search this blog

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Central Anatolian Neolithic farmers similar to European Neolithic farmers


Update 05/08/2016: the paper, titled Demographic Development of the First Farmers in Anatolia, is out and open access at Current Biology. See here.

...


AAPA 2016 abstracts are now online. This one is interesting:

Sedentism, farming, and herding in West Eurasia first started in the Fertile Crescent around 11,500 BP. From there, Neolithic culture spread into Central Anatolia and the East Mediterranean, and eventually, reached Southwestern Europe. The demographic dynamics behind these processes has long been of interest. Recent archaeogenomics studies showed that the arrival of farming in West Europe happened through migrating Neolithic populations. But where had these migrations themselves initiated? Based on material culture studies, it has been suggested that Neolithic culture first spread from Central Anatolia to the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, by cultural diffusion. But this hypothesis has not yet been tested by genetic data. Here we address this question by screening the genomes of 15 Central Anatolian individuals from different Neolithic sites (10,000-8,000 BP). Four of these were sequenced to >0.1X coverage, and the data was combined with published Neolithic genomes. Our results indicate that Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals genetically resembled the first migrant Neolithic populations found in Europe, rather than modern-day Anatolians. At the same time, Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals appear to cluster together, to the exclusion of other Neolithic populations. Using simulations, we evaluate demographic models that could explain these patterns. Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis. We discuss our results in the context of material cultural exchange patterns of the Neolithic period.

Somel et al., Archaeogenomic analysis of ancient Anatolians: first genetic indication for Neolithic cultural diffusion in the Near East, 85th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2016), podium abstract, April 16, 2016 10:15

35 comments:

Nirjhar007 said...

Need from more of Eastern area..

rozenfag said...

If I understand correctly the information from the website of one of the authors( http://compevo.bio.metu.edu.tr/current-research/ ), the samples are from Tepecik-Ciftlik, Catalhoyuk and Boncuklu.

Nirjhar007 said...

Catalhoyuk sounds great, the aDNA from the site will be very interesting.

Shaikorth said...

There is DNA from ancient Nepal, suggesting a continuous Tibetan-like population at least since 3000 bp.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session40/warinner-2016-long-term-genetic-stability-and-a-high-altitude-east-asian-origin-for-the-peoples-of-the-high-valleys-of-the-himalayan-arc.html

"To investigate the peopling and early population history of this dynamic high altitude contact zone, we obtained low-coverage genome-wide sequences (0.04-0.65x, mean 0.25x) and high coverage mitochondrial sequences (20.8-77.8x, mean 46.4x) from eight individuals dating to three periods with distinct material culture in the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) of Nepal, spanning 3150-1250 BP. We demonstrate that the region is characterized by long-term stability of the population genetic make up despite marked changes in cultural remains. Genome-wide markers, mitochondrial haplotypes, and high altitude adaptive alleles suggest a high altitude East Asian origin for prehistoric Himalayan populations. "

Nirjhar007 said...

Fabulous stuff, thank you :) .

Nirjhar007 said...

Highly expected results, great to see aDNA from South Asia. It will be great to see the ASI -ANI make up of those genomes, too bad no y-dna was tested. I expect north India will also show continuity of not just mtdna but of Y-dna too for over a period of 5000 years at least.

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
blog about the Nepal paper abstract :) .

Karl_K said...

Fron the abstracts, it looks like there should be a lot more Chinese ancient DNA coming along soon. They are mostly report only mtDNA and Y haplogroups from the Neolithic. But that is a start.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'd withhold judgement on this one for now. Let's hope it's about formal stats and not Admixture based.

Gioiello said...

Let's wait for the results, but what does mean this (“Our results suggest that the migration processes that eventually reached Southwestern Europe around 8,000 BP had their demographic roots directly within the Near East, but possibly not in Central Anatolia, in line with the cultural diffusion hypothesis”) if not that the diffusion was “cultural” and not “demic” and that the Anatolians were similar to Europeans becasue they had the same origin from the hunter-gatherers of Southern Europe, as many of us are saying from so long. Then why the diffusion to Europe should have come from Middle East? Which proofs?

Karl_K said...

@Gioiello

What they mean by 'cultural diffusion' is that the farmers mixed with some of the locals in all the different places they migrated to. The central Anatolians had differenr 'local' mixture than in Europe, so it wasn't just a big slow wave of migration without different mixtures in different locations.

