PDA

View Full Version : Iraq/Mesopotamia is the likely birthplace of majority of J2



Principe
03-03-2019, 05:06 PM
Upon looking at the Iraq FTDNA project, I was astonished of how diverse the J2 subclades were in Iraq, the most basal of clades are found here, every single J2 subclade is found in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. There is no way this is all due to migration, especially not the basal clades, I am sure there is some that came from Iran most likely all clades under L25 and perhaps M241 (also no Z6048 has been found so far), but the rest seem to have expanded from Iraq, I am pretty convinced that the J-Y11200 found in Chalcolithic Caucasus are the result of earlier expansions of the Ubaid Culture, perhaps all this Iran Neo/CHL is actually a reflection of movements out of Neolithic/Chalcolithic Mesopotamia instead, in the broader sense I think it is almost certain that the majority of J1 branches were born in Mesopotamia as well and expanded from there.

Is there any news of ancient DNA papers coming out of Iraq anytime soon? Ancient DNA from Iraq will very likely answer many questions and fill out many holes for the history of both J1 and J2.

Kelmendasi
03-03-2019, 10:11 PM
I agree, many J1 and J2 clades seem to have very high diversity in the Mesopotamia area. For J1 it would seem that it likely originated somewhere around the eastern Anatolia, Caucasus and Iran area. Though as you said many J1 clades originate in the Mesopotamia area, J-L862 itself seems to have originated in the Mesopotamia area and then expanded into the Levant during the Calcolithic. I would associate it with the Halaf-Ubaid cultures.

Agamemnon
03-03-2019, 10:17 PM
I think this observation can also be extended to J1 at this stage. I would however be cautious with the results from the Gulf, oversampling clearly is an issue here.

Principe
03-03-2019, 10:37 PM
I think this observation can also be extended to J1 at this stage. I would, however, be cautious with the results from the Gulf, oversampling clearly is an issue here.

Surely and it will be obvious in TMRCA's in the branches we see at Yfull, the most convincing proponent of this is that basal clades seem to be varied at least on the J2 aspects of things, when I stumbled upon the ftdna project I wasn't expecting a fairly large sample size, and surely not the variety, nevertheless I think Mesopotamia is at least the starting point for the vast majority of J2 and J1, ultimately it might end with which branches moved early to Iran/Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia.

Helves
03-03-2019, 11:20 PM
I think this observation can also be extended to J1 at this stage. I would however be cautious with the results from the Gulf, oversampling clearly is an issue here.

I see a lot of Saudi and other Gulf state flags on Yfull under many different haplogroups and subclades, I'm thinking though how many of these people on Yfull are natives of the area?

hartaisarlag
03-03-2019, 11:35 PM
I see a lot of Saudi and other Gulf state flags on Yfull under many different haplogroups and subclades, I'm thinking though how many of these people on Yfull are natives of the area?

I think a lot. The Arabic-language fora and discussion groups are dominated by Gulf and Peninsular Arabs very proud of their tribal lineages. And aside from Western Europeans and their New World descendants, and Ashkenazim I guess, they're the most overrepresented population in testing.

Agamemnon
03-04-2019, 12:15 AM
I see a lot of Saudi and other Gulf state flags on Yfull under many different haplogroups and subclades, I'm thinking though how many of these people on Yfull are natives of the area?

They're definitely from the Gulf and the KSA, I've had the opportunity to check this many times. Like hartaisarlag said, they're heavily overrepresented, there are several Arabic fora dealing with genetics and the focus is almost entirely on Y-DNA and its relationship to one's nasb. This has clearly become an obsession which embodies very well the tribal aspects of Arab society, there are even several accounts on Twitter specifically dedicated to a single lineage or haplogroup (take this account (https://twitter.com/straine_arb?lang=en) for example).

J1 is arguably the most concerned by this sampling bias, since this lineage is by far the most common in the Gulf. I've watched this for many years, while new samples are always a good thing, oversampling from a single area poses a serious problem. To give you an example, even ZS241 (my lineage) which is extremely rare outside Jewish populations has several basal cases from Kuwait and the KSA, and only one from Egypt (which is much more informative than the previous ones for reasons I won't get into).

So as far as J2 is of concern, one must keep this problem in mind. On the other hand, I think an origin of J2 in Mesopotamia is entirely plausible and even quite parsimonious.

jdean
03-04-2019, 12:26 AM
They're definitely from the Gulf and the KSA, I've had the opportunity to check this many times. Like hartaisarlag said, they're heavily overrepresented, there are several Arabic fora dealing with genetics and the focus is almost entirely on Y-DNA and its relationship to one's nasb. This has clearly become an obsession which embodies very well the tribal aspects of Arab society, there are even several accounts on Twitter specifically dedicated to a single lineage or haplogroup (take this account (https://twitter.com/straine_arb?lang=en) for example).

