest affinity with the population from the Marmara Region and are, in contrast, set further apart from the Levantine populations. Our findings support the hypothesis about the emergence and the direction of spread of the Neolithic within Anatolian Peninsula and beyond, emphasizing a significant role of Central Anatolia in this process.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Points: 4,196, Level: 18
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Country: Canada

    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Out of 37 samples tested (from burials under 4 houses), only 10 yielded results they could use. These date to ~6400 BC, like most of the Northwest Anatolian (Barcin) ones. They were K1a17, X2b4, U3b, U5b2, W1c, H, H+73, another K, another U, and an N. So overall looks quite Anatolian.

    I think this is the earliest U5 outside of Europe, by a lot, and too old to be any kind of Copper Age or later reflux. U5b2 is associated with Villabruna-WHG, and found in Iron Gates Mesolithic, could be a trace of the mysterious shared ancestry.

    K1a is very common in pretty well all the Neolithic farmers; so far hasn't shown up in the early Neolithic of Iran or in the Natufians, so could have reached them with Anatolian ancestry, but there are nowhere near enough samples to say. K1a17 specifically has been found in Anatolia Chalcolithic (from Barcin) and the (now Bronze Age) Hajji Firuz outlier.

    X2b (as well as other X2 subclades) is found in various European Neolithic cultures, including the earliest Greek Neolithic sample, but X2b4 doesn't show up again (as far as I know) until Central European Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. The earliest X2 so far is Zagros Neolithic (Ganj Dareh).

    One of the Barcin Neolithic men had W1i'c; W1c is also found in German Middle Neolithic and later in Bell Beaker and Sintashta.

    There were several U3 at Boncuklu - not too far away and almost 2000 years earlier - and a couple at Barcin. The earliest U3b I can find after this is from Minoan Crete.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    Points: 5,730, Level: 22
    Level completed: 36%, Points required for next Level: 320
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    MtDNA haplogroup

    Ethnic group
    Country: Switzerland

    Do anybody knows the interactive maps with the prehistoric samples they use? Looks like Ancient Human DNA uMap, but in more complete. And btw, still no H13 from Neolithic Anatolia, while it was already in Lepenski Vir.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Points: 1,373, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 177
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Country: USA - Connecticut

    Thank you for sharing your insights to the this incredible discovery there's so many moving parts traced. I'm just now collecting enough pieces too share.
    After reading these notes I thought this might have value.

    Maternal kinship and social structure of Çatalhöyük

    Our results show that all ten obtained genomes belong to different mitochondrial haplotypes.
    The case of the individuals buried within building 96 is especially interesting, as four different
    mitochondrial haplotypes suggest that at least four different maternal lineages were present in
    the group of individuals interred within this particular house. Such a high variability of mitochondrial
    haplogroups in a kin group, especially among children and females, could be explained by patrilocality.
    Assuming the house, as a typical Çatalhöyük structure, was occupied for 3–4 generations [
    and inhabited by a matrilocal or bilateral biological kin group, the chances of finding four individuals
    representing different maternal lineages and matching the sex and age of the individuals is implausible.
    However, to support this interpretation, either the paternal lineages reflected in Y chromosome
    data should be analyzed, or a precise estimate of the size of the kin group in question is needed.
    As building 96 has not been excavated in its entirety [
    ], only ten individuals have been unearthed
    to date. One cannot rule out the possibility that more deceased are still be found beneath its floor.
    As the number of individuals buried within a single house in Çatalhöyük varies from several to around
    70 [
    ], it is difficult to reliably estimate how many individuals might have been buried in building 96.
    Any interpretation based solely on the data presented here would not be strongly justified, however,
    the lack of biological kinship between Çatalhöyük burials within a single house was also proposed
    based on metric and non-metric morphological dental trait.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts