The abstract search is here. Feel free to post your picks in the comments. Lots of detail in this one, which is very much appreciated.
It has hitherto been difficult to obtain genome-wide data from the Near East. By targeting the inner ear region of the petrous bone for extraction [Pinhasi et al., PLoS One 2015] and using a genome-wide capture technology [Haak et al., Nature, 2015] we achieved unprecedented success in obtaining genome-wide data on more than 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphism targets from 34 Neolithic individuals from Northwestern Anatolia (~6,300 years BCE), including 18 at greater than 1× coverage. Our analysis reveals a homogeneous population that is genetically a plausible source for the first farmers of Europe in the sense of (i) having a high frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup G2a, and (ii) low Fst distances from early farmers of Germany (0.004 ± 0.0004) and Spain (0.014 ± 0.0009). Model-free principal components and model-based admixture analyses confirm a strong genetic relationship between Anatolian and European farmers. We model early European farmers as mixtures of Neolithic Anatolians and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, revealing very limited admixture with indigenous hunter-gatherers during the initial spread of Neolithic farmers into Europe. Our results therefore provide an overwhelming support to the migration of Near Eastern/Anatolian farmers into southeast and Central Europe around 7,000-6,500 BCE [Ammerman & Cavalli Sforza, 1984, Pinhasi et al., PLoS Biology, 2005]. Our results also show differences between early Anatolians and all present-day populations from the Near East, Anatolia, and Caucasus, showing that the early Anatolian farmers, just as their European relatives, were later demographically replaced to a substantial degree.
I. Lazaridis, D. Fernandes, N. Rohland, S. Mallick, K. Stewardson, S. Alpaslan, N. Patterson, R. Pinhasi, D. Reich, Genome-wide data on 34 ancient Anatolians identifies the founding population of the European Neolithic. ASHG 2015 abstract. Talk to be held on October 9.
See also...
The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis
Yep. That one's crystal clear
ReplyDeleteWow!! Mike is right, there's only one way of interpreting that abstract. mtDNA J1c, T2b, T2c1, Other T2, K1a, HV0, H1, H3, H4a1, H5a, X2a-o will be there no doubt. All won't be represented but most of their mtDNA will fall under those clades.
ReplyDelete"(ii) low Fst distances from early farmers of Germany (0.004 ± 0.0004) and Spain (0.014 ± 0.0009)."
ReplyDeleteIs that a mention to mtDNA?
No, the Fst stats are based on genome-wide data.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what we've been saying. No more of this talk of European farmers being pretty admixed with WHG, just because of how the Bedouins look.
ReplyDeleteGreat! What a clear abstract. I am amazed that G2a is frequent in NW Anatolia. We published results on modern populations in NW Anatolia and only 2 samples out of 52 are G--one was M286, a sister clade to L91 and derived from PF3146--L91 and PF3146 are found in Iceman and Neolithic Europe. This sample was from Sakarya. The other sample is P303*(xU1, xL497). I must have been the case that J2a and J2a4b3, which are frequent in modern NW Anatolia, replace the G2a that the Reich lab found. Their abstract also proffers the idea that NW Anatolian Neolithic moved (presumably) by land into the Balkans to give rise to Starcevo, LBK and the Cardial Neolithic.
ReplyDeleteSo the ''WHG like'' ancestry that is part of the EEF population make up (autosomal DNA) is truly the result of limited amounts of admixture with European Balkan Mesolithic hunter-gatherers?
ReplyDeleteJackson said
ReplyDelete"So the ''WHG like'' ancestry that is part of the EEF population make up (autosomal DNA) is truly the result of limited amounts of admixture with European Balkan Mesolithic hunter-gatherers?"
Or a good amount of WHG like ancestry was always there in the northern Levant and Anatolia. At the end of the day WHG also started up in this region.
These western (and also to be published central) Anatolian farmers are going to be almost identical to Starcevo_EN and KO2, and even very similar to most LBK samples, so the WHG-like stuff they have, and they do have it, was present in Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it looks like western and central Anatolian foragers were similar to Loschbour and KO1.