J1 is arguably the most concerned by this sampling bias, since this lineage is by far the most common in the Gulf. I've watched this for many years, while new samples are always a good thing, oversampling from a single area poses a serious problem. To give you an example, even ZS241 (my lineage) which is extremely rare outside Jewish populations has several basal cases from Kuwait and the KSA, and only one from Egypt (which is much more informative than the previous ones for reasons I won't get into).

So as far as J2 is of concern, one must keep this problem in mind. On the other hand, I think an origin of J2 in Mesopotamia is entirely plausible and even quite parsimonious.

Got a very rare J2b group in my surname project, they've been in Scotland for a good few hundred years, prior to that I've no idea but I suspect there's a Polish link there somewhere, the SNP panel currently places them at the J-Z1827 level but I'm very patently waiting for a BigY.

Helves
03-04-2019, 12:40 AM
They're definitely from the Gulf and the KSA, I've had the opportunity to check this many times. Like hartaisarlag said, they're heavily overrepresented, there are several Arabic fora dealing with genetics and the focus is almost entirely on Y-DNA and its relationship to one's nasb. This has clearly become an obsession which embodies very well the tribal aspects of Arab society, there are even several accounts on Twitter specifically dedicated to a single lineage or haplogroup (take this account (https://twitter.com/straine_arb?lang=en) for example).

J1 is arguably the most concerned by this sampling bias, since this lineage is by far the most common in the Gulf. I've watched this for many years, while new samples are always a good thing, oversampling from a single area poses a serious problem. To give you an example, even ZS241 (my lineage) which is extremely rare outside Jewish populations has several basal cases from Kuwait and the KSA, and only one from Egypt (which is much more informative than the previous ones for reasons I won't get into).

So as far as J2 is of concern, one must keep this problem in mind. On the other hand, I think an origin of J2 in Mesopotamia is entirely plausible and even quite parsimonious.

Wow that twitter account is pretty cool but a bit scary at the same time if you know what I mean. I suspected that the extreme overrepresentation of Gulfers on Yfull had maybe something to do with the tribal mentality of the area but to think that there are so many people from countries such as Saudi Arabia who trust and are willing take DNA tests is kinda surprising.

IronHorse
03-04-2019, 12:20 PM
They're definitely from the Gulf and the KSA, I've had the opportunity to check this many times. Like hartaisarlag said, they're heavily overrepresented, there are several Arabic fora dealing with genetics and the focus is almost entirely on Y-DNA and its relationship to one's nasb. This has clearly become an obsession which embodies very well the tribal aspects of Arab society, there are even several accounts on Twitter specifically dedicated to a single lineage or haplogroup (take this account (https://twitter.com/straine_arb?lang=en) for example).

J1 is arguably the most concerned by this sampling bias, since this lineage is by far the most common in the Gulf. I've watched this for many years, while new samples are always a good thing, oversampling from a single area poses a serious problem. To give you an example, even ZS241 (my lineage) which is extremely rare outside Jewish populations has several basal cases from Kuwait and the KSA, and only one from Egypt (which is much more informative than the previous ones for reasons I won't get into).

So as far as J2 is of concern, one must keep this problem in mind. On the other hand, I think an origin of J2 in Mesopotamia is entirely plausible and even quite parsimonious.

Agamemnon, what you said is so true.

There is also the issue of people not joining projects because they're not J1, they hide their results because they think they're not descended from the tribal patriarch described in Arabic genealogy books, that patriarch has to be J1 for some reason.

Any result other than J1 is considered not originally Arabian (E1b1b is associated with the pseudo-scientific concept of archaic Arabs mentioned in the Quran and other myths), and so your ancestors are either slaves, bastards, or pretenders.

My case, I know of two other I2c2 in my tribe, both chose to keep their results private, one of them was quite racist, he said at least Europe (I remember him saying Vikings) is better than Africa (we're not E1b1b)

this is a project: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/arab-sabaa-tribes/dna-results

can you spot the only I in this ocean of J ? that's me, notice how many are they, I know one of the Admins, he told me that many of them are tribal Arabs, but when you go to the A-B-C-R-Q-L-j2 section, most don't post their tribal name, first name, a grandfather maybe, but not the tribe, I know that the Q guy is from my tribe, the same as the Jewish branch.

Principe
03-04-2019, 01:57 PM
They're definitely from the Gulf and the KSA, I've had the opportunity to check this many times. Like hartaisarlag said, they're heavily overrepresented, there are several Arabic fora dealing with genetics and the focus is almost entirely on Y-DNA and its relationship to one's nasb. This has clearly become an obsession which embodies very well the tribal aspects of Arab society, there are even several accounts on Twitter specifically dedicated to a single lineage or haplogroup (take this account (https://twitter.com/straine_arb?lang=en) for example).

J1 is arguably the most concerned by this sampling bias, since this lineage is by far the most common in the Gulf. I've watched this for many years, while new samples are always a good thing, oversampling from a single area poses a serious problem. To give you an example, even ZS241 (my lineage) which is extremely rare outside Jewish populations has several basal cases from Kuwait and the KSA, and only one from Egypt (which is much more informative than the previous ones for reasons I won't get into).

So as far as J2 is of concern, one must keep this problem in mind. On the other hand, I think an origin of J2 in Mesopotamia is entirely plausible and even quite parsimonious.

Absolutely, I think a good portion of J2 will ultimately be from Mesopotamia, in the case of branches M47 and PF5174 these are strong contenders to have been Sumerian lineages based on TMRCA’s, and we know based on ancient dna that L25 came from Iran and likely so did M241, so we’ll have to see, we’re lacking too much data from the Fertile Crescent, and with the current drought of adna it would be awesome if we can get a paper from the area.

RCO
03-04-2019, 02:22 PM
The phylogenetic structure of J1 is quite different from J2. They were good neighbours but not from exactly the same spot. I think J2 is openly associated with the Neolithic movements and could be from Northern Mesopotamia but only the J1 expansion of derived clades were more associated with "dry" pastoralism jumping occupied J2 lands towards the South/SW, but we can observe ancient original J1 hotspots in places like Eastern Caucasus, J1 was found in Satsurblia and close to Finland with basal clades still there, so J1 craddle and the location of the structure of basal J1 clades should be around the Western Caspian Sea/Eastern Caucasus region or around the modern borders of Azerbaijan/Armenia/Iran/Turkey.

Principe
03-04-2019, 02:53 PM
The phylogenetic structure of J1 is quite different from J2. They were good neighbours but not from exactly the same spot. I think J2 is openly associated with the Neolithic movements and could be from Northern Mesopotamia but only the J1 expansion of derived clades were more associated with "dry" pastoralism jumping occupied J2 lands towards the South/SW, but we can observe ancient original J1 hotspots in places like Eastern Caucasus, J1 was found in Satsurblia and close to Finland with basal clades still there, so J1 craddle and the location of the structure of basal J1 clades should be around the Western Caspian Sea/Eastern Caucasus region or around the modern borders of Azerbaijan/Armenia/Iran/Turkey.

Totally agree J1 and J2 have entirely different phylogenetic trees, but I don't think they were too far off from each other until at least the Neolithic, and we also have J2b-M205 migrating with J1-Z2331 in ancient DNA, I even think the more Kura Araxes samples we get we'll see that branches of J2a accompanied J1-Z1842 as well, as for the J1 found in Satsurblia it is a very old branch and separated quite earlier, there is the J2a equivalent of J2a-Z6048 which has a different history than most other J2a branches and it branched off quite early as well.

Agamemnon
03-05-2019, 09:44 PM
Agamemnon, what you said is so true.

There is also the issue of people not joining projects because they're not J1, they hide their results because they think they're not descended from the tribal patriarch described in Arabic genealogy books, that patriarch has to be J1 for some reason.

Any result other than J1 is considered not originally Arabian (E1b1b is associated with the pseudo-scientific concept of archaic Arabs mentioned in the Quran and other myths), and so your ancestors are either slaves, bastards, or pretenders.

My case, I know of two other I2c2 in my tribe, both chose to keep their results private, one of them was quite racist, he said at least Europe (I remember him saying Vikings) is better than Africa (we're not E1b1b)

this is a project: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/arab-sabaa-tribes/dna-results

can you spot the only I in this ocean of J ? that's me, notice how many are they, I know one of the Admins, he told me that many of them are tribal Arabs, but when you go to the A-B-C-R-Q-L-j2 section, most don't post their tribal name, first name, a grandfather maybe, but not the tribe, I know that the Q guy is from my tribe, the same as the Jewish branch.

That's something very few people realise in the world of personal genomics. While on discussion boards such as this one, knowing whose proto-daddy spoke PIE or which prehistoric culture is associated with a specific strand of ancient ancestry generates some of the most bitter debates, on most Arabic-language discussion boards (and even on Twitter) knowing which prophet carried which Y-DNA lineage is all the craze. This generates a lot of drama, so for instance a few months ago Russia Today released on interview with Anatole Klyosov entitled Genetic genealogy shatters Zionism! What has the study of Jewish and Arab DNA uncovered?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dB1AILxRtg

Unlike what most might expect here, it isn't the political claim which has been discussed at length (outside the comments on Youtube that is). Rather, it is Klyosov's constant references to Abraham that prompted a lot of debate, with several people using clips of this interview to prove their point.

The tribal behaviour fits into this context, one of rigid religious interpretation of the genetic data which allows zero nuance. This leaves no room for a discussion of the data that does not fit into the religious narrative, often coupled with the traditional historiography of Arab origins which views Yemen as the source of all the Arabs (that's the minimalist view, some go even further and claim that all Semitic groups or even the Ancient Egyptians were originally Yemenite tribes). So should a Mesopotamian origin, even as a secondary homeland, prove to be true for J1 or J2 you can expect a lot of people to use this as further proof of the religious narrative.

