Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

[Angela]

Angela, not sure I got it right. Why “far separated time periods” ? It says “earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population”, based on this 15000 years old sample and on Early Neolithic samples from Anatolia. So, 10% of the earliest Anatolian farmers ancestry would have come from Iran/Caucasus Neolithic and Levant Neolithic. The oldest Neolithic settlement in Anatolia would be 9250-8750 years old, and the earliest samples from Lazaridis et. al. are 8500-8200 years old, right?
As for my speculations, well, I'm assuming the Epipaleolithic pop from Anatolia were G2a mainly, but we never know!

The paper from which the graph came is Lazaridis et al 2016.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros91 Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from92 local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and93 Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of94 Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern95 farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread96 westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into97 East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian98 steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of99 the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."


"Continuity between pre-farming hunter-gatherers and early farmers of the Near East225 Our data document continuity across the hunter-gatherer / farming transition, separately in226 the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands. The qualitative evidence227 for this is that PCA, ADMIXTURE, and outgroup f3 analysis cluster Levantine hunter228gatherers (Natufians) with Levantine farmers, and Iranian and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers229 with Iranian farmers (Fig. 1b; Extended Data Fig. 1; Extended Data Fig. 2). We confirm this230 in the Levant by showing that its early farmers share significantly more alleles with Natufians231 than with the early farmers of Iran: the statistic f4(Levant_N, Chimp; Natufian, Iran_N) is232 significantly positive (Z=13.6). The early farmers of the Caucasus-Iran highlands similarly233 share significantly more alleles with the hunter-gatherers of this region than with the early234 farmers from the Levant: the statistic f4(Iran_N, Chimp; Caucasus or Iran highland hunter235gatherers, Levant_N) is significantly positive (Z>6)."

As for Anatolian farmers, they propose, as per the graphic above, that they are about 27% UHG, 39% Iran Neolithic, and 34% Levant Neolithic. The samples are dated much later, however, than the Epipaleolithic samples, i.e. they are radio carbon dated to 6500 to 6250 BCE. They also all come from northwest Anatolia. (Extended Data Sample 1 in the Supplementary Data)

So, as I said, I see no conflict here.

We'll have to see if this new Central Anatolian sample already had Natufian like and CHG like ancestry back in the Paleolithic, and if it did have it, if it was at the high levels present later in the Neolithic. It shouldn't be long now before we now.

 

[Angela]

Sean Hannity (Irish Roots)

Another example:
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan:

Gene Kelly:

George Clooney-Irish/German: Wow, he definitely improved with age!

I could go on and on.

It's not a good idea to base one's opinions on this sort of thing on travel through pictures on anthrofora. Nothing beats living with people from all different ethnic groups.

 

[Silesian]

Bell Beaker is not a good example to infer the phenotype of the PIE-speaking Pontic-Caspian cultures centuries earlier. They were already heavily EEF-shifted (IIRC some of the samples appear to be ~50% BA steppe at most) and were not optimal proxies for Yamnaya, much less earlier Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog, either in genetics or in looks, despite the obvious genetic relation. I think (though I'm not sure) the frequency of light hair and light eyes in the Bell Beaker and CWC samples is much higher than in their common source, the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures of the Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age.

There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

 

[Salento]

Off-Topic. George Clooney had a motorcycle accident yesterday in Sardinia, his Look has probably changed again.


....Terrifying George Clooney Crash Footage Shows Moment Actor Was Flung Into The Air...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b45f797e4b0c523e264d7a6

 

[davef]

There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

where did the scientists who found the steppe people to be of darker complexion than most of Europe go wrong?

 

[Angela]

There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

If 30 isn't enough for the steppe, then we don't have enough for SHG or EHG or any ancient group. That's as much or more than we have for a lot of them.

The only people who would see Levant centrist supremacy in pointing out what the data shows in terms of the relatively light pigmentation of Anatolian Neolithic farmers are people who think light pigmentation somehow makes someone more worthwhile or superior.