Hold on, it appears Chad and David are saying opposite things !?
ReplyDeleteDave : 'anatolian foragers were KO1 like.." "WHG stuff- they do have it"
Chad: "no more talk of European farmers being pretty admixed with WHG".
Anatolian foragers were similar to WHG, but they weren't the WHG from Europe.
ReplyDeleteSo if early Neolithic farmers mostly had WHG-like admixture from Anatolia, then they didn't have much WHG.
Correct. You guys meant the same thing then. :)
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need to call it variously Anatolian WHG, North Balkan / Carpathian WHG, central Euro WHG, Iberian WHG for specific detailing
Kurti
ReplyDeleteMaybe WHG 'began" in near East 35000 years ago, but Id bet the WHG in anatolian farmers is back derived from the Balkan foragers moving into anatolia sometime after 18 kya.
Roy,
ReplyDelete''I must have been the case that J2a and J2a4b3, which are frequent in modern NW Anatolia, replace the G2a that the Reich lab found.''
Yes, this is expected.
WHG isn't that old. You need thousands of years of drift to go from something Kostenki-like, to Loschbour. Look at Ust-Ishim, to Kostenki, then Kostenki to Loschbour. WHG didn't just magically appear where it is on the PCA, when West and East Eurasians split. The two drifted apart over thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteMike,
What I meant is that some on here, like Maju, claimed that EEF were admixed in the Balkans, rather than in Anatolia, which is what David and I have been saying. You can't have 15 high quality farmers that are basically identical, without them coming from an ancestral population that was basically identical to them.
The 15 high quality farmers are the EEF samples we have with over 280-290k SNPs.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing not already mentioned will be the skin pigmentation snps.
ReplyDelete"In other words, it looks like western and central Anatolian foragers were similar to Loschbour and KO1."
ReplyDeleteWait, you think mesolithic Anatolians were Loschbour-like? I seriously doubt that. Like chad said, I don't think WHG is that old. The ice age was surely profound in creating WHG cluster and Loschbour and Meso turks share very little heritage going back to the ice age.
If neolithic turks were EEF, then Meso turks probably were too.
@mike,
ReplyDelete"You can't have 15 high quality farmers that are basically identical, without them coming from an ancestral population that was basically identical to them."
True, but maybe Turkey and the Balkans were basically the same population since before the neolithic.
Colin
ReplyDeleteYes the Black Sea was lower and it was more of a common Land mass. But here's the thing - Anatolia is poorly represented in the period 30-15 kya. Then we do see an Epipalaeolithic population around Marmara and Antalya. These looked 'Balkan Epigravettian".
Btw that quote is Chads, not mine
I'll bet meso Greeks look like Spain MN.
ReplyDelete@ Chad
ReplyDeleteInteresting
What's your reasoning ?
EEFs are almost identical, with very little WHG over anatolians, maybe a couple percent. Meso Greeks have Neolithic mtdna, with no U.
DeleteThe samples are from 6300 BC, so brothers not ancestors of EEF. They are 500-1000 years older than our oldest Neolithic genomes.
ReplyDeleteI think Reich, Laz may have chose samples from 6300 BC because they were confident they'd be just like Early EEF. IF you went back another 2,000 years, maybe there was something differnt from EEF.
And who knows what was going on in the actual birth place of farming 3,000+ years earlier.
It seems like Haak LBK_EN in central Germany with an age of circa 5500BC and is nearly 100% EEF, matches these 6300BC " troad people " from Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteIIRC the LBK_EN for Haak are I2, G2a, T1a and H2 ( talking only ydna markers)
oldest neolithic genomes are dated +/- 5800 BC, but oldest farmers in Thesaly are +/- 8500 BC and they might be ancestral to those oldest genomes
ReplyDeleteI can tell you that early Neolithic genomes from central Anatolia are very similar to these western Anatolian genomes.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that central Anatolia was settled by farmers from Greece, considering the Neolithic package came to Europe from the Fertile Crescent.
Also, when we get ancient DNA from Balkan foragers they'll probably cluster with KO1 and Loschbour.
And I bet pre-Neolithic Anatolian foragers would too- (although apparently no bodies have yet been found).
ReplyDeleteThere's an incredibly rich amount(N=57) of Early Neolithic Y DNA from Hungary, Germany, and Spain. With that we have a good idea what Anatolians in 6300 BC will show. BTW, F* has turned out H2 or T1a every-time.
ReplyDeleteHungary N=40: 37.5% G2a(15), 32.5% F*(13), 15% I(6), 7.5% C1a2(3), 5% J2(2), 2.5% E1b-M78(1).
Germany N=8: 62.5% G2a(5), 37.5% F*(3).
Spain N=9: 55.5% G2a(5), 11.1% F*(1), 11.1% R1b1c(1), 11.1% E1b-V13(1)
The border between Europe and Asia is confusing people. Anatolia was apart the continuation of Europe in terms of genetics from the Mesolithic onto most of the Neolithic. Russia/Ukraine is in "Europe" but wasn't on the same page as the rest of Europe in genetics till there were back migrations starting only 4,000 years ago.
ReplyDeleteWHGs being in Anatolia isn't hard to explain. It's has hard to explain WHG being in Hungary. WHG could have also been native to Morocco, Arabia, Eastern Iran, and Russia for all we know.
There's a huge gap in Ancient genome data. We have nothing from inbetween 8,000 and 24,000 years ago. Between that time is when WHG must have formed somewhere in between Spain and Anatolia.
My guess is that these Anatolian samples are just like other Near Easterners of the time, not that they admixed with WHG-like populations in Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteMy reasoning for this is that looking at NW Africans, and if we removed their Sub-Saharan admixture, they'd look just like EEFs. And I doubt they came from Anatolia.
So probably the Levant had a population that looked just like these Anatolians.
Alberto
ReplyDeleteOf course we're in very hypothetic territory, but it appears that the "WHG" is a post-glacial phenomenon. Given the isolation between europe, incl western Anatolia, and the levant, Id be very surprised of we see any WHG in a Syrian Natufian :)
@Mike,
ReplyDeleteAlberto's theory makes sense to me. mtDNA U has already been found in Neolithic Syrians from almost 9,000 years ago. There are U-clades(K, U1, U3, U7) that evolved within West Asia for 10,000s of years, and then there's also Y DNA J. Close relatives of WHG have been in West Asia for a long time.
Krefter
ReplyDeleteI and J split 33000 years ago or so.
You're the mtDNA expert- has any U1 been found in Mesolithic europe ?
@Mike
ReplyDeleteI certainly didn't mean that there were WHGs as such (Loschbour types) in Syria or the Levant. Here we should probably notice that we're talking about the same kind of component and it's just a degree of it that changes.
IOW, Near Easterners have some amount of Basal Eurasian admixture, and on top of that they have basically WHG-like component. The Basal Eurasian is actually relatively low, that's why even Bedouins that show 0% WHG in admixture are actually quite related to Loschbour (because they do have a decent amount of WHG-like admixture, but it's included/hidden in the ENF cluster).
So the question here is simply about quantity. Did Neolithic Levantines have a similar amount of WHG-like admixture as these Neolithic Anatolian samples, or did they have a similar amount to modern Bedouins?
My guess is they were similar to Anatolians, based on the NW Africans observation I made above.
But yes, we're obviously just speculating here.
@Mike,
ReplyDelete"has any U1 been found in Mesolithic europe ?"
No. The most recent common ancestor of the U-types found in Mesolithic Europe to U-clades that likely evolved in West Asia probably lived before the Ice age. So, as close of a connection as I and J have.
Still, EEF had a strong WHG-signal and little mtDNA U5/U4/U2e and Y DNA I.
Alberto said
ReplyDelete"I certainly didn't mean that there were WHGs as such (Loschbour types) in Syria or the Levant. Here we should probably notice that we're talking about the same kind of component and it's just a degree of it that changes."
Right, as I said in one of my earlier posts. we are dealing with a West Eurasian Hunther and Gatherers population ancestral to WHG too but pre WHG.