This is but a symptom which reflects deeper issues in Arab society. Unfortunately, this effectively means we are missing a lot of Arabia's genetic diversity, your own lineage is an extremely good example of that (the same used to be true of R1a in the Arabian peninsula until R1a-L657 was found amongst the custodians of the Ka'ba).

Helves
03-05-2019, 10:50 PM
proto-daddy

God, can't believe I haven't seen this before. Genius.

Lupriac
03-09-2019, 10:16 AM
can you spot the only I in this ocean of J ? that's me, notice how many are they, I know one of the Admins, he told me that many of them are tribal Arabs, but when you go to the A-B-C-R-Q-L-j2 section, most don't post their tribal name, first name, a grandfather maybe, but not the tribe, I know that the Q guy is from my tribe, the same as the Jewish branch.
Exactly :D ..

Patarames
03-09-2019, 04:27 PM
Iraq was where the capital of the Persians was (primary Achaemenids and Sassanids but also Parthians). Hence it was a many century long center of Iranic elites.

My conservative approach goes with the oldest aDNA samples and these are in North Iran and the Caucasus, two neighboring regions.

So my prediction is lower intensity of J2 in ancient Mesopotamia and a direct correlation with CHG/Iran auDNA admixture.
I expect heavy presence of J1 and behind it more ancient Semitic origin E.
T could be a wild card for significant presence, especially in older layers and L could be quite close behind T.
After seeing presence of H in neolithic Spain I think its presence in the oldest layers could be notable.

Therefore I would guess at this point a origin of J2 centered around NW Iran and a major expansion after that of J1.
The reports, probably false ones of IJ found in modern samples in Iran also hints to a diversity epicenter there.

IronHorse
03-09-2019, 06:14 PM
I have a theory, a blasphemous one that no son of man is willing to accept, but I, who carries the blood of the gods, can think of such events.

I believe that the Urban revolution that began in Mesopotamia in the Uruk period and spread afterward in all directions, spread because people who had the mentality to build and organize cities migrated with it.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Near-East-3000/dp/1405149116


The specialization of productive labor led to the need for an authority to
organize the exchange of goods, as individual families were no longer self-sufficient. This authority required an ideological foundation shared by the
participants in the system to make it acceptable for them to contribute part
of their production in return for something else in the future. In Uruk-period
Mesopotamia, that ideology was provided by religion: goods were received by
the god of the city and redistributed to the people. The temple, the house of
the god, was the central institution that made the system work. Continuing
a trend that had started in the early Ubaid period, temples in the Late Uruk
period became the most monumental buildings in the settlements, constructed at great expense of labor as physical indicators of their prominent role within society.

The temple's role in the collection and redistribution of goods created the
need for an entirely new class of specialist - the administrator. The economy
became so complex that accounting mechanisms were necessary to record goods
coming into and going out of the central organization. This required the skills
of people capable of working with the tools and techniques of a bureaucracy.
Standard measures for amounts of dry and liquid goods, for land, for labor, and for time were in place, and writing, the technology to record them for future consultation, had originated. In considering changes in the society, it is important to realize that all this bureaucratic activity was the domain of a specialized group of people.

The specialization of labor that characterized the establishment of urban life in southern Mesopotamia caused a fundamental restructuring of society. The process of social differentiation culminated in the existence of a stratified society in which professional occupation primarily determined one's rank in the hierarchy. The large majority of people still were farmers, fishermen, herders, and so on, living in communities with little social differentiation beyond that
within the individual family. These communities were probably in a tributary relationship with the city and provided part of their income to it, but they remained otherwise socially free and owned the land they worked. Many of the city-residents (we are unable to determine what percentage, however) were part of the temple organization, whose members were wholly dependent on the former for their survival. They were organized along strictly hierarchical lines. Most indicative of the urban hierarchy is a text called the "Standard List of Professions" (see document 2.1). It appeared first at the end of the Late Uruk period, thus amongst the first texts written, and was copied faithfully for some 1500 years, the later versions being clearer to us than the earlier ones. The list provides in several columns the titles of officials and names of
professions, ordered in a hierarchy starting with the highest rank. While the first entry is not entirely comprehensible to us, later Mesopotamians equated it with the Akkadian word for king, which was probably an anachronistic way of indicating that the highest official of the land was meant. The following entries in the "Standard list of professions" contain a number with the element NAM,, which we think represents "leader," and with the sign GAL, which means "great." The titles include such terms as "leader of the city," or "of the
plow," and "great one of the cattle pen," or "of the lambs." The list contains terms for priests, gardeners, cooks, smiths, jewelers, potters, and others. While not fully understood, it is clear that it provides an inventory of specialist professions within the cities.