Such people can't understand that some people don't see anything "superior" about a random mutation selected for based on available sunlight. For a lot of us it's not a big deal: nothing to either celebrate or deride.

 

[Ygorcs]

There are thousands of untested Kurgans. Phenotype profiling an entire group of people on the Steppe [ 20/30+/- samples] really borders on a racist type mentality. I have noticed a real push Levant-centrist/Afro-centrists supremacists as of late-just my personal take on some of the comments.

That's not a profiling of an "entire group of people", but certainly a responsible and sensible statement about the samples available, striving to affirm just what can be backed up. It's fine if you say "Bell Beaker people had high frequencies of light eyes and hair", but that doesn't objectively substantiate any claim about how earlier people of the steppe were like. I really hope you're not implying that we can just assume things and speculate wildly in the absence of samples even though we have a few dozens of them already (for the Pontic-Caspian steppe and forest-steppe populations), instead of relying on what we have now. If these results change in the future, with more samples or better techniques, we'll all adjust our opinions and conclusions. That's how science works: we will judge the data we have, even if tentatively, and not speculate on what we think or wish were true. If that is eventually proven wrong, fine - but only when we have more and beter data to make a different statement.

For now, we can be sure that among the Yamnaya and other Pontic-Caspian cultures very light features were in the minority. If you sampled 30 Norwegians randomly, you may bet that the odds that you'd find some blonde and blue-eyed people would be really high.

There is nothing "Levant-centrists" far less "Afro-centrist" (do you really think those two terms are even related to each other? If you do, you're very wrong) in affirming that Yamnaya people were moderately LIGHT-SKINNED with a predominance of BROWN HAIR and BROWN EYES. Nor is there any "Levant-centrism" in affirming that EEF, with most of their ancestry deriving from Anatolia (Anatolia, you know, Turkey - not Palestine or Arabia, far less Africa), were light-skinned and sometimes had light eyes or hair. Are light features some kind of prize to be disputed somehow? You know, the overwhelming majority of modern European people are heavily rich in EEF and (less so) CHG, you're not all a mere transplanted people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. ANF > EEF is an inherent (and very relevant) part of being a European population, don't forget that.

If you think those statements are "Levant/Afro-centrism", then I really fear about what's your opinion about most Europeans south of central-southern Germany, as well as a very sizeable proportion of people of northern Europe, since they are light-skinned with brown hair and brown eyes. Maybe there is something really "Levantine" or even, God forbid, "African-like" in them... LOL

 

[Regio X]

The paper from which the graph came is Lazaridis et al 2016.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros91 Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from92 local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and93 Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of94 Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern95 farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread96 westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into97 East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian98 steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of99 the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."


"Continuity between pre-farming hunter-gatherers and early farmers of the Near East225 Our data document continuity across the hunter-gatherer / farming transition, separately in226 the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands. The qualitative evidence227 for this is that PCA, ADMIXTURE, and outgroup f3 analysis cluster Levantine hunter228gatherers (Natufians) with Levantine farmers, and Iranian and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers229 with Iranian farmers (Fig. 1b; Extended Data Fig. 1; Extended Data Fig. 2). We confirm this230 in the Levant by showing that its early farmers share significantly more alleles with Natufians231 than with the early farmers of Iran: the statistic f4(Levant_N, Chimp; Natufian, Iran_N) is232 significantly positive (Z=13.6). The early farmers of the Caucasus-Iran highlands similarly233 share significantly more alleles with the hunter-gatherers of this region than with the early234 farmers from the Levant: the statistic f4(Iran_N, Chimp; Caucasus or Iran highland hunter235gatherers, Levant_N) is significantly positive (Z>6)."

As for Anatolian farmers, they propose, as per the graphic above, that they are about 27% UHG, 39% Iran Neolithic, and 34% Levant Neolithic. The samples are dated much later, however, than the Epipaleolithic samples, i.e. they are radio carbon dated to 6500 to 6250 BCE. They also all come from northwest Anatolia. (Extended Data Sample 1 in the Supplementary Data)

So, as I said, I see no conflict here.