Matt said...

No doubt the linked paper will be interesting, if it does talk about Hofmanová 2015 and Mathieson 2015, and is not simply plowing ahead as if those papers hadn't been published to tell information we know (e.g. Anatolian individuals cluster together, yes, but probably mostly (or nearly entirely) due to WHG difference).

This one - The genomic footprints of Stone-Age Europeans - http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session13/jakobsson-2016-the-genomic-footprints-of-stone-age-europeans.html - seems like basically no new information, except "We also find distinct local admixture between resident hunter-gatherers and incoming farmers in Scandinavia and in Iberia – areas at the fringe of the Neolithic expansion – showing that substantial admixture was ongoing in situ" will be interesting if it does amount to evidence for SHG->Scandinavian farmer.

Karl_K said...

@Gioiello

"the Anatolians were similar to Europeans becasue they had the same origin from the hunter-gatherers of Southern Europe, as many of us are saying from so long. Then why the diffusion to Europe should have come from Middle East?"

Many of you have been wrong for so long. You are totally mis-understanding the authors of this abstract. (But they also write very un-clearly).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

A recent paper on the subject of Central and Western Anatolian Neolithics.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-014-0193-4#/page-1

Gioiello said...

@ Karl_K

“Many of you have been wrong for so long. You are totally mis-understanding the authors of this abstract. (But they also write very un-clearly)”.

If this abstract isn't clear for you, imagine to me not English speaking! Anyway, as my theories are based above all upon the R1b haplogroup (and many mt ones), it seems to me that this hg hasn't been found in Anatolia so far not elsewhere in Middle East. I have explained the R1b in Samara and why I think that my R1b-L23-Z2110* is in Western Europe from 7200 years. Of course the aDNA will be the proof for we all.

Davidski said...

Really crappy abstracts at the AAPA this year, considering it's 2016.

And I'm skeptical about the claims made in this Central Anatolian Neolithic abstract. These Central Anatolians will probably just cluster where the other Anatolian farmers cluster.

I suppose there's a chance that they might have less WHG and more CHG than the Western Anatolian farmers, but probably not significantly so.

batman said...

During the last decade we have seen discoveries that tends to change our conspts and images of the mesolithic/neolithic transition.

One of the important aspect of this change is the series of discoveries of "domesticative use" of plants and animals within mesolithic and - even - paleoliuthic time. 60.000 years old porrige, 35.000 years old grinders and 35.000 years old paintings of (later?) domesticated species, tend to change our images of "the origin of domestication" - and the history thereof.

http://www.eatthispodcast.com/neanderthaldiets/
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/diet/speth-slow-cooking-2013.html

Another facet of the new paradigme is the plain fact that the so-called "art of domestiation" have had several centras, growing widely different plants and herding widely different husbandry from each other.

Thus it is remarkable that the "idea of conceptual cultivation" (= selected breeding) suddenly appeared in Meso-America as well as mesolithic Europe and Asia - at the very same millennia, just about 10.000 years ago.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5314/932.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311910/?tool=pubmed

Add to that that the oldest known cattles and horses known to have been buried 11.000 years ago - by the survivors from the Cro-Magnons who went thtough the temporal stages of the Solutrean/Magdalien/Hamburg/Bromme-cultures, to survive the harshest cold-period (Younger Dryas) as the Ahrensburg-Lyngby-culture in NW Germany, Denmark and Scania.

Thus we may sepak of a paleolithic culture that had leaant - due to vital needs - to domesticate both plants and animals of the arctic nature favorable of the human digestion, health and life maintainance. That may even explain why the branch of the mnesoilithic Europeans that became sepcifically and well adepted to a doemstic diet, such as corn and milk - full of glutin and lactose.

batman said...



Seemingly, the genetic sciences have teamed up with the Scandianvian archeologists who have excavated entire (untouched) skeletons of 11.000 year old oxes and horses in the very same area where the genetic disposition to drink milk and digest diaries has its longest history - along the well-tempered shores between the English Channel and the western Baltic.

This may induce that the male line of farmners were the specifically well adepted R-group, from which a bifurication seems to have occured, where R1a and R1b started two various dynasties/families, that would gro into extended families, tribes, etnicities and 'large kingdoms' - as the traded memories and the oldest annals still tell.

Davidski have already analysed the "bifurication-zone" of R1a/R1b, pointing toiwards estern Europe. Given the facts at hand that seem to be an obvious bet. Moreover, we may note that the eastern part of todays Germany we find early neolithic samples of both R1a and R1b - at the very same sites. That's awfully close to the epi-centre of the lactose-persistant genetics that peaks along the age-old farmland of the Danish isles - and the inland of the tempered Occident, between Bretagne and the eastern Baltic.

Follwing the discovery of 7.300 years old chick-peas and barley in Finnish Carelia we got the appearance of R1a - as well as mt-dna H - in russian Carelia, dated 7.500 years ago. Thus we can't adress the Carelian R1a as a "mesolithic hunther-gatherer" anymore. In fact, we need to adjust our OWN long held views on these matters.

The facts dug out of soil, sand and clay over the last three decades - and the analyzis thereof with modern high-tech - have given us a completely new frame of facts to start from - in considering the possible origin and tentative evolution of "agriculture" and the consequent aohivement in the human ability to spread and grow - into new, large tribes and kingdoms - as large new areas of the Eurasia and the other continents could be used for organized food-production and thus populated.

Consequently we do not need a large-scale demic diffusion to explain the origin and spread of agriculture. But a small-scale, demic diffusion - to cause a large-scale, at times all-out, cultural diffusion. Obviously that made it possible to improve the production of food and thus the techincal and cultural development.

Moreover it gave the mesolithic populations that had survived ice-time, in both S-Amierca, Africa and Asia - the oportunity to enlarge and develop their respective tribes/kingdoms, by building farms, villages and towns on otherwise unused land. The "royal lines" from hg R1a/b that Krefter and RK have mentioned are fully consistent with the growth of these tribes, along a dynastical axis - to secure the stability needed to build, develop and extend a tradition - wether economical, civil, social or cultural.

Given the distance between the mesolithic pioneers of agriculture - from AS-America to Europe and Indo-China, we may conclude that cultural difussion is the only option left to explain "the spread of agriculture" that started less than a millennia after the last and coldest ice-age the planet have ever seen.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Center_of_origin

Davidski said...

Moreover, we may note that the eastern part of todays Germany we find early neolithic samples of both R1a and R1b - at the very same sites.

What are you talking about?

batman said...

From Carelia R1a and Baalberge R1 (EN) to Esperstedt R1a and Esperstedt R1b (LN) - according to this and other spreadsheets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit#gid=479090567

A similar phenomenon - where two various (dynastical) y-lines occured within the same site - have been found in France (Trielles) and on Balkan as well.

Davidski said...

There aren't any samples from eastern Germany dated to the Early Neolithic that belong to R1a or R1b.

batman said...

Please note that I wrote Esperstedt - along with Baalberge and Quedlingburg - as a major neolithic site from central/east Germany.

Then I pointed out that the a-dna from Esperstedt where Late Neolithic (LN). Please observe that I never stated what you are rejecting.

I simply point to the obvious - that there indeed are an old "bi-furication-line" between hg R1a and R1b - following the Wizla river. Note that the very same area is described as a geneological and cultural border-area - between 'germans' and 'suevones' in the west and 'sarmatians' aka 'veneti' (wends) - by Tacitus and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_Y-DNA..jpg

Consequently we have a match between three different sources of information. Thus we may conslude that the "bifurication" between R1a and R1b continued north of Scania, as well.

Which implies that the first farmers of the northern woodlands - as of mainland Scandianvia - were R1a. Just as the boral farmers of Carelia and Russia. The southern branch of Scandianvian farmers, populating the open fields and heaths of Denmark - as well as Germany, Be-Ne-Lux and England - came out of the brother-line of R1b.

Thus R1b should include the 6.900 year old Ertebolle ceramics (EBK), as well as the Funnelbeakers (TRB), Bellbeakers and Linear-beakers (LBK). Meanwhile R1a overlaps with the CWC/PCW - from eastern Germany to Carelia and Volga - to the Caspian meadowlands and the wide, Caucasian steppes, as well as the soilrich woodlands of easten Europe.

Basically and principally, of course - rather than fundamentally or teosofically...

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1978296&fileOId=2278599

Notably, the forms and formats of the oldest European ceramics kept their popularity and use from the early neolithic throghout bronze-age and iron-age...

http://www.dandebat.dk/dk-images/247p.jpg
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Arch%C3%A4ologisches_Landesmuseum_Schloss_Gottorf_027.JPG

http://maa.cam.ac.uk/assemblingbodies/exhibition/assembly/62/

Davidski said...

There's no evidence of any sort of R1b, certainly not M269, in Germany during the Early Neolithic.

It only shows up in Central Europe during the Late Neolithic, along with R1a-M417, although initially in lesser frequencies than R1a-M417.

So Wisla was never a border between R1a-M417 and R1b-M269. They both crossed this river from the east at around the same time during the final stages of the Neolithic.

Nirjhar007 said...

More evidence for Violent Neolithic society.
Trauma Recidivists at Neolithic Catalhöyük (Turkey): Social Context and Implications

CHRISTOPHER J. KNÜSEL1 and BONNIE A. GLENCROSS2.
1De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel: Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université de Bordeaux, 2Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University

Recurrent injuries often result from structural weakness caused by a previous injury to the same anatomical area. This phenomenon is commonly encountered in athletes. Other recurrent injuries, especially those deriving from traumatic episodes separated in time by differential healing, are more suspicious; if found in infants, for example, abuse may be suspected. Repeated cranial injuries, especially above the hat-brim line, are most often linked to violent traumatic injuries from assault.

The present investigation examines cranial trauma recidivists in the Neolithic skeletal sample from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Çatalhöyük is a site previously thought to lack evidence for violent confrontation. The presence of recurrent cranial injuries suggests that in fact this may not be the case. Of the adult skeletal remains examined, 12 of the 93 (13%) were cranial injury recidivists showing from two to as many as five injuries. Those with the highest number of recurrent injuries are female. Here, we consider the evidence in the context of community dynamics citing potential scenarios that might explain the presence of cranial injury recidivism at Çatalhöyük.
http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session58/glencross-2016-trauma-recidivists-at-neolithic-catalhoyuk-turkey-social-context-and-implications.html

Ryan said...

Apologies for being off topic - but any suggestions as to which firm to use for uniparental marker testing? Already did Ancestry for autosomal. Cost is not a big issue, I'm more interested in getting the best data possible, particularly for my elderly grandfather.

Rob said...

YSeq or ftDNA

Grey said...

"We also find distinct local admixture between resident hunter-gatherers and incoming farmers in Scandinavia and in Iberia – areas at the fringe of the Neolithic expansion"

may add to the idea that the dynamic is different at frontiers

.

it may be nothing but if populations in the past had a tendency to conform to bio-region boundaries then i find it interesting that Anatolia is split into three.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Biogeographical_Regions_Europe_-_Map_(intl).png

Matt said...

@ Grey "may add to the idea that the dynamic is different at frontiers"

Yes, at the same time though, also seems MN Germans were more WHG than LBK and Otzi seems more WHG than the early Cardial and Aegean farmers we have. So a question there of whether that is backwash from the frontiers or local. How to test that without HG in Germany or Italy, seems like a challenge.

Gioiello said...

@ Batman

Unfortunately this paper isn't for free (Marcel Keller et al., United in death—related by blood? Genetic and archeometric analyses of skeletal remains from the neolithic earthwork bruchsal-aue, J Phys Anthropol 157: 458-471), but it seems that in Germany (Late Neolithic Michelsberg Culture earthwork of Bruchsal-Ave, ca 4250-3650 calBC) there are many hg. R beyond hg. I from the few STRs reported.

Gioiello said...

Of course I mean the samples I1, I3, A2 (perhaps), A3, A5, not the samples signed Br, but, not having the paper, I don't know their origin. Very likely the samples from Michelsberg are those signed Br...

Davidski said...

The R1b STR sequences in that paper belong to the researchers.

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski

Thanks. Thus the old samples are only hg. I (very likely).

Rob said...

A version of the paper here

http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post/2016/01/25/Analyse-paléogénétique-sur-des-squelettes-de-la-culture-de-Michelsberg-en-Allemagne

Gioiello said...

@ Rob

Je vous remercie!

Rob said...

De rien