Origin of blonde hair in Neolithic farmers.

[Philjames100]

In another thread it was stated that Steppe people picked up blonde hair from Neolithic farmers, namely Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora. Does anyone know where the farmers got it from? Did they get it from hunter-gatherers or did Neolithic Anatolians already have genes for blonde hair?

According to Mathieson et al. 2018:

"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine, as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherer) but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that the earliest known individual with the derived allele (supported by two reads) is the ANE individual Afontova Gora which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE."

- Mathieson et al. (2018), The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, Supplementary material, p.51

 

[johen]

In another thread it was stated that Steppe people picked up blonde hair from Neolithic farmers, namely Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora. Does anyone know where the farmers got it from? Did they get it from hunter-gatherers or did Neolithic Anatolians already have genes for blonde hair?

Maybe from Neanderthal?

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[Philjames100]

Neanderthals weren't around then.

 

[real expert]

I have looked at the threads you have started and the posts you have written. The vast majority of them are about pigmentation, and specifically about the rise of the blonde hair and blue eyed phenotype combination in Europe.

It's as if that's your only reason for being here. In addition, you don't present ALL the papers which discuss the issue, but only the ones which support the point of view that somehow it's a steppic trait.

I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, in fact, you seem like a nice, civil, guy. However, if that's not an obsession, then I don't know what one is.......

Obsession is a very strong word with, what I believe to be, a negative undertone. In my case, you can say I have a great interest in or a healthy curiosity about the development of human pigmentation or phenotype. The authors of many genetic papers seem to share this interest with me. Others are rather more enthusiastic about haplogroups. Nevertheless, I'm fine with you thinking I'm obsessed with pigmentation as long you don't have the wrong impression that it comes from a bad place or me being a jerk. So, I'm glad that you don't have this bad and wrong impression of me given the fact, that you've expressed several times that as a veteran you have dealt with all kinds of loons.

Moreover, I genuinely appreciate that you can separate disagreement from personal dislike. Many people hate you as soon you don‘t agree with them. Concerning many topics, I'm on the same page with you, just when it comes to Steppe ancestry or blond hair I see things differently. Anyway, allow me to clarify certain things. You probably briefly overviewed my threads and eyeballed my recent comments/replies and thus came to this conclusion which I find exaggerated. To reduce my over 640 comments on my assertions about and take on the origin of blond hair and blue eyes doesn't fit the facts. By and large, the threads I've started were posts of studies about Neolithic Europeans, BA Greeks, Italians, Balkans, and IA Europeans. To a lesser degree, I shared papers about Paleo-Eurasians, Africans, and Arabs. However, my two earliest started threads were indeed about pigmentation but not specifically about blond or blue eyes but rather about the development of the skin color of Eurasians.

The point is that many studies include phenotype analysis which I brought up in my postings to share with members that are interested. Even the current papers, such as the Estonian, Southern Arc, and Ancient Greek army studies contained predictions of pigmentation and mention the presence of blondism/blue eyes or lack thereof. If my memory serves me right, there is no thread that I have posted that was about Indo-Europeans or isolated about blond hair or blue eyes. Since I'm not really convinced that EEF ancestry is entirely or solely responsible for blondism in Europeans of course I refer to other studies to make a case. Normal. Besides, it's not true that I'm being one-sided because I cite different papers. Plus, I showed a current study that suggests that blond hair comes from Steppe AND Anatolian farmer ancestry. Once again, I'm all good with disagreement as long we all don't take it or get personal. And also I hope that we have finally sorted this issue out.

 

[real expert]

In another thread it was stated that Steppe people picked up blonde hair from Neolithic farmers, namely Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora. Does anyone know where the farmers got it from? Did they get it from hunter-gatherers or did Neolithic Anatolians already have genes for blonde hair?

According to Mathieson et al. 2018:

"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine, as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherer) but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that the earliest known individual with the derived allele (supported by two reads) is the ANE individual Afontova Gora which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE."