We'll have to see if this new Central Anatolian sample already had Natufian like and CHG like ancestry back in the Paleolithic, and if it did have it, if it was at the high levels present later in the Neolithic. It shouldn't be long now before we now.

Thanks for the text. I think I got what you mean now. Independently of the new paper, Anatolian farmers could still be modeled as Iran and Levant Neolithic and UHG, in the proportions presented by Lazaradis et al. In other words, they would have substantial Iran Neolithic like, Levant Neolithic like ancestry etc., which would point to a possible Paleo connection, as Ygorcs suggested (see below), rather than a direct genetic influence by them over Anatolians in Early Neolithic.
What the new paper seems to say is that Early Anatolian farmers had about 10% direct ancestry from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neolithic, whereas the other 90% would be directly connected to the local HG from Epipaleolithic. We'll see soon. Anyway, the source(s) of the traits you mentioned (this is the initial context) could still be any of the populations in question, indeed.
(Yes, 6500-6250 BCE equals 8500-8250 BP.)

Maybe the Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia already had long-gone connections with the eventual populations of both Iranian and Levant farmers. That would confirm that those populations were indeed separated for a long time, but they still had minor affinities due to Paleolithic movements, not early Neolithic ones.

Perfect.

 

[Angela]

a

Thanks for the text. I think I got what you mean now. Independently of the new paper, Anatolian farmers could still be modeled as Iran and Levant Neolithic and UHG, in the proportions presented by Lazaradis et al. In other words, they would have substantial Iran Neolithic like, Levant Neolithic like ancestry etc., which would point to a possible Paleo connection, as Ygorcs suggested (see below), rather than a direct genetic influence by them over Anatolians in Early Neolithic.
What the new paper seems to say is that Early Anatolian farmers had about 10% direct ancestry from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neolithic, whereas the other 90% would be directly connected to the local HG from Epipaleolithic. We'll see soon. Anyway, the source(s) of the traits you mentioned (this is the initial context) could still be any of the populations in question, indeed.
(Yes, 6500-6250 BCE equals 8500-8250 BP.)

Perfect.

If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.

As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).

So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

 

[Regio X]

a
If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.
As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).
So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.
I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.
What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

In fact, the abstract doesn't suggest that 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample come from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock. See what it says:

By using a comparative dataset of modern and ancient genomes, we estimate that the earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population, indicating a high degree of genetic continuity throughout the Neolithic transition. In addition, we detect two distinct waves of gene flow during the Neolithic transition: an earlier one related to Iranian/Caucasus ancestry and a later one linked to the Levant.

I just thought the other 10% in early Anatolian farmers (not Epipaleo HGs), in Neolithic transition, come from Iran/Caucasus and Levant Neo.
As for the origin of the mutations for skin depigmentarion, your hypothesis makes sense to me. I assume they haven't originated independently in different places; there must be a common source to both Anatolian and Steppe/EHG people, then it makes sense this source was in the Caucasus or close.

 

[Ygorcs]

So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.

 

[epoch]

a

If the new paper is correct, and only 10% of the Epipaleolithic sample comes from Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic stock, and if the Lazaridis paper is correct with the much higher percentages, then there was additional mixing as the Neolithic progressed, which would make sense.

As to the "traits" involved, my "guess", and that's all it is, is that they don't come from the Levant Neolithic. We know that derived SLC24A5 was present extremely early in the Caucasus, but we didn't find SLC42A5 derived there, or the mutation for blue eyes, so perhaps that was more a UHG (related to WHG) thing. For blue eyes that would make sense given the ubiquity of blues eyes in the WHG. However, the WHG were mostly ancestral for both of the derived skin lightening snps. They were the darkest of all of them. SHG, which is a mixture of WHG and EHG did have them (also picking up the blue eyes from the WHG perhaps).

So, perhaps the mutations for skin depigmentation first appeared in some hunter-gatherers with ANE? Perhaps that happened in the Caucasus and spread in all directions from there, i.e. north to north-east Europe and south west into Anatolia? We do have J in northeastern Europe very, very, early, after all. We have very, very few old samples from the Caucasus, so perhaps it was there originally, and an old paper did trace the spread from that general area.

I honestly don't know, and neither, I think, does anyone else. We'll just have to wait and see.

What is also clear is that as time passed, even without migration from other areas, the percentages increased, so selection does indeed have a part to play in all of this.

There was also a Iberian Mesolithic sample, Canes1_Meso, with one derived SLC42A5.

 

[Ailchu]

so here is what i think would make sense in temrs of of skin pigmentation from most light to darkest.
SHG>EHG>Yamnas>EEF>WHG
not sure about EEF and Yamnas since i dont know how much of derived SLC42A5 was in yamnas but i would say it was as much or more as in EEF. but the yamnas had more of derived SLC45A2. in the end all of them were probably darker than most modern europeans on average.

 

[Regio X]

Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.

Angela can correct me if I'm wrong: If I got it right, her idea is that an ANE rich pop was the original source 'cause SHG folks already had among them the derived alleles at the same time they lacked CHG ancestry. So, the EHG would be their direct source, while the CHG would be their direct source in Anatolians. EHG and CHG had ANE ancestry, right? However, to spread the alleles to both of them and not to the East (assuming most of Eastern and Southern Asians have the ancestral alleles; I don't know if it's the case), the supposed ANE rich group in whom the mutations (or at least one of the two) first happened must have lived close to the Caucasus, and later than the ANE flow to America.
But if SLC45A2 was indeed already present in Mesolithic Iberia...

There was also a Iberian Mesolithic sample, Canes1_Meso, with one derived SLC42A5.

 

[Angela]

Have scientists investigated the genetic architecture of skin pigmentation in Native Americans? Do they have only the "East Asian" derived genes that made them much lighter (despite later intra-America selection for darker skin many tropical places under very high sun exposure), or do they also have (originally, pre-Columbian) some of the main West Eurasian derived alleles? That kind of information could tell us something about the role of ANE in the origin of light skin in Eurasia, or at least point out that that genetic mutation probably happened (or spread from its initially small locus) only after the First Amerindians, who were rich in ANE, had departed first to Beringia ("Beringian still") and later to the Americas.

When this kind of discussion was very intense, I looked hard to find data on North American Indians, for example, but was unable to find any.

I want to emphasize I was just musing about the ANE as a source. I have no strong opinion as to where the mutations first appeared. There was one paper which suggested that perhaps the depigmentation snps for skin pigmentation were in the background of the WHG, but then why are they the ones with the lowest percentages? Or perhaps it was just for SLC42A5 in the WHG and for whatever reason there was no selection for it? I think SLC24A5 looks Caucasus centered. The blue eyes are definitely a WHG thing, but a paper found even it radiating from around the Black Sea. As for the blonde hair mutation, another paper suggested it was ANE centered, yet it shows up in Europe among farming people who wouldn't have had much ANE.

It's still a mystery.

What isn't a mystery is that wherever it first appeared, the frequencies increased through selection. Of course, if people within whom it was selected for then migrate, they'll bring it with them and increase the percentages in their new home. The Sandra Wilde paper is very interesting in that regard. Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5, while modern Ukrainians have 93%. For TYR it's 2% versus 28%. For blue eyes it's 16% versus 65%.

To the best of my recollection the EHG were dark haired and dark eyed, but had both SLC42A5 and SLC24A5 derived. So, did the "Caucasus" element cut into the SLC42A5 derived?

@Epoch,
That may be part of the reason why that paper proposed that at least SLC42A5 arose in the WHG. For whatever reason, however, it didn't rise to any significant degree at all in them.

@Ailchu,
If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned. Things change constantly in this field. That's why David Reich is already revising his book.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/pigmentation-of-ancient-southeastern-europeans/


Perhaps there's something to the suggestion I've seen bandied about that Andronovo type people picked up their fair pigmentation, although even they weren't Scandinavian fair, from these farmers

Also, last I heard, SHG didn't have a big impact on modern European genetics.