At the top of the Uruk society, then, stood a man whose powers derived
from his role in the temple. Hence, scholars often call him a "priest-king." At the bottom of the social ladder of temple dependents were the people involved in production, both agricultural and otherwise. How extensive this group was remains impossible to determine, but through a projection from third-millennium conditions, we assume that the temple had a staff that could take care of all its own needs. In the third millennium, dependent laborers were given rations, fixed amounts of barley, oil, and cloth, as a reward for their services. It is likely that such a system already existed in the Late Uruk period.

The Uruk IV tablets contain accounts of grain distributed to numbers of
workmen, which seem to be precursors of later ration lists. The issuing of rations to numerous people may explain the abundance of the beveled-rim bowl in the archaeological record. These bowls, in a limited number of sizes, possibly functioned as containers for measuring out barley rations. The resemblance of the early cuneiform sign for ration (NINDA) and the beveled-rim bowl supports this suggestion. If correct, the first appearance of the beveled-rim bowl in the mid-fourth millennium would attest to a system of grain distribution
already at that time. A fundamental opposition existed in this early period between the temple dependents, who were provided for yet unfree, and the inhabitants of the countryside, free but uninsured against disasters such as bad harvests. The temple, located in the city, was a focal point for all, however, and through its collection of tribute drew the entire region together. A state, albeit small, had developed by the late fourth millennium where the city held organizational controls.


the cities of Mesopotamia, were the earliest in the world, their division of labor, heirarchized society, writing, and the State. all urban society afterwards follow this model, and in the same time, Iran_ChL like admixture, we know this ancestry reached Turan, Anatolia, the Levant and the Aegean at least since the Early Bronze Age, only Egypt remains, future Ancient DNA research will test if an old blasphemous theory (http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/EgyptsOrigins4.htm) is correct or not.

I know that a certain god of linguistics will have objections, but open mindedness is a virtue, why would the cities of Chalcholithic Mesopotamia need to be monolingual ? we know that Sumerian wasn't the only language there and many place names were not Sumerian.

IronHorse
03-09-2019, 06:58 PM
I have a theory, a blasphemous one that no son of man is willing to accept, but I, who carries the blood of the gods, can think of such events.

I believe that the Urban revolution that began in Mesopotamia in the Uruk period and spread afterward in all directions, spread because people who had the mentality to build and organize cities migrated with it.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Near-East-3000/dp/1405149116



the cities of Mesopotamia, were the earliest in the world, their division of labor, heirarchized society, writing, and the State. all urban society afterwards follow this model, and in the same time, Iran_ChL like admixture, we know this ancestry reached Turan, Anatolia, the Levant and the Aegean at least since the Early Bronze Age, only Egypt remains, future Ancient DNA research will test if an old blasphemous theory (http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/EgyptsOrigins4.htm) is correct or not.

I know that a certain god of linguistics will have objections, but open mindedness is a virtue, why would the cities of Chalcholithic Mesopotamia need to be monolingual ? we know that Sumerian wasn't the only language there and many place names were not Sumerian.

Civilization started in Mesopotamia, the civilizations of Egypt, Indus Valley, Anatolia, Aegean and the Levant, emerged not due cultural transmission of the behavioral package that we associate with BA civilization or coincidance, it was because civilized Mesopotamians migrated to these places ... there I said it.

Govan
03-09-2019, 07:27 PM
So Egyptians got civilized and the Levant was left poor and uncivilized how come?

When Egyptians got unifed and got access to the Mediterranean they started trading heavily with Cretan Minoans, BA Anatolian and Mesopotamians folks, this is how civilization ideas were traded too.

Now, you need more than that to create a civilization. Otherwise Levant, Anatolia, Armenia would have produced a civilization as big as Ancient Egypt which is not the case.

Maybe being at the right place? Maybe Greece, Egypt, Italy were at the right at the good times with enough ressources and the magic got it . It's not like every single regions trading with Mesopotamia became a huge civilization. In fact Greece, Italy and Egypt are not geographically the closest to Mesopotamia. I definitely agree with the idea of trading with Mesopotamia was very important.

Eterne
03-09-2019, 08:32 PM
Iran_Chl is just a composite of other Near Eastern groups* anyway. And a varying composite; Seh_Gabi_Chl in Iran looks about 60:40 Iran_N:Western farmer, Haji_Firuz_Chl about 50:50. It looks a bit like the Iranian Early Neolithic was more replaced by the Western Neolithic, oddly enough, particularly Anatolian, than vice versa, without as much change in Anatolia or the Levant. You have to go all the way to Turan to get as much persistence of the Iran_N as Anatolia_N has in contemporary Anatolia, or Levant_N in the Levant.

But back to theory; not sure how adna would test it. What's the testable prediction that would be true under this theory that's wouldn't happen under random deme to deme migration that has not much to do with emergence urbanisation?

