Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Neolithic Anatolia-Kinship Patterns

  1. #1
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,233


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    5 members found this post helpful.

    Neolithic Anatolia-Kinship Patterns

    It would be nice to get hold of these new Neolithic samples.

    See:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982221004231

    "Highlights

    •Genetic kinship estimated from co-buried individuals’ genomes in Neolithic Anatolia
    •Close relatives are common among co-burials in Aşıklı and Boncuklu
    •Many unrelated infants found buried in the same building in Çatalhöyük and Barcın
    •Neolithic societies in Southwest Asia may have held diverse concepts of kinship


    Summary

    The social organization of the first fully sedentary societies that emerged during the Neolithic period in Southwest Asia remains enigmatic,1 mainly because material culture studies provide limited insight into this issue. However, because Neolithic Anatolian communities often buried their dead beneath domestic buildings,2 household composition and social structure can be studied through these human remains. Here, we describe genetic relatedness among co-burials associated with domestic buildings in Neolithic Anatolia using 59 ancient genomes, including 22 new genomes from Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük. We infer pedigree relationships by simultaneously analyzing multiple types of information, including autosomal and X chromosome kinship coefficients, maternal markers, and radiocarbon dating. In two early Neolithic villages dating to the 9th and 8th millennia BCE, Aşıklı Höyük and Boncuklu, we discover that siblings and parent-offspring pairings were frequent within domestic structures, which provides the first direct indication of close genetic relationships among co-burials. In contrast, in the 7th millennium BCE sites of Çatalhöyük and Barcın, where we study subadults interred within and around houses, we find close genetic relatives to be rare. Hence, genetic relatedness may not have played a major role in the choice of burial location at these latter two sites, at least for subadults. This supports the hypothesis that in Çatalhöyük,3, 4, 5 and possibly in some other Neolithic communities, domestic structures may have served as burial location for social units incorporating biologically unrelated individuals. Our results underscore the diversity of kin structures in Neolithic communities during this important phase of sociocultural development."

    I can't think of which social units.



    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    966

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY96055
    MtDNA haplogroup
    from plovdiv h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Thanks for sharing
    Tell you the truth it become boring again same y haplogroups( C,G2, ) i think H3a is maybe a surprise ...

    I think here are the genome( source other thread not anthrogenica)

    https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/vi...Hpp1hUPth3hcLQ

    ID 33 Aşıklı Höyük 7945–7890 U3a G2a2b
    ID 1885 F Çatalhöyük K1a 6905-6885 .84 G2a2a1
    ID 2033 F.84 / 86 6690-6590 H2a2a1d H3a1 Çatalhöyük
    ID 2779 Çatalhöyük H2a2a C1a2 F.265
    ID 5357 Çatalhöyük 7035-661 N1a

    P.s
    I do know though that y haplogroup H was found in neolithic europe context before
    Sefhardi, aschenazi, bulgarian
    die Überlebenden
    https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y62418/
    https://yfull.com/mtree/H3ap/
    k12b ancient
    Closest:
    3.30708331
    R136_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietrophenotype: east med with pontic vibe

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-02-10
    Posts
    165

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c1

    Ethnic group
    Appalachian American
    Country: USA - West Virginia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Stratigraphic level / area Building Calibrated 14C date (cal. BCE) Age class Molecular sex Genome coverage Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup Y chromosome haplogroup
    2 Aşıklı Höyük 2A AB 7585–7475 (95%) Young adult XX 0.02 H2a2a -
    33 Aşıklı Höyük 2C C 7945–7890 (9%)
    7870–7595 (86%)
    Child XY 0.07 U3a G2a2b
    40 Aşıklı Höyük 2B BH 7935–7915 (1%)
    7825–7590 (94%)
    Old adult XX 0.03 N1a1a1 -
    128 Aşıklı Höyük 4 B3 8225–7955 (95%) Child XX 5.03 K1a4 -
    129 Aşıklı Höyük 4 B3 8170–8115 (6%) 8060–8045 (1%)
    8010–7985 (1%)
    7970–7735 (86%)
    Young adult XX 0.79 K1a4 -
    133 Aşıklı Höyük 4 B1 8170–8115 (8%)
    8060–8040 (1%)
    8010–7980 (2%)
    7975–7735 (84%)
    Old adult XX 1.16 K1a4 -
    131 Aşıklı Höyük 4 B1 8200–8110 (16%)
    8095–8035 (7%)
    8015–7740 (72%)
    Child XX 0.09 T2c1a -
    136 Aşıklı Höyük 4 B1 8175–8110 (7%)
    8090–8075 (1%)
    8065–8040 (1%)
    8015–7705 (84%)
    7695–7655 (2%)
    Adult XX 0.15 T2c1a -
    30006 F.7615 Çatalhöyük North G 114 6645–6495 (94%)
    6490–6480 (1%)
    Infant XX 0.07 K1a4 -
    8587 F.1013 Çatalhöyük North G 114 - Neonate XX 0.14 T2e -
    2728 F.258 Çatalhöyük South M 50 6695-6505 (95%) Infant XX 0.08 K1a -
    2842 F.274 Çatalhöyük South M 50 6690-6505 (95%) Child XX 0.09 K1a -
    2017 F.96 Çatalhöyük South M 50 6815–6790 (2%)
    6775–6595 (93%)
    Neonate XX 0.03 T2 -
    1885 F.84 Çatalhöyük South M 50 6905–6885 (1%)
    6825–6635 (92%)
    6625–6600 (2%)
    Child XY 0.07 K1a G2a2a1
    2033 F.84/86 Çatalhöyük South M 50 6690–6590 (95%) Child XY 0.01 H2a2a1d H3a1
    2779 F.265 Çatalhöyük South M 50 - Infant XY 0.27 H2a2a C1a2
    5357 F.576 Çatalhöyük South K 17 7035–6680 (93%)
    6670–6650 (2%)
    Infant XY 0.06 N1a1a1 C1a2
    21855 F.8214 Çatalhöyük South K 17 - Child XX 0.07 H2a2a1 -
    21981 F.8153 Çatalhöyük South N 89 - Infant XX 0.09 K1a17 -
    5747 F.1064 Çatalhöyük South M 91 6640–6490 (95%) Infant XX 0.12 T2c1 -
    11739 F.1912 Çatalhöyük TP Q-R - 6235–6075 (95%) Middle adult XX 0.20 K1b1 -
    20217 F.3931 Çatalhöyük TP Q-R - 6415–6240 (95%) Child XX 0.06 K1a4b -

  4. #4
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    208


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Interesting, that the later (Ceramic) Neolithic Anatolians didn't show any affinity to CHG/Iran_N, but had around 10% Levantine admixture.


    Aceramic Neolithic-period populations had lower within-group genetic diversity (measured using the f3-statistic) than did Ceramic Neolithic groups (Figures 1D and S2C, and Tables Z8 and Z9) and carried a higher fraction of short runs of homozygosity (ROH) than most Ceramic Neolithic genomes (Figure S3G). This temporal increase in diversity, also noted in earlier studies,20 could be explained by two non-exclusive scenarios, namely population growth and genetic admixture. By testing D(Outgroup, X; Aceramic Anatolian, Ceramic Anatolian), where X represents an early Holocene Zagros or Levantine population, we found results compatible with southern and eastern gene flow into Central and West Anatolia between roughly 7,500 and 6,500 cal BCE (Figure 1E and Table Z4) as previously suggested.21,26 Using qpAdm, we could also model Ceramic Neolithic Anatolian populations as mixtures of c.90% Aceramic Neolithic Anatolian ancestry (estimate ± 1 standard error: 89%–92% ± 2%–4%) and c.10% Levantine ancestry (8%–11% ± 2%–4%) (models that included Zagros or Caucasus populations were not supported) (Table Z10). Notably, the timing of increased population mobility is contemporaneous with a stronger reliance on agriculture and animal husbandry as food sources, a shift to larger buildings, likely population growth, and possible shifts in patterns of social organization, as we describe below.
    https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(21)00423-1

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    62


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    Interesting, that the later (Ceramic) Neolithic Anatolians didn't show any affinity to CHG/Iran_N, but had around 10% Levantine admixture.




    https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(21)00423-1
    Is this Levantine influx Natufian, PPNA or PPNB ?
    As far as I know, Levantine ceramic started later than Anatolian ceramic, and Zagros ceramic was the first.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    62


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    what do they mean by Y haplo H3a1? Is it H-P96?

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-P96/

  7. #7
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,233


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    Interesting, that the later (Ceramic) Neolithic Anatolians didn't show any affinity to CHG/Iran_N, but had around 10% Levantine admixture.




    https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(21)00423-1
    I've been saying for years until I was blue in the face that it would turn out that a lot of Anatolian farmers had at least 10% Levantine Neolithic or related.