 

[Ailchu]

@Angela
"Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5"
i couldn't find a number for derived SLC24A5 but i assume that it had the same frequency as in EEF or higher. it seems like wilde and mathieson did not look at this allele. wilde from 2014 has 0.43 for SLC45A2.
mathieson from 2016 has something around 0.6-0.7 for the derived SLC45A2 in yamnas, if i look at this graphic here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
the numbers in this graphic are quite interessting. first i thought that central european farmers could have less than anatolian farmers because they mixed with darker WHG's or because the derived SLC45A2 came from the east, north of caucasus. but then i realized that WHG's, if that's what HG stands for, actually have a higher frequency of it than all early farmers. so that can't be it.
this site here has some modern allele frequencies from different studies listet.
https://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI003963V
if its true that yamnas had 0.6-0.7 they might be comparable to modern adygei people. but the numbers on that site are very variable and inconsistent between different studies. maybe because some of them did not primarily focus on population lvl allele frequencies. and because the samples are biased. i don't believe that berbers have such a high amount of the derived SLC45A2 allele on average. that was probably a highly european admixed population.
there is also this graphic on this site here that should be based on alfred values
https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc45a2matp-the-genetics-of-human-hair-color/
but i don't know how they made this since it doesn't fit with all the values on alfred.

 

[Angela]

@Angela
"Yamnaya people had 43% of derived SLC42A5"
i couldn't find a number for derived SLC42A5 but i assume that it had the same frequency as in EEF or higher. it seems like wilde and mathieson did not look at this allele. wilde from 2014 has 0.43 for SLC45A2.
mathieson from 2016 has something around 0.6-0.7 for the derived SLC45A2 in yamnas, if i look at this graphic here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
the numbers in this graphic are quite interessting. first i thought that central european farmers could have less than anatolian farmers because they mixed with darker WHG's or because the derived SLC45A2 came from the east, north of caucasus. but then i realized that WHG's, if that's what HG stands for, actually have a higher frequency of it than all early farmers. so that can't be it.
this site here has some modern allele frequencies from different studies listet.
https://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/mvograph.asp?siteuid=SI003963V
if its true that yamnas had 0.6-0.7 they might be comparable to modern adygei people. but the numbers on that site are very variable and inconsistent between different studies. maybe because some of them did not primarily focus on population lvl allele frequencies. and because the samples are biased. i don't believe that berbers have such a high amount of the derived SLC45A2 allele on average. that was probably a highly european admixed population.
there is also this graphic on this site here that should be based on alfred values
https://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/slc45a2matp-the-genetics-of-human-hair-color/
but i don't know how they made this since it doesn't fit with all the values on alfred.

It was a typo. There is no SLC45A5.

The data as to the percentages I quoted for Yamnaya steppe people are from this Sandra Wilde et al paper. All you had to do was go to Table I and click for the graphic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832#T1

[/IMG]


I don't know where you're getting that WHG had derived snps for either of the major skin depigmentation snps. They have neither except for that one outlier. Use the search engine for the papers and samples. I can't go hunting for things which are so accepted nobody should be questioning them anymore.

Iberian farmers did get darker after mixing with WHG, which thus makes sense.

That didn't happen in Central or Eastern Europe.

There's a very early predicted light haired, light eyed and light skinned farmer in Hungary.

Also, as I said above, take a look at Genetiker's results for GAC or Globular Amphora. They are European farmers genetically, contrary to all the speculation before we got their genomes. That link also has predicted pigmentation for mesolithic and farming groups in Europe.

As to modern populations, this is the frequency percentages for derived SLC42A2

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

This is from Norton et al: Convergent Evolution. It's for all the HapMap populations and can be found in the supplement:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/3/710/1240790#supplementary-data

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

What do you know? Seek and ye shall find. Native Americans. It seems the lighter pigmentation may come from their East Asian ancestry. These percentages look like they're probably post contact with Europeans.

There are European percentages for a few countries as well:

[/IMG]


See also:

[/IMG]

 

[Regio X]

@Epoch,
That may be part of the reason why that paper proposed that at least SLC42A5 arose in the WHG. For whatever reason, however, it didn't rise to any significant degree at all in them.