What is here showing up as "WHG" in EEF is not really WHG but a relative population of WHG which was in the Near East since the beginning and might even be (Probably) ancestral to WHG itself.
Just look at this graph it explains the relation of EEF and WHG well.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png
As I've eluded to before, I agree with Alberto and Kurti -- it's looking more and more likely that something WHG-like was in the area for a while. It's too bad these genomes are all from western Anatolia and not further east. That's of course what we need now.
ReplyDeleteLooking again at the model Kurti posted: we're searching for that mystery dot population between West Eurasian and EEF. I'd call it proto-Levantine. They already found evidence of very early agriculture in northern Israel 23,000(!) years ago which I'd guess might be related to this population. I wonder, when exactly is WHG supposed to split off in this model?
Now, Basal Eurasian I think may be a misnomer since it doesn't actually appear to be basal to many other Eurasians. Rather, it's some sort of old isolate that needs to be there to model EEF correctly. To me it looks something like proto-North African / Arabian, and if this model holds, (that is, if WHG existed in EEFs independently of European admixture), then a population of this sort might have moved north into Levantine territory and mixed with proto-Levantines to form EEFs. Or, they existed side-by-side for a long time and coalesced sometime around the true advent of farming when populations could explode quickly.
Just speculating out loud. ;P
A much appreciated abstract, I had been waiting for it. Didn't know that it was only going to be about NW Anatolia, but gladly more is on the way, according to David.
ReplyDeleteThe Basal in the designation Basal Eurasian was never intended to mean that it was basal to the other Eurasians. The intended meaning is: It branched off from the others first, so it's rather the split that is basal in the sense of deep and early.
ReplyDeleteSo Y-DNA I among EEFs could originate from Anatolia in the end and not from assimilated WHGs? Modern Anatolians look very different from EEFs. Has anybody here an idea which culture/people replaced them in Anatolia and from where they came from? It seems that much changed in the near east and that many populations were replaced.
ReplyDeleteI think we need more genomes from the ancient Near East. I wonder what the difference is between a ancient NW Anatolian and a modern Bedouin for example?
ReplyDelete@ColdMountains
Modern Middle Eastern people, including people from the Levant have the Teal component which is found in Yamnaya. If NW Anatolia = true farmer, or let's call it a Stuttgart on EEF steroids, then I suspect there will be no "Teal", unlike all ME populations today.
@PF
ReplyDelete" It's too bad these genomes are all from western Anatolia and not further east. "
Agree with you overall but just a small correction. The samples are not all from West Anatolia but from all Anatolia proper (Central and West Anatolia). Catal Hoyuk samples are also included. The so called "Southeast Anatolia" alias Göbekli Tepe is not really Anatolia to begin with, it is on the crossroad of North Mesopotamia (Fertile Crescent) and Iranian Plateau already.
This is the traditional definition of Anatolia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AnatolieLimits.jpg
Interesting. Although Krefter could be right that they may have already been impacted by WHG admixture, it does seem that this will solve the question of whether the Early Neolithic EEF had WHG related ancestry from admixture in Europe, either in a sudden early flash with the genesis of expansion to Europe, or from early in Anatolia. With the latter conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMost immediate interesting implication of this to me that it makes it difficult for any EEF like ancestry itself to *not* be present in the Caucasus. As seems to be the case. So poses a challenge for the Neolithic-related ancestry of Yamnaya being from Caucasus, rather than someplace else.
Also suggests admixture from North Africa or Arabia is relevant to the modern day Middle East, of course.
Based on the FST scores, in Haak et al, you get around 0.009 also between Spain_MN and Spain_EN, 0.015 between Spain_EN and LBK_EN, 0.021 between Baalberge_MN and Spain_EN, 0.006 between LBK_EN and HungaryGamba_EN. So comparable in some ways. Harder to interpret without knowing how far each is drifted from Africa as a proxy for overall group genetic diversity.