Agamemnon
03-09-2019, 10:01 PM
Iran_Chl is just a composite of other Near Eastern groups* anyway. And a varying composite; Seh_Gabi_Chl in Iran looks about 60:40 Iran_N:Western farmer, Haji_Firuz_Chl about 50:50. It looks a bit like the Iranian Early Neolithic was more replaced by the Western Neolithic, oddly enough, particularly Anatolian, than vice versa, without as much change in Anatolia or the Levant. You have to go all the way to Turan to get as much persistence of the Iran_N as Anatolia_N has in contemporary Anatolia, or Levant_N in the Levant.

But back to theory; not sure how adna would test it. What's the testable prediction that would be true under this theory that's wouldn't happen under random deme to deme migration that has not much to do with emergence urbanisation?

Well, so is Levant_ChL, and ultimately Levant_N for that matter. There's no denying that Iran_ChL has a substantial amount of Levant_N-like ancestry, a component which probably was even more prominent among Mesopotamians during the Pottery Neolithic (in other words, it's quite likely E-Z830 will show up in some of the remains).

artemv
03-10-2019, 04:32 AM
Anatole Klyosov
He is a noisy pseudo-scientist who wrote a number of garbage books with let's call it "alternative prehistory". Unfortunately he got some public attention.
Usually people notice his crusade against Out Of Africa theory. He says that most scientists "understand that OOA theory is nonsense" but would never say that in public because they fear to be considered racists if they oppose OOA theory.

Such a hype lover could not miss Zionism, of course.

Eterne
03-10-2019, 11:03 AM
Sure they are, and Iran_N probably too.

Only point I'm making is that there isn't really a stable clear Iran_Chl component that is moving around and going anywhere that is clearly distinguishable from the general coalescence of the ME genepool (with a apparently so far a slight bias to Western farmer groups, Levant and/or Anatolian, no so clear, Iran_NW surviving best in South Asia and maybe in Turan).

So it seems hard to test the idea IronHorse presents to me, particularly with the limited sample size and timescale involved, whether there is a distinctive ancestry related to Mesopotamia that only shows up with urbanization (which is exactly what it seems like you'd need to test IronHorse's conjecture).

Agamemnon
03-10-2019, 03:19 PM
He is a noisy pseudo-scientist who wrote a number of garbage books with let's call it "alternative prehistory". Unfortunately he got some public attention.
Usually people notice his crusade against Out Of Africa theory. He says that most scientists "understand that OOA theory is nonsense" but would never say that in public because they fear to be considered racists if they oppose OOA theory.

Such a hype lover could not miss Zionism, of course.

I like to think that we've known that for quite some time. Much of what he says in the interview I posted is very damning and basically destroys his credibility in this field (not that he has much left quite frankly).


Sure they are, and Iran_N probably too.

Only point I'm making is that there isn't really a stable clear Iran_Chl component that is moving around and going anywhere that is clearly distinguishable from the general coalescence of the ME genepool (with a apparently so far a slight bias to Western farmer groups, Levant and/or Anatolian, no so clear, Iran_NW surviving best in South Asia and maybe in Turan).

So it seems hard to test the idea IronHorse presents to me, particularly with the limited sample size and timescale involved, whether there is a distinctive ancestry related to Mesopotamia that only shows up with urbanization (which is exactly what it seems like you'd need to test IronHorse's conjecture).

I agree. But in case you're wondering, I do not support IronHorse's theory, which is basically a rehashed version of the Dynastic race theory on a larger scale. While there is no doubt that the earliest urban culture in the region was Ubaid (urbanisation emerged during the Ubaid 3 period), the emergence of urbanisation in Egypt definitely was a local phenomenon despite the fact that it started almost a thousand years later with the Naqada II culture.

Mesopotamian influence does pervade the building techniques, the cylinder seals (which were imported in the Naqada culture) and even the art of protodynastic Egypt, that being said none of this could not be explained by trade, elite emulation and other similar processes, there is no need for a Mesopotamian population acting as a civilisational thread. You yourself made a fair point regarding the Levant, but one must remember that the civilisations of the Early Bronze Age were based primarily on irrigation, the Levant did not have such a system of irrigation and had to wait until the 2nd millennium BCE to experience an important phase of urban growth (there are a few exceptions to this). One could actually argue that, in the Levant, the earliest phase of highly organised and structured culture was associated with Mesopotamian migrants during the Pottery Neolithic, many archeologists such as Ussishkin support such a scenario so it isn't all black and white. Ubaid is a possible contender here. So while Mesopotamian admixture (in the form of a component similar to Iran_ChL) is almost a given in the Levant by the Chalcolithic, it's far less likely the protodynastic Egyptians had such ancestry. And then there is the Kura-Araxes culture, which spread southwards into the Levant during the EB III period bringing a distinct form of pottery known as Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW), this too was obviously tied to an intrusive population (though in my opinion many overestimate its demographic impact).