In theory, I guess WHG or related pop would work as first source too. It could also explain the presence of the mutation in Anatolian early farmers and EHG. Perhaps we'll never know exactly where it casualy happened, anyway, what matters is that it would have been firstly spread more randomly, well before the Neolithic, and then positively - and strongly - selected in certain areas, with the advent of farming and change of the lifestyle.

 

[Ailchu]

"It was a typo. There is no SLC45A5."
and i got a bit confused im my last post too. i swaped the 2 and 4 so instead of SLC42A5 it should be SLC24A5. this does exist and i think it was fixated in SHG and also very common if not also fixated in EEF.
from wikipedia one of the sources is a mathieson paper from 2015:"Neolithic farmers entering Europe at around the same time were intermediate, being nearly fixed for the derived SLC24A5 variant but only having the derived SLC45A2 allele in low frequencies. The SLC24A5 variant spread very rapidly throughout central and southern Europe from about 8,000 years ago, whereas the light skin variant of SLC45A2 spread throughout Europe after 5,800 years ago.^[48][49]"
wilde and mathison look at SLC45A2. wilde 2014 gets 0.43 for the derived version in steppe while mathieson 2016 gets 0.6-0.7 according to this graphic from his paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/figure/F9/
and he also somehow gets a higher frequency of the derived SLC45A2 in HG's(i suppose WHG's since these HG's are fixated on the derived HERC allele) than in any early farmer population. EEF's instead had more of the derived HERC2 allele

"The data as to the percentages I quoted for Yamnaya steppe people are from this Sandra Wilde et al paper. All you had to do was go to Table I and click for the graphic."
i did do that believe me.

also i'm not so sure if the derived TYR is a major skin depigmentation allele. when i look on the distribution of this allele on ALFRED greeks score higher values of the derived version than fins. also in the table you gave

it is in higher frequency in southern europeans than in northern and eastern europe. so my guess is that it does have an effect but it is not needed for light skin. or maybe the values are just incomplete. there is only one value from northern europe.

"s to modern populations, this is the frequency percentages for derived SLC42A2"
its SLC45A2
so the frequency in portugal and sardinia is comparable to the one of yamnas if the graphic from mathieson is correct.
MG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]
its interessting how marocco and algeria have similar values to portugal and sardinia. but my guess is that algier has a strong european influence. there are many maroccans and algerians who score above 20-30% european.

"Also, as I said above, take a look at Genetiker's results for GAC or Globular Amphora. They are European farmers genetically, contrary to all the speculation before we got their genomes. That link also has predicted pigmentation for mesolithic and farming groups in Europe."
that's interessting and i do not want to dispute the fact that EEF's could have been light skinned. but the people in contemporary ukraine also do not seem to be dark skinned.

How is 63% similar to 73% or 80%? That's why the authors said they were probably darker than any modern Europeans.

Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine.

It is not that the EEF COULD HAVE BEEN LIGHT SKINNED. If we're going to use depigmentation snps as the benchmark, which is all we have, they were lighter skinned than the WHG. Period. So were the NEOLITHIC ANATOLIANS. Also, period, whether you like it or not.

In the future please put the comments to which you are responding in quotes. It's very confusing.

I've just realized how far off topic we've gone. Any further pigmentation discussions should go on the dedicated threads.

 

[Ailchu]

my last post in this depigmentation discussion

"Nobody said or implied that Ukrainians are dark skinned. The comparison was to show how much darker the Yamnaya were than the present inhabitants of Ukraine."
what i ment was that ancient ukrainian samples on the site of genetiker were not dark too.

"If genetiker's analysis of the depigmentation snps present in the Globular Amphora people is correct, the European farmers adjacent to the steppe were much lighter than steppe people. Yamnaya people were predominantly dark haired, dark eyed, and not very fair skinned."

can you give me a direct link where he compares the depigmentation snps of both of these people? EEFs adjacent to steppe and steppe adjacent to EEF's.