@Awood
ReplyDelete"
Modern Middle Eastern people, including people from the Levant have the Teal component which is found in Yamnaya. If NW Anatolia = true farmer, or let's call it a Stuttgart on EEF steroids, then I suspect there will be no "Teal", unlike all ME populations today. "
The main shift that happened in the Levant is a "Southern/Southwestern Farmer" expansion which came via the Afro_Asiatic speakers. Modern Levantines don't really have that much ANE what shifts them more away from EEF is the significantly higher Red Sea Element which is most likely the result of Afro_Asiatic expansion evident from acient samples of Armenia where we see a constant increase of Red Sea element.
Teal or what I call the Eastern farmers were probably around the Iranian Plateau, Southeast Caucasus Mesopotamia and East Anatolia by mid-late neolithic. Mesopotamia, East Anatolia and Caucasus must have been the connection point of East and West farmers by late neolithic. And modern Jordan the meeting point of South and West farmers. South farmer expansions into northern Levant and East/South farmers expansions into Anatolia must have almost completely eradicated the Western farmers. This is also clearly evident by historic context. Assyrian, Aramaic and Arab expansion towards North, Iranic, Turkic and other Indo European expansion from the Iranian Plateau/East Anatolia/Transcaucasus into Central/West Anatolia and as far as Levant.
Coldmountains said
"So Y-DNA I among EEFs could originate from Anatolia in the end and not from assimilated WHGs? "
possibility is there but not necessary, because some Balkanian farmers had already additional (~5-20%) real WHG admixture, so I could have been catched up there. While ironically Central European farmers were mostly identical to Anatolian farmers.
I think the explanation for this is simple. Here we are dealing with a farming complex of Anatolian farmers and their descend the Balkanian farmers who probably absorbed real WHG admixture.
Now it's not like Central European farmers had to have arrived automatically from those Balkanian farmers after they earlier left from Anatolia. Think about it. What forces farmers to migrate?
Shortage of land. Now imagine first Anatolian farmers reaching Balkans. A second group from Anatolia starting it's journey but Balkans are already occupied by farmer groups. So the most logical thing is you migrate a step further into Central Europe. Now other waves of farmers leave the Balkans and Anatolia for new farmland. This is probably how some Iberian farmers end up being identical to Balkan farmers while other identical to Anatolian. This is not because they absorbed additional WHG in Iberia but because they are descend of those Balkan farmers who already absorbed real WHG in the Balkans!
And about Haplogroup I, I think it was a Haplogroup spaning the region between Europe all the way into the Iranian Plateau and Levant.
There is only about 3-5% more HG ancestry in LBK versus the Anatolians. People need to stop complicating this. This population probably existed for thousands of years. This talk of an isolated Basal Eurasian or HG pop in Anatolia is rather nonsensical. Keep it simple and logical.
ReplyDelete@Chad
ReplyDelete"This population probably existed for thousands of years. This talk of an isolated Basal Eurasian or HG pop in Anatolia is rather nonsensical. Keep it simple and logical."
I'm pretty sure that we are talking now about the thousands of years BEFORE these people. So... you think they were ALWAYS together and not isolated populations? What?
I think it's a combination of drift and mixing over many thousands of years. It's more likely that a third group left Africa after 40kya, but before 23kya and looks closer to Africans or Basal to Eurasians, in my opinion. This group probably then went back to Africa, while also expanding to Greece and Iran, etc.
ReplyDeleteStuttgart can easily be modeled as ~25% Loschbour. So it'll be interesting to see how they explain this in the paper if they argue that Stuttgart and most other LBK samples only have a few per cent of Loschbour-related Hunter-Gatherer ancestry from Europe.
ReplyDeleteBased on the D stats based on ancient HGs alone in the previous Pre and Post Kurgan Europe http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/pre-and-post-kurgan-europe.html and the PCA dimensional positions, I'd estimate:
ReplyDeleteIf Spain_MN has around 17% more WHG than Starcevo_EN then LBK_EN should have around 4% more WHG than Starcevo_EN (and Spain_EN around 12% more and Sweden MN around 22% more).
If Spain_MN has around 25% more, then LBK_EN should have 6% more then Starcevo_EN (and Spain_EN around 16% and Sweden_MN around 31% more).
