The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[Riverman]

Thanks for the answer. Ok, so this is actually relatively more recent admixture. I actually think its possible, just possible, that there was an even earlier admixture taking place, which however can't be detected with modern samples, not even with later prehistorical ones, without having older references. I'm talking about pre-Shum Laka inhabitants and incoming ANA-like people from the Sahara. But that's coming back to the old debate whether the current references and methods are sufficient to detect any kind of Neandertal admixture, even without proper references. Like the baseline for most models is not fixed, but its a moving target, which could chance with any new reference from older African inhabitants with lower admixture from back migrations. Shum Laka for example is too late and already too mixed.

[davit]

"likely being" does not work in science. This automatically makes it a theory and nothing more.
No one has yet convinced us that IE languages come from Asia and this cannot happen. The opposite is already happening.
Yamnaya and the Russian steppes are already logically (according to the geographical distribution of language groups today, historical factology and linguistic data) are associated with the Finno-Ugric languages, and we must include the Altaic languages here too.
The locations for IE that have been given by scientists so far, such as the Pontic steppes and Anatolia, are in contact zone and sphere of influence of European cultures.


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...11.02.364521v1

I never said IE languages don't come from Europe. They clearly do come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and they originated in a predominantly West Eurasian population about 6000 ybp. I was referring to the fact that the paternal lineages of Indo-Europeans (R1b, R1a and Q) ultimately descend from an East Eurasian (SE Asian or NE Asian like remains to be seen) ydna K2b/P population which are more than 40000 years old. The original lineages of pre-ANE must have been some sort of C1a/C1b.

[Ryukendo]

Populations can have an evolutionary trejectory though, at least as long as the same kind of selection works on them. The ANE were first big game steppe hunters, akin to the West Eurasian groups in Europe. The ANE evolution was different and more similar to the Western than to the Eastern neighbours, which their later phenotypes prove. The Eastern ANE group which ended up in Siberia and moved up to America went a different path and branched off at some point, because they were staying in a cold refuge zone during the LGM, close to the sea and mixing with East Asians proper, before moving on to America. While that happened the Western groups evaded it, first as big game hunters, then by moving West and South, mixing with West Eurasians. This caused the chain event during the LGM, among other factors, which I talked about. With percussions down to Subsaharan Africa, because one group pushed the next into so far less populated refuge zones. These were clearly defined adaptive strategies and habitats, resulting in specific evolutionary trends in the West and the East respectively.

You mix everything up, its even difficult to try to get started.

If that's your best definition of "East Eurasian", there is no way we can have a meaningful debate. Its wrong going by the following possible categorisations:
- Historically
- Ethnically
- Linguistically
- Phenotypically
- Genetically
- Geographically


Biogeographically, there is still the Wallace Line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

Better leave it at this point or write me a PM. This thread is OT enough.



ANE was genetically not closer to East Asian than to the neighbouring Western groups. True, phenotypes are different from genetic ancestry. The trajectory of ANE was however going in the Cauasoid direction more than the East Asian, which even came, fully evolved, much later into existence anyway (LGM). So they were on a continuous variation from West to East, but still closer to the West than (later) East Asian populations.

Riverman, in the exchanges with ybmpark its in fact you who pretty confused here and mixing up things like modern phenotypic categorization, biogeography, ethnology etc. This is a genetics forum, the fact that the earliest pre-P is found in a sample that is East Eurasian in population-genetic terms at a very early period (45kya) is an indisputable fact that can be framed precisely in this language, all this stuff about the "ethnology" of people from >30,000 years ago (how is this even possible to talk about?), or even the "trajectory of the phenotypes" is simply besides the point. If you choose to focus on phenotypic race, then ybmpark's assertion of the Mongoloid character of HGs in Northern Asia is backed up by a whole tradition of Soviet physical anthropology classifying HGs from Eastern Europe to the Baraba steppe as members of a "Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation" that terminated with Mongoloid-type peoples from East of the Baraba steppe, with Mal'ta being classified as among the latter "Mongoloids" by e.g. Alexeev in his 1988 publication--but again this is beside the point in genetic terms.

Furthermore, I see quite a few overgeneralisations or even outright assertions in some of your other posts in this thread: where are you getting this idea that no populations other than Western Eurasians were big-game hunters on the Mammoth steppe? Ust-Ishim from 45000 ya was already a mammoth hunter, as was Ust-Kyakhta 15kya--a sample even more ENA than modern Native Americans. And where are you getting this idea of "ANA pastoralists" spreading Niger-kordofanian?

[maroco]

No, none at all. My ancestry is entirely Nigerian. Although, there was the suspicion that my great-grandmother might have had European ancestry, since she looked, even to my eyes, kind of mixed. Many people apparently believed this. However, after taking a DNA test (AncestryDNA), the results showed no Eurasian ancestry at all. So what explained my great-grandmother's look? Well, lighter skin and sometimes even light eyes are not uncommon with the Igbo. Of course, most don't look like this, but the frequency is noticeably more relative to other neighboring ethnicities.

Since I wanted to at least find out some extra information about my ancestry (e.g., haplogroups and other things), I uploaded my raw DNA file to WeGene. It said I was 99.9% "Yoruba" (not terribly far off, because, besides my ancestral ethnicities being genetically close to Yorubas, I have a Yoruba grandparent) and that I had 0.301% Neanderthal ancestry. I pretty much wrote it off as an error until I saw a study coming out saying Africans have about 0.3% Neanderthal ancestry. Of course, this Neanderthal ancestry is thought to have a small percentage of early Homo sapiens ancestry as well that is thought to be from an unsuccessful out-of-Africa migration. Although, anyway, the parallel in percentages for me was very interesting and unexpected. After seeing other Nigerians and other Africans (ones conventionally considered unadmixed) taking, for example, 23andme and consistently showing Neanderthal markers (not just one or two, but rather in the teens or higher) when expecting to see none at all, I was willing to explore this further.

I then remembered a preliminary study showing that, for the Yoruba, they had about 12.5% Taforalt Iberomaurusian ancestry, which is inclusive of Eurasian ancestry. Of course, that made no sense to me at first, but I kept finding more studies that, rather than talking about Taforalt-like ancestry in West Africans, instead strongly suggested that West Africans at large have a smaller percentage of ancient West Eurasian ancestry. After doing some research, I saw that during the African Humid Period, the Kiffian population of Gobero, Niger, which was readily linked to Iberomaurusians, was in the vicinity of West Africans at the time. Then, at a similar time, Iberomaurusian populations in, for instance, Mali, were in very close proximity to West Africans at the time, who themselves began moving northward.

At the same time, another study I saw, this time focused on North Africans, showed a graphic that clearly showed a small minority of Iberomaurisian-like ancestry in West African and West-African-linked populations. However, at the same time, the graphic showed an even smaller proportion of Natufian-like ancestry in West African populations, including the Yoruba. The DNA results for the sampled populations were a little bit unlike what I'd been used to seeing, so I was incredulous at first. That incredulity remained until researching about the Tenerian population, which was also identified in Gobero but at a later date, and how they showed a greater physical affinity to Western Eurasians than earlier Kiffians did (still largely distinguishable from West Eurasians, though). Still, since the Natufian-like results in West Africans from the study are, from what I've seen, only seen in this study, I can understand if one only considerers that particular result only suggestive or promising instead of conclusive, but it is worth paying attention to. Although, for the Iberomaurisian-like ancestry in West Africans, both this study and the one I mentioned earlier are both in accordance.

Anyway, after the various desiccations of the Sahara, the populations, most after first intermixing, began moving southward, which was in line with the southern migration from what's now the Sahel into southern West Africa that would eventually yield, for example, the Benue-Kwa languages. Upon intermixing with pre-existing inhabitants in the south of West Africa who likely spoke unrelated languages, which is a conclusion for which linguistic studies provide support, the resulting populations are what we see today.

Credit to the maker kotoyr for the west african simulated sample. But yes west Africans do have taforalt admixture

Attachment 41430

[etrusco]

I never said IE languages don't come from Europe. They clearly do come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and they originated in a predominantly West Eurasian population about 6000 ybp. I was referring to the fact that the paternal lineages of Indo-Europeans (R1b, R1a and Q) ultimately descend from an East Eurasian (SE Asian or NE Asian like remains to be seen) ydna K2b/P population which are more than E40000 years old. The original lineages of pre-ANE must have been some sort of C1a/C1b.

Proto indouropean lineages are R1b -R1a and I2. Q is not PIE

[davit]

Proto indouropean lineages are R1b -R1a and I2. Q is not PIE

Yea I forgot about I2. There was a Q in Khvalynsk and I believe there is supposedly more Q in the forest steppe that will come out in upcoming papers.

[DgidguBidgu]

I never said IE languages don't come from Europe. They clearly do come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and they originated in a predominantly West Eurasian population about 6000 ybp. I was referring to the fact that the paternal lineages of Indo-Europeans (R1b, R1a and Q) ultimately descend from an East Eurasian (SE Asian or NE Asian like remains to be seen) ydna K2b/P population which are more than 40000 years old. The original lineages of pre-ANE must have been some sort of C1a/C1b.

This is again your personal opinion about IE and R1a, R1b, Q and it is within the speculations and theories. These groups cannot be associated with the emergence of IE languages ​​for a number of reasons, in the previous post I gave you a study ("More rule than exception: Parallel evidence of ancient migrations in grammars and genomes of Finno-Ugric speakers")where they are actually associated with Finno-Ugric speakers and the entry of these languages ​​into Europe.These paternal lineages cannot be associated with ancient Neolithic European cultures, for example. These groups which you indicate are mostly invasive groups that were not the carriers but the recipients of innovations, including the language.