- Mathieson et al. (2018), The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, Supplementary material, p.51

This an interesting question that can't be really answered since there are no papers that I'm aware of that deal with the origin of blond hair in Anatolian farmers. At best we can speculate here or make educated guesses. The current data indicates so far, that Europeans inherited blondism from two sources- EEF and Steppe people who carried the genes for blondism, due to their ANE ancestry. As far as I know some Eastern European and Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer individuals displayed blond hair without EEF ancestry. For instance, an EHG Samara individual was predicted with strong confidence to have blond hair and blue eyes. Likewise, 2 SHGs from Motala most likely were blond with blue eyes, too. Besides, Eastern EHG-Gatherers were 75% ANE. It should be taken into account that Funnelbeaker in Scandinavia/Northern Europe had up to 50% Hunter-Gatherer admixture, whereas in Central Europe it was at about 40%. Globular Amphora Culture folks were about 70% EEF and 30% WHG. Anyway, according to Genetiker phenotype predictions, the GAC people and Funnelbeakers had high levels of blondism. In that regard, I want to point out, that the Fatyanovo-Balanovo people had 70% Steppe ancestry and around 30% Globular Amphora admixture and they had a frequency of 21% of blond hair and 25% of blue eyes. And the Sintashta who were genetically speaking nearly identical to the Fatyanovo-Balanovo were around 50% of blond hair and 50% blue eyes. The point is, that several genes are responsible for blond hair. Although you can be blond without having the KITLG gene, however, the KITLG gene is significantly associated with common blond hair color in northern Europeans. We have to keep in mind, that positive sexual selection driven by the Steppe pastoralists increased the frequency of blondism. That's why the traits of blond hair spread rapidly after the initial Steppe herders' expansion into Central Europe.

Note: Now I see that you have edited your first comment and partly answered your question. So my reply was addressed to your original comment and that's why I brought up blond hair in EHG and SHG and basically said the same things you said.

 

[Philjames100]

This an interesting question that can't be really answered since there are no papers that I'm aware of that deal with the origin of blond hair in Anatolian farmers. At best we can speculate here or make educated guesses. The current data indicates so far, that Europeans inherited blondism from two sources- EEF and Steppe people who carried the genes for blondism, due to their ANE ancestry. As far as I know some Eastern European and Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer individuals displayed blond hair without EEF ancestry. For instance, an EHG Samara individual was predicted with strong confidence to have blond hair and blue eyes. Likewise, 2 SHGs from Motala most likely were blond with blue eyes, too. Besides, Eastern EHG-Gatherers were 75% ANE. It should be taken into account that Funnelbeaker in Scandinavia/Northern Europe had up to 50% Hunter-Gatherer admixture, whereas in Central Europe it was at about 40%. Globular Amphora Culture folks were about 70% EEF and 30% WHG. Anyway, according to Genetiker phenotype predictions, the GAC people and Funnelbeakers had high levels of blondism. In that regard, I want to point out, that the Fatyanovo-Balanovo people had 70% Steppe ancestry and around 30% Globular Amphora admixture and they had a frequency of 21% of blond hair and 25% of blue eyes. And the Sintashta who were genetically speaking nearly identical to the Fatyanovo-Balanovo were around 50% of blond hair and 50% blue eyes. The point is, that several genes are responsible for blond hair. Although you can be blond without having the KITLG gene, however, the KITLG gene is significantly associated with common blond hair color in northern Europeans. We have to keep in mind, that positive sexual selection driven by the Steppe pastoralists increased the frequency of blondism. That's why the traits of blond hair spread rapidly after the initial Steppe herders' expansion into Central Europe.

Note: Now I see that you have edited your first comment and partly answered your question. So my reply was addressed to your original comment and that's why I brought up blond hair in EHG and SHG and basically said the same things you said.

As far as I'm aware no Neolithic Anatolian samples have been found to have genes for blonde hair, so it seems highly likely that EEF blondism is from hunter-gatherers and ultimately ANE, so the same origin as the Steppe people.

 

[Philjames100]

The point is, that several genes are responsible for blond hair. Although you can be blond without having the KITLG gene

What are the other genes for blond hair?

BTW I noticed you seem to know a lot about the archaeology of Bronze Age Balkans, but wikipedia is a bit of a garbage dump fire on that subject, maybe you could help to sort it out?

 

[jose luis]

The cause of light colors in humans is attributed to sexual selection and the lack of ultraviolet rays, but the camouflage factor can also be one of these causes, because light colors appear in populations or places that only have snow in common ( Alpines, Berbers of the Atlas Mountains, Scandinavia).
With the exception of Scandinavia and Finland, the current circum-arctic peoples (Inuit, Uralics...) having light brown skin, black hair and black eyes does not deny this, because they came mostly from non-Arctic East Asia, after the domestication of the reindeer, and some at the end of the last glaciation, that is, they did not suffer so much from the selective pressures of a dominantly white environment, such as the ANE and ANS (Ancient North Siberians). In fact, arctic populations to have light brown skin and the sky to be always blue there, negates the ultraviolet factor.
Dark ones on the hunt had more difficulty camouflaging themselves. This applies to other projectiles and other situations (and other eras), but looking at it simply, in North Eurasian prehistory, sometimes everyday life was decided throwing stones at each other especially in winter when competition for resources was greater, against the background of white snow, whoever had black hair, when he tried to lift his head from outside to locate the other, was immediately hit, with dark skin it was the same, two black dots (the eyes) in the snow are also ideal to take aim. This would select for the clearest mutations.