The FSTs in the abstract seem to incline to the view that the Anatolian samples are not going to have much less WHG like ancestry than Starcevo_EN (which are the very oldest, correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't know how you could actually answer the question about the formation of the EEF farmer group from supposedly Basal Eurasian plus WHG (or "UHG"). To some extent the way for academics to answer these without just sampling further and further back in time would be to take the samples there are and look at whether the segment length associated with "hunter gatherer" or "basal eurasian" populations are long or short (short segments long since broken up by recomb. indicate very old mixture), presuming you can find these. And to look at intra-individual differences in cluster membership within the population, as if they're variable, that's another indication of recent admixture. Question being whether there is enough information in the samples to do this kind of work.
The groups we know of in Africa who show Eurasian ancestry all show greater relatedness to WHG relative to other populations (e.g. East Asians / MA1), so there is no real sign of a "Basal Eurasian" only backflow into Africa (e.g. before the EEF population formed), and as far as I can tell, no signal of greater relatedness to EEF than would predicted by an EEF / Neolithic entry to Africa. Certainly the unadmixed West Africans do not show asymmetry towards EEF compared to East Asians or WHG in D stats as would be implied if they had Basal Eurasian admixture. Hard to totally test without comparing shift towards EEF in East Africans vs an isolated "Basal Eurasian" sample though.
Re: Stuttgart, AFAIK, the admixture graphs in Laziridis et al modelled an admixture of around 61%-64% West Eurasian / WHG into Stuttgart vs 36-39% Basal, so David presumably the 25% is from another part of that paper or another analysis?
I don't like using Starcevo in analysis. It only has 1/3 of the markers of some LBK and Spanish samples. KO2 has more damage and comes out part African. Samples with fewer markers become outliers, in a bad way. The LBK samples with less than 200k marker plot all over, so I hope they only included those over 250-285k SNPs in their analysis. Spain and LBK are pretty identical if you exclude the poor samples.
ReplyDeleteThe poor LBK and Hungarian samples get tossed out half way to the Caucasus, which is pretty bogus.
ReplyDeleteNah, I think we'll see that Natufians are very close to the Anatolians.
ReplyDeleteAfro-Asiatics will be responsible for the Bedouin like shift.
ReplyDeleteChad
ReplyDeleteMaybe ive misinterpreted but it really ain't nonsensical. Basal eurasian must have developed in the Natufian proto-farmers . WHG- including those found in central & western Anatolia- had neen long separated until the early Holocene. (About 15000 years and 1000km).
The question is how much 'basal UHG' is found in the Natufians (ie that due pre-drift common ancestry)?
If none at all the admixture only began in Turkey
To clarify this we need a pure Levantine sample- like that attempted from Jordan by Pinhasi and a pre-farming sample from an anatolian forager. Unfortunately, the latter haven't yet been found although they were there alright.
"I think it's a combination of drift and mixing over many thousands of years. It's more likely that a third group left Africa after 40kya, but before 23kya and looks closer to Africans or Basal to Eurasians, in my opinion. This group probably then went back to Africa, while also expanding to Greece and Iran, etc."
ReplyDelete"Nah, I think we'll see that Natufians are very close to the Anatolians."
I agree with Chad -- it's the most economic explanation at this point.
"To clarify this we need a pure Levantine sample"
Does anyone know if there are other attempts in the pipeline? I'm kind of worried given the strife in the region it'll never happen. Syria and Iraq are more or less out, so Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan remain the only bets... and each of those places has its own problems too.
Alternatively, I wonder whether there are relevant skeletons stored away somewhere in Europe?
Eurogenes MDS plot of Barcin NW Anatolian Early Neolthic Farmer showing proposed location of G2a-P15 PPNA Levantine First Farmers with G2a-P15 subclade tMRCAs
ReplyDeleteRadiocarbon Context Database Map 8310-8010 ybp showing proposed migration routes of G2a-P15 PPNB Farmers
Genome-wide data from earlier and more southerly farmers is what we need next.
ReplyDeleteBut the X marker on the above plot must be very close to where they'd cluster.
PF,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this sample list? This is what Pinhasi has, and his team is now working with the Reich Lab.
https://sites.google.com/site/pinhasierc/home/samples
Some of the labels are wrong, but you get the idea.