You: "clearly do come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe"
Quote: "It is UNCLEAR whether Indo-European languages ​​in Europe spread from the
Pontic steppes in the late Neolithic, or from Anatolia in the Early Neolithic.
Under the former hypothesis, people of the Globular Amphorae culture
(GAC) would be descended from Eastern ancestors, probably representing the
Yamnaya culture. However, nuclear (six individuals typed for 597 573 SNPs)
and mitochondrial (11 complete sequences) DNA from the GAC appear
closer to those of earlier Neolithic groups than to the DNA of all other populations related to the Pontic steppe migration."


As you can see, the problem is not solved and is unclear even to scientists. But I don't engage anyone with my vision and I don't generalize how many people think like me.

[Keneki20]

But my man, the studies you're linking to are dating the admixture event much later than the period of proto-Semitic. These studies are so old it was even before we got aDNA from the Levant. I thought we agreed on that moderns do have East African ancestry due to the Slave trade. Now I'll ask this again, show me studies on ancient DNA from the Levant claiming that the early Semitic samples we have so far having any AEA admixture(other than what Natufians might've brought). I'm waiting.

So old? All the studies I provided were in the span of the last ten years, with one even being from 2020. 10 years is, you know, the preferred time range when doing any kind of scientific research. Also, yes, we agreed. Where our viewpoints diverge is whether or not all of it is attributable to the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade. Then, once again, I have provided you the studies. You disregarded all of them entirely. Also, once again, I thought it was common knowledge that the Natufians had no AEA ancestry? I will say once again that I don't know where that comes from on your end.

This is like: I can't be racist, I have black friends.
Just because you are debunking some batshit crazy claims doesn't mean that you can't be afro-centric yourself.

Interesting that you truly think what I've said is comparable to that. That's a similarly bizarre conclusion, especially in light of you thanking a person for their post that said "You people" in response to one of my posts. Obviously, that was addressed primarily to me. How would you like it if I were to tell you that in my neck of the woods, saying that ("You people"), especially to a black person, or thinking that it's even remotely okay to do so (you thanked him after all), would not be well received or tolerated? And before you say that you thanked him for his content, truly, how is one supposed to know? After all, you said that just because I am debunking some batsh*t crazy claims doesn't mean that I can't be afro-centric myself. Thus, unreasonable suspicion can be rewarded in kind. Let's not start this. You are far from the arbiter of what is and is not racist or even potentially so. Likewise, I'm not sure where you get the impression from that you can tell me about me, or that I lack a discerning eye. Your comments smack of hubris.

Also, do you recall when Ben Shapiro was interviewed by the BBC last year and accused his interviewer, Andrew Neil, a well-known British conservative, of being "on the left?" Now that's a worthy comparison in this situation. To quote Neil, he said the following in response:

...if only you knew how ridiculous that statement is, you wouldn't have said it.

Additionally, once again, my premise is not original, and, if you care to know, not sourced from Afrocenstrists at all irrespective of ethnic background. Although, honestly, I shouldn't bring up whether you care or not. You've already said you don't care how many hoteps I confront online, so it's not like you care about anything I've said or will say.

I can understand an proto-AA population being originally AEA-like and then slowly losing it's initate admixture by further mixing with Natufian-like people along the Nile delta and by the time of the Berber-Semitic split havning none of it. But the fact that you are still insisting for an early intrusion of East African input into the Levant with Semitic speakers when none of the studies on CA/BA samples show this is far more telling of where you stand. I don't care how many Hoteps you confront on Facebook.

No AEA-like ancestry by the time of the Semito-Berber split? You seemed very content earlier with saying that little to no AEA-like ancestry was present in Ancient Egyptians, though. What will you say about that? So, by the time that Semito-Berber was in unity with the lineage that would eventually yield Egyptian, which would have also been when Chadic and Cushitic were also in union with the aforementioned, these speakers also had little to no AEA ancestry, either?

Yet now, you seem to find the premise that PAA speakers were somehow rich in AEA ancestry understandable? Fascinating. And I wonder how you could spin it so that you claim I believe Mota-like ancestry plays into this all.

And language contact must result in mixing? You seem like your educated in linguistics surely you don't mean to imply that?
I do very much expect a gradual Levantine shift in Egypt, but not that it had overturned the entire population by the Late Egyptian period.

Well, when there are verifiable accounts of whole contemporaneous Levantine communities settling down in dynastic Egypt and staying, I fail to see how that premise would be so worthy of challenging. Also, I specifically said the Lower Nile Valley was already very Levantine-like before the Egyptian unification. That is really not a controversial claim.

I also specifically said that during the time that Semitic-speaking Levantine peoples (now contemporaneous with dynastic Egyptians) began moving to Egypt, the impact of these migrants would not have been enough to drastically alter the genetic makeup of the pre-existing peoples (inclusive of Levantine-like Lower Egyptians, who, by then, were linguistically Egyptianized, and Egyptians farther south, who would have already been mostly West Eurasian ancestrally as early as the predynastic period). I suppose it's always convenient to ignore or misrepresent what I said, though.

So Levantine transplants, but via mixing with Lower Egyptian Copts. Got it