 

[Mmiikkii]

I think considering Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry as a source for blond hair is based on nothing...

Blondness is clearly a trait from Northern Europe. There's barely none in Turkey or any other area in the Near East.
You would have to answer how is it that is has been wiped out so misteriously.

 

[Wooke1997]

I used to hear about this topic in another forum but I don't really know the exact answer. Those linked to Anatolian Neolithic farmers include blonde hair, blue eyes, lower heart rate, and lower BMI.

 

[lynxbythetv]

I wonder if those tests are getting red and blonde hair mixed up.

 

[Philjames100]

Some of the Chalcolithic Israel people from Peqin cave had blonde hair:

"Blond hair was present in the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel) [14.3%], and a Minoan from Lasithi."

Lazaridis et al. (2022) supplementary material, p.22-23

So there were already blond and blue-eyed people living in Israel c. 4000 BC.

 

[Anfänger]

Some of the Chalcolithic Israel people from Peqin cave had blonde hair:

"Blond hair was present in the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel) [14.3%], and a Minoan from Lasithi."

Lazaridis et al. (2022) supplementary material, p.22-23

So there were already blond and blue-eyed people living in Israel c. 4000 BC.

Yep, the southern arc paper has a lot of information on phenotype. At this is point, it’s clear that the typical Nordic combination of light hair and blue eyes is the result of strong selection from the Bronze Age onwards.

 

[MOESAN]

Yep, the southern arc paper has a lot of information on phenotype. At this is point, it’s clear that the typical Nordic combination of light hair and blue eyes is the result of strong selection from the Bronze Age onwards.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Eg cannot group all ancient HG's in one lone group concerning eye colour. for eyes and hair and skin SHG showed already some differences compared to EHG or Balkan HG (and WHG too). It could have been the same already for other regions in Neolithic.
If we try to break this allover statistic into subgroups we see quickly that a lot of places lack a sufficient sample to prove something.
Selection has been at play, but some other mechanisms too, among them new mixtures launched by migrations and subsequent local demographies.
I 'm curious to see modern pigmentations states based on genotypes, to compare region by region and time by time with ancient ones, spite todate the ancient ones lack number.
All what I write here doesn't contradict completely the global conclusions of this survey about the Southern Arc.

 

[Anfänger]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Eg cannot group all ancient HG's in one lone group concerning eye colour. for eyes and hair and skin SHG showed already some differences compared to EHG or Balkan HG (and WHG too). It could have been the same already for other regions in Neolithic.
If we try to break this allover statistic into subgroups we see quickly that a lot of places lack a sufficient sample to prove something.
Selection has been at play, but some other mechanisms too, among them new mixtures launched by migrations and subsequent local demographies.
I 'm curious to see modern pigmentations states based on genotypes, to compare region by region and time by time with ancient ones, spite todate the ancient ones lack number.
All what I write here doesn't contradict completely the global conclusions of this survey about the Southern Arc.

Sure there are more nuances, I just wanted to keep my post simple and short. Like you said blue eyes were present in many prehistoric populations WHG,SHG,CHG(Satsurblia has at least the gene) and Israel Chalcolithic, just to name a few. For blonde hair there are many populations, see the post from Philjames or the Supplementary of the southern arc paper. The overall percentage was relatively low in most populations, only the number of blue eyes in WHGs was high.

Many prehistoric populations had these traits but with the beginning of the Bronze Age in Northern Europe we see the mixing of steppe derived populations and European farmers and the results is corded ware which has a minority of people with blue eyes and blonde hair then selection happens, by the Iron Age the traits are nearly fixed and close to modern levels. I think this explains the modern Nordic phenotype.

I don’t think we have a problem with sufficient sampling, by now there are maybe ~1000 samples from prehistoric Europe. Of course at some period or region the sample size might be small, but then these are mostly non-european regions where sufficient sampling is lacking. Europe is the best researched place in archaeology and therefore also in ancient DNA field.

I’m also curious to see the genotypes of modern populations. If I recall correctly, at genetikers blog was a list with some modern populations but I can’t find it anymore, maybe someone else has a link to the blog?