The north african palaeolithic should be interesting
ReplyDeleteThanks Davidski. Definitely lots of great stuff to look forward to.
ReplyDeleteI guess we all have to wait and see if they get something viable from the two samples in Israel to move the conversation forward. Hopefully not wait too long. :)
The last Pinhasi paper had this early Neolithic sample from Jordan. Felix uploaded it here...
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4Ph8NJKscV6fmlVeDE2RjRJSmF1bHlwTlZDTEM5dl9FNU44Z1AtOXUxeUZfOGhqaHk1b3M&usp=sharing&tid=0B4Ph8NJKscV6fnZJQ2ZwUlp1NkdlbWx2Z2pnMVp6d3lNY3EzYXZ0UTJkS1dWQTcxa2tuSFE#list
That's basically all we need to sort this out. The problem is that it doesn't overlap well with any of my datasets.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteAre you ale to get mtDNA calls for any of the Pinhasi samples? Also, do the genomes you use for ADMIXTURE have mtDNA data?
The mtDNA files for the Pinhasi samples are available here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html
Y-DNA and mtDNA aren't used in the genome-wide analyses. They're different genetic systems.
The Hotu and Belt Caves aDNA is going to be crucial,if they yield Y-DNA then it will be massive.
ReplyDeletehttp://egyptsearchdetoxed.blogspot.com/2015/01/lets-face-it-basal-eurasian-is-heavily.html
ReplyDeleteEgyptsearch2.0 claims that basal eurasian is "heavily intertwined with Africa."
Am I right to assume that this presentation will be based on samples listed at Pinhasi's site? https://sites.google.com/site/pinhasierc/home/samples
ReplyDeleteThe very first item is: Aktopraklik, Illipinar, Mentese, Barcin, Yesilova / Turkey / EN / 75
And according to the map, they are almost all from around the Marmara sea: http://www2.hull.ac.uk/student/images/marmararegion_turkey.jpg
@Mhagneto
ReplyDeleteEgyptsearch2.0 is a Black supremacist trying to prove all ancient civilizations as "Black". They remind me of Nordicists who tried to prove that all civilizations down to Egypt had at least a "Nordic elite".
I see Basal Eurasian as a third Eurasian group which seperated from the forefather of proto WHG/ANE earlier, probably around the Arabian/South Levantine-Northeast African route.
In regard to neolithic Anatolia and G2a, anyone have an idea why G-M406 peaks among Palestinians in the Levant. I personally think that all these G-M406 men are somehow linked to the historical Philistine coast.
ReplyDeleteFrom the paper:
ReplyDelete(ii) low Fst distances from early farmers of Germany (0.004 ± 0.0004) and Spain (0.014 ± 0.0009).
"Model-free principal components and model-based admixture analyses confirm a strong genetic relationship between Anatolian and European farmers."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/
This and other results apparently shows that the goat-, sheep- and pig-herders of mesolithic Anatolia where close relatives to the mesolithic goat-, sheep- and pig-herders of Spain, France and Germany.
Does the analyzis tell which of these haplogroups that where the older and the younger, respectively - in terms of downstream mutation?
How does that all fit with the G2a from Treilles?
---
@ Davidski:
"I can tell you that early Neolithic genomes from central Anatolia are very similar to these western Anatolian genomes."
Thanks for clarifying. Close genealogical ties seem to have connected all the groups that populated northern Eurasisa after ice-time, even though they can be diffrentiated according to regional and local fashions, as far as traditions of crafts, ceramics and decorative patterns are concerned. Thus we may have to revise another presumtious model, where divesity in decoration and cultural expressions implies genealogical differences. Obvously that's not the matter:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/02/molbev.msv181.short?rss=1
Both mesolithic and neolithic Europe seem to have been quite closely related - even though the farming population came to dominate the vast plains of Europe and thus become the larger populations on the continent.
Thus again the question; does the genetic analyzis (alone) tell us anything about origin or direction of the gene-flow - or does the "Anatolian origin" still build on archaeological imductions, only?