Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
The first analysis of a Kumtepe sample was done in Omrak et al
We discussed it here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...e-of-the-European-Neolithic?highlight=Kumtepe
This is the link to the full Omrak et al paper...
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2042476822/2055464038/mmc2.pdf
This is the link to the supplement.
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2042476822/2055464037/mmc1.pdf..
I haven't yet read the complete paper or supplement, although I've seen a graphic or two, because I lost track of that thread. In the beginning, all we had was the abstract because it seemed the paper was behind a pay wall. I know that my initial reaction was that the results showed that the sample probably contained CHG admixture. It now appears that was correct. I also wondered whether the paper specifically didn't say that because that CHG sample hadn't yet come out. Once I get the time to read the data and supplement I'll see whether that was the case.
In the meantime, some quotes from that paper that were posted in our thread:
"The Anatolian Kum6 individual falls close to the early and middle Neolithic European farmers, showing a tendency toward modern-day Near Eastern populations. Interestingly, Kum6 does not group with any modern-day Anatolian populations. These results were confirmed by outgroup f3 statistics where, among modern-day groups, Kum6 shows the greatest genetic similarity to Sardinians, Greeks, and Cypriots, whereas modern-day Anatolian populations display lower levels of genetic affinity to Kum6 (Figure 2)."
I have to check if they included any southern Italian populations. I would think they might show the same kind of genetic similarity as do the Greeks.
"We computed D statistics [20] to further investigate additional genetic relationships between ancient Europeans with
sufficient sequencing coverage (>13) and Kum6. All proposed tree topologies where the Tyrolean Iceman [20] was included as one of the in-groups were rejected (2 < jZj < 4.6), suggesting gene flow or a more recent shared ancestry between Kum6 and the Tyrolean Iceman (Figure 4A). A similar tendency was observed with a Middle Neolithic Hungarian farmer [23], (co1), contemporary with the Tyrolean Iceman, resolution due to the low coverage of Kum6 and Co1. The observed genetic affinity between the Tyrolean Iceman and Kum6 could be interpreted as additional contacts between western Anatolia and Neolithic Europe at a later stage. This scenario is congruent with mitochondrial [29] and archaeozoological [30] studies, as well as the archaeological indications of multiple waves of contact between the Balkans and Anatolia. "
The paper under discussion shows the same thing.
Finally...
"the third component (green) is mostly found in the modern-day Near East and Caucasus, and the highest proportion of this third component among Neolithic individuals was observed in Kum6 (45% for K = 9). The notion that this component is West Asian is also supported by its presence in a Bronze Age Armenian sample (51%), which contains less than 2% of the orange component. Interestingly, this ‘‘West Asian’’ component (green) is not related to the potential genetic material brought to Europe by migration during the Bronze Age and recently connected to the Yamnaya culture [19, 24], visualized in Figure 3 as light blue, and it is observed in high frequency in modern-day people from southern Asia. The elevated ‘‘West Asian’’ affinity of Kum6 is likely to be the cause of the genetic differentiation observed between Kum6 and all other ancient farmers shown in the PCA plot (Figure 1B.). "
I don't know that I'd call it "West Asian" in Dodecad terms, but I'd certainly call it a Caucasus component.
We discussed it here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...e-of-the-European-Neolithic?highlight=Kumtepe
This is the link to the full Omrak et al paper...
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2042476822/2055464038/mmc2.pdf
This is the link to the supplement.
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2042476822/2055464037/mmc1.pdf..
I haven't yet read the complete paper or supplement, although I've seen a graphic or two, because I lost track of that thread. In the beginning, all we had was the abstract because it seemed the paper was behind a pay wall. I know that my initial reaction was that the results showed that the sample probably contained CHG admixture. It now appears that was correct. I also wondered whether the paper specifically didn't say that because that CHG sample hadn't yet come out. Once I get the time to read the data and supplement I'll see whether that was the case.
In the meantime, some quotes from that paper that were posted in our thread:
"The Anatolian Kum6 individual falls close to the early and middle Neolithic European farmers, showing a tendency toward modern-day Near Eastern populations. Interestingly, Kum6 does not group with any modern-day Anatolian populations. These results were confirmed by outgroup f3 statistics where, among modern-day groups, Kum6 shows the greatest genetic similarity to Sardinians, Greeks, and Cypriots, whereas modern-day Anatolian populations display lower levels of genetic affinity to Kum6 (Figure 2)."
I have to check if they included any southern Italian populations. I would think they might show the same kind of genetic similarity as do the Greeks.
"We computed D statistics [20] to further investigate additional genetic relationships between ancient Europeans with
sufficient sequencing coverage (>13) and Kum6. All proposed tree topologies where the Tyrolean Iceman [20] was included as one of the in-groups were rejected (2 < jZj < 4.6), suggesting gene flow or a more recent shared ancestry between Kum6 and the Tyrolean Iceman (Figure 4A). A similar tendency was observed with a Middle Neolithic Hungarian farmer [23], (co1), contemporary with the Tyrolean Iceman, resolution due to the low coverage of Kum6 and Co1. The observed genetic affinity between the Tyrolean Iceman and Kum6 could be interpreted as additional contacts between western Anatolia and Neolithic Europe at a later stage. This scenario is congruent with mitochondrial [29] and archaeozoological [30] studies, as well as the archaeological indications of multiple waves of contact between the Balkans and Anatolia. "
The paper under discussion shows the same thing.
Finally...
"the third component (green) is mostly found in the modern-day Near East and Caucasus, and the highest proportion of this third component among Neolithic individuals was observed in Kum6 (45% for K = 9). The notion that this component is West Asian is also supported by its presence in a Bronze Age Armenian sample (51%), which contains less than 2% of the orange component. Interestingly, this ‘‘West Asian’’ component (green) is not related to the potential genetic material brought to Europe by migration during the Bronze Age and recently connected to the Yamnaya culture [19, 24], visualized in Figure 3 as light blue, and it is observed in high frequency in modern-day people from southern Asia. The elevated ‘‘West Asian’’ affinity of Kum6 is likely to be the cause of the genetic differentiation observed between Kum6 and all other ancient farmers shown in the PCA plot (Figure 1B.). "
I don't know that I'd call it "West Asian" in Dodecad terms, but I'd certainly call it a Caucasus component.