    You had to use your logic. The hunter-gatherers at Boncuklu learned farming from the Levant. In almost all cases the movement of agriculture came with a certain amount of migration.

    It also had to be because Early European farmers and Chalcolithic people like Otzi had it, and so some streams of the Neolithic had to carry it.

    People just didn't want to believe it, for reasons we all know.

  8. #8
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    966

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY96055
    MtDNA haplogroup
    from plovdiv h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    what do they mean by Y haplo H3a1? Is it H-P96?

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-P96/

    no..
    h3a1 is according to isogg tree 2019-20120 is H-Z5864
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=262668195
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-Z5864/

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    72


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I've been saying for years until I was blue in the face that it would turn out that a lot of Anatolian farmers had at least 10% Levantine Neolithic or related.

    You had to use your logic. The hunter-gatherers at Boncuklu learned farming from the Levant. In almost all cases the movement of agriculture came with a certain amount of migration.

    It also had to be because Early European farmers and Chalcolithic people like Otzi had it, and so some streams of the Neolithic had to carry it.

    People just didn't want to believe it, for reasons we all know.
    it was known at least since 2019 with the paper that brought to light the Anatolian hunter-gatherer component that Ceramic Farmers had around 10% Levan_N, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425003/ .

  10. #10
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,233


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    What does even ancient dna mean to some people?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    1,036


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    it was known at least since 2019 with the paper that brought to light the Anatolian hunter-gatherer component that Ceramic Farmers had around 10% Levan_N, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425003/ .
    Indeed, we know it since Feldman et al.

    Going by Feldman, actually the first farmers would have arrived to Anatolia more than 10k years ago bringing some Iran ancestry and at that point no Levant yet. Y-DNA G was there in this AAF period already. Perhaps the very first Gs that supposedly brought agriculture to Anatolia were either Iran-like or a mixture of it with AHG. Is so, not that surprising, if we think there's this ~9500 years old G2b sample from Iran with local ancestry. Later, in the ACF period, the Levant Neo ancestry would have arrived, bringing perhaps some E, T, H (all found in Levant Neo), to add up to some G, C, perhaps also J and a type of I, before the migration to Europe. This new paper doesn't seem to contradict it, since they talk on ACF as a mixture of AAF and 10% Levant (not AHG plus Levant).
    So it seems the very first farmers in Anatolia (AAF) were closer to Iran than to Levant in ancestry, but Barcin already had both. Tepecik would have had extra Iran and Levant in comparison to Barcin, iirc. Levant Neo per se had some Anatolian as well, and if I'm not mistaken Iran Neo had a bit of it too.
    Last edited by Regio X; 17-04-21 at 19:59.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-05-18
    Posts
    36

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-CTS3087
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H16

    Country: USA - California



    I have seen some argue that the G2a in Early European Farmers (EFF)/Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (ANF), is derived from populations related to CHG/Iran_Neo, rather than Anatolian Hunter Gatherers (AHG) or Levantine Neolithic Farmers (Leavnt_N). There may be some currency to that theory, especially when one considers the genetic affinities between the Iron Gates Hunter Gatherers and AHG, and that Anatolian Aceramic farmers (AAF) inherit about 10% of their genes from a gene pool related to the CHG/Iran_Neo. This has has been demonstrated in the Y-DNA of some EEF samples. R17 and R19, two samples from the Neolithic site at Ripabianca di Monterado, Marche, Italy, were determined to carry Y-DNA Haplogroups J2a-PreY29673 and J2a-S11842, while I5068 and I5207, two samples from the Linear Pottery Culture in Austria, were found to belong to J2a-Z6048. Y-DNA Haplogroup J2a-Z6055 has been found in two EEF samples, I5078 from the Sopot MN in Croatia, and I1902/FEB3a from the Lengyel LN, in Hungary. All of these samples had minor amounts of CHG/Iran_N-related ancestry, and I believe the "Iceman" Otzi had minor amounts of CHG/Iran_N ancestry as well. This would mean that all Europeans have CHG/Iran_N-related ancestry from ANF/EEF, and not just from Western Steppe Herders (WSH). The Levant Neolithic ancestry found in ACF, also means that all Europeans have Levant_N/Natufian ancestry via ANF/EEF correct, or am I mistaken?

Posting Permissions

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