Principe
03-10-2019, 06:01 PM
Iraq was where the capital of the Persians was (primary Achaemenids and Sassanids but also Parthians). Hence it was a many century long center of Iranic elites.

My conservative approach goes with the oldest aDNA samples and these are in North Iran and the Caucasus, two neighboring regions.

So my prediction is lower intensity of J2 in ancient Mesopotamia and a direct correlation with CHG/Iran auDNA admixture.
I expect heavy presence of J1 and behind it more ancient Semitic origin E.
T could be a wild card for significant presence, especially in older layers and L could be quite close behind T.
After seeing presence of H in neolithic Spain I think its presence in the oldest layers could be notable.

Therefore I would guess at this point a origin of J2 centered around NW Iran and a major expansion after that of J1.
The reports, probably false ones of IJ found in modern samples in Iran also hints to a diversity epicenter there.

We have no ancient dna in Mesopotamia so its impossible to know if ancient Mesopotamia had a lower intensity of J2. J1-Z2331 which is the Semitic speaking branch or the likely ancestor that was part of the ethnogensis of Proto Semitic speakers had likely left the area during the Neolithic, so this branch being the majority of J1 in modern Iraq likely started a back migration to the area from the Akkadian period onwards, though benefit of the doubt I see it entirely possible that upstreams until L136 branch could have been part of ancient Mesopotamia. When it comes to E it will likely be the same scenario as J1-Z2331 in Iraq with it primarily coming from Akkadian period onwards, it would be cool to see if ancient Mesopotamia did infact have some E, but its numbers will likely be small (who knows E-V22 might surprise everyone again).

T is honestly a very poor choice, because we have loads of ancient T samples and its clear that T is associated with Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, as its been found in Europe, the Levant and North Africa, unless we get a specific branch that comes directly from Mesopotamia, with the exception of T2 the one found in Bronze Age Jordan, though majority of T in West Asia is the P77 branch which has a Bronze Age origin and likely was somewhere close to the Proto Semitic homeland that spread with subsequent waves. In terms of L, yes here I totally agree with you L was very likely part of ancient Mesopotamia.

Yes J2 was likely born in Iran (imo 95% chance) with the Zarzian Culture but it had branches that had already spread to Mesopotamia pre Neolithic, its unimaginable to see that vast majority of upstreams seem to be found in modern Iraq, were not talking about well defined clades but thousands of year old singletons that would suggest that Mesopotamia was an area crucial to the development of some J2 branches. Like I wrote in my original post that Iran is equally part of the equation with specific branches originating from Iran like L25 and M241 which are huge branches of J2, also we have L581 too that was found in Paleolithic Iran too, so its very likely this branch came from the area as well. I think ancient Mesopotamia (Sumerians/Uruk/Ubaid) will be very similar to Iran Neo/Iran Chalcolithic groups because they will ultimately be related groups kind of like WHG are related in Europe.

Patarames
03-10-2019, 07:57 PM
CHG puts the vector to way up north relative to Mesopotamia and the next best paleolithic vector is to the north east (Iran Hotu). So without actual Mesopotamian samples it feels too north shifted for now.

Certain is that there is no auDNA ghost population in the game, basically limiting the mystery to following auDNA-YDNA correlations:

Levant_N/Natufian with E
ASI/Andamanese/Indus Vally with H and less likely L
Iran_N/CHG with J1 primary, J2b later and J2a after them
Anatolia_N with primarily G and T

This is the pool from which we can deduce and I would sort it in this way:

Sorted from oldest
1: ASI (a little wild speculation based to its unknown ancient presence in Iran and the Elamites, plus H's now almost extinct findings in Neolithic Spain)
2: Natufian
3: Anatolia_N
4: Iran/CHG

In this scenario, J2a would be a late arrival, J2b earlier and J1 earliest of J.

Resulting in this timeline:
C --> H --> L --> R2 --> E --> T --> G --> J1 --> J2b --> J2a --> R1b --> R1a --> Q

For this to work I expect similarly grave genetic replacements as seen in neighboring Anatolia. I expect now almost extinct Y Haplogroups that played a major role back then with speculative scenarios such as Sumerians being a G, T, L, H mix or early Akkadians an exclusive E and T mix.

The Paleolithic vectors of J2 findings are too north shifted for my taste to put the origin of J2 into Mesopotamia. However, as said, since Iranics are a main carrier of J2, their heavy presence in Mesopotamia, starting at least with the Mitanni and being most intense (empires capital) for over 1000 years via Persians and Parthians would be a good explanation for the diversity.

Principe
03-10-2019, 11:45 PM
CHG puts the vector to way up north relative to Mesopotamia and the next best paleolithic vector is to the north east (Iran Hotu). So without actual Mesopotamian samples it feels too north shifted for now.

Certain is that there is no auDNA ghost population in the game, basically limiting the mystery to following auDNA-YDNA correlations:

Levant_N/Natufian with E
ASI/Andamanese/Indus Vally with H and less likely L
Iran_N/CHG with J1 primary, J2b later and J2a after them
Anatolia_N with primarily G and T

This is the pool from which we can deduce and I would sort it in this way:

Sorted from oldest
1: ASI (a little wild speculation based to its unknown ancient presence in Iran and the Elamites, plus H's now almost extinct findings in Neolithic Spain)
2: Natufian
3: Anatolia_N
4: Iran/CHG

In this scenario, J2a would be a late arrival, J2b earlier and J1 earliest of J.

Resulting in this timeline:
C --> H --> L --> R2 --> E --> T --> G --> J1 --> J2b --> J2a --> R1b --> R1a --> Q

For this to work I expect similarly grave genetic replacements as seen in neighboring Anatolia. I expect now almost extinct Y Haplogroups that played a major role back then with speculative scenarios such as Sumerians being a G, T, L, H mix or early Akkadians an exclusive E and T mix.

The Paleolithic vectors of J2 findings are too north shifted for my taste to put the origin of J2 into Mesopotamia. However, as said, since Iranics are a main carrier of J2, their heavy presence in Mesopotamia, starting at least with the Mitanni and being most intense (empires capital) for over 1000 years via Persians and Parthians would be a good explanation for the diversity.

Look I disagree with your timeline and the last 2 paragraphs for the most part, though like the work you put into it. Think of it as branches instead of Haplogroups, because certain J2a branches have an almost certain origin in Mesopotamia especially J2a-M47 which has strong ties to Iraq and M47 in Iraq is very diverse which would suggest a local origin also TMRCA matches Sumerians. There really isn’t strong evidence of J2b in Iraq earlier than J2a, as at least 2 branches have been identified via adna such as M205 being associated with Semitic speakers and L283 having a migration route of Iran>Caucasus>Steppe (IE branch), and L283 being under M241, the other large branches of M241 are heavily concentrated in South Asia and sporadically found throughout Iran and West Asia suggesting that an Iranian origin for M241 as L283 went West and Z2423 spreading East. Even L25 was very likely born in Iran based on what adna is telling us so far with Z387 going West, PF5488 likely staying around the area and Z7700 moving East and into Central Asia remember that FGC9961 (downstream of Z7700) has been found in Eastern Scythians and pre IE BMAC, FGC9961 in Europe might entirely came from the migration period of Scythian and Alanic migrations. The questionable branch is PF5160 which so far only YSC253 has showed up in adna and albeit in Neolithic Tajikistan suggesting a Neolithic movement so its possible that PF5160 branches followed a similar pattern as L25 and M241 and PF5174 branch which is heavy in Iraq could be via Iranians in line with what your saying. But the same can not be said for PF5119 branches which seem to have a Mesopotamian origin that spread early on and are rarely found in Central Asia and South Asia making an Iranian origin less likely, and we know ancient Mesopotamians had colonies in the Caucasus, Levant and Eastern Turkey which could actually nicely explain where the several branches moved to, the best example would be Y11200 (downstream of Z7671>CTS900) in Chalcolithic Caucasus.

Patarames
03-11-2019, 07:49 AM
remember that FGC9961 (downstream of Z7700) has been found in Eastern Scythians and pre IE BMAC, FGC9961 in Europe might entirely came from the migration period of Scythian and Alanic migrations.

Well the expertise of a mind incorporated, deep understanding of each J2 branch is your special ability not mine.
Therefore it is a valid approach to deduce from modern branch spread to most of the conclusions you made.

If those Iraqi branches have not spread to the areas under Iranic/Persian control such as e.g central Asia, we have to assume a non-Iranic origin, in line with a older non-Iranic Mesopotamian origin (special founder and selection effects excluded).

This approach is a more valid one than to get to that conclusion based on high J2 branch diversity in Mesopotamia, a center of Iranic presence.

It is likely and realistic that J2 was at least present early on given the close geographical proximity of the supposed Zagros/Alborz birthplace and Mesopotamia. J2's comparatively late but very successful expansion requires extra care.

Lupriac
03-18-2019, 01:44 PM
Civilization started in Mesopotamia, the civilizations of Egypt, Indus Valley, Anatolia, Aegean and the Levant, emerged not due cultural transmission of the behavioral package that we associate with BA civilization or coincidance, it was because civilized Mesopotamians migrated to these places ... there I said it.

To be honest, the basic pillars of civilization were built upon agriculture, which was transitioned from the Fertile Crescent (and hence, Mesopotamia since it was the center). These migrants then migrated to Egypt (E-M123 and T1a and G2a being dominant migrants), Anatolia (Northern Anatolia? where J1/J2 and G2a are abundant) and the Indus Valley (L1a is from Anatolia, and was the haplogroup of the Harappans and Elamites).