 

[torzio]

why you wasting your time with hair colour ?

many are born pure blond hair and by the time they are teenagers their hair colour most likely is brown

at what age of the person in question, do these "scholars" state a hair colour ?

 

[Anfänger]

why you wasting your time with hair colour ?
many are born pure blond hair and by the time they are teenagers their hair colour most likely is brown
at what age of the person in question, do these "scholars" state a hair colour ?

Why not? As a kid I had light brown, now I have dark brown hair. The color is not fully developed as a kid. I am not an expert on this but I think pigmentation on hair color needs time to develop. The scholars most likely are aware of this process and use only adult individuals.

 

[MOESAN]

why you wasting your time with hair colour ?

many are born pure blond hair and by the time they are teenagers their hair colour most likely is brown

at what age of the person in question, do these "scholars" state a hair colour ?

Funny post of yours.
Colour is an external so very visible trait, so it's normal enough to look at it even if it's allover weight in geneteic making is very very light indeed. But it's partly mesological adaptative contraints is of some value for us and yet, this deserves some caution for causality concerning hairs and eyes.
Concerning changing colour, I can tell you that I never saw a lot of people with blond hair as a teenager becoming very dark brown (what I call blackish brown) or black haired. Sorry... As a whole, the most of the darkening is obtained around ten years, after that it darkens more slowly until, say, twenty years age, and then it darkens very very slowly until whitening.
It's possible that the lightening of hairs which appears NOT at birthdate but after some months, and is not so complete according to genetical background, would be kind of a mark for children among Humans.

 

[MOESAN]

Sure there are more nuances, I just wanted to keep my post simple and short. Like you said blue eyes were present in many prehistoric populations WHG,SHG,CHG(Satsurblia has at least the gene) and Israel Chalcolithic, just to name a few. For blonde hair there are many populations, see the post from Philjames or the Supplementary of the southern arc paper. The overall percentage was relatively low in most populations, only the number of blue eyes in WHGs was high.
Many prehistoric populations had these traits but with the beginning of the Bronze Age in Northern Europe we see the mixing of steppe derived populations and European farmers and the results is corded ware which has a minority of people with blue eyes and blonde hair then selection happens, by the Iron Age the traits are nearly fixed and close to modern levels. I think this explains the modern Nordic phenotype.
I don’t think we have a problem with sufficient sampling, by now there are maybe ~1000 samples from prehistoric Europe. Of course at some period or region the sample size might be small, but then these are mostly non-european regions where sufficient sampling is lacking. Europe is the best researched place in archaeology and therefore also in ancient DNA field.
I’m also curious to see the genotypes of modern populations. If I recall correctly, at genetikers blog was a list with some modern populations but I can’t find it anymore, maybe someone else has a link to the blog?

1000 samples for a so long span of time and a so vaste territory is very small, indeed? according to statisticians. You cannot consider the pigmentation handful of SNP's as as reliable as the great number implied in autosomals.
Concerning selection, I think that the climatic/mesologic ones are of light weight except for skin. The Northern/Southern opposition claimed by surveys is not so evident, and today pop's in North (and South in some cases) don't show the same percentages of hues, and keep on with their ancient differences (Celts opposed to Germanics, by example). Details can matter sometimes. But this is a topic for physical anthropology maniacs like me!

 

[Northener]

1000 samples for a so long span of time and a so vaste territory is very small, indeed? according to statisticians. You cannot consider the pigmentation handful of SNP's as as reliable as the great number implied in autosomals.
Concerning selection, I think that the climatic/mesologic ones are of light weight except for skin. The Northern/Southern opposition claimed by surveys is not so evident, and today pop's in North (and South in some cases) don't show the same percentages of hues, and keep on with their ancient differences (Celts opposed to Germanics, by example). Details can matter sometimes. But this is a topic for physical anthropology maniacs like me!

When I look at this page 22-23:

https://www.science.org/action/down...6/science.abq0755&file=science.abq0755_sm.pdf

What is difference between light and blond hair?

And I'm convinced that with regard to blond we also must take in account red hair. Because in both cases it's about pheomelanin.

Hair without much eumelanin gives depigmented hair, a kind of ash blond, simply: brown hair but depigmented.

It's the reddish yellow pheomelanin that gives the warmth. Tacitus gave the name rufios to Germanic blond, does this implicate a reddish, warm pigment?

But in the table in the publication red hair is restricted to only three hits, Bronze Age Croatia, LBK Baden Hungary, Hungarian Bell Beaker, and a Hungarian Longobard (hinting at Tacitus ?

Nevertheless to fragmented to draw any conclusion I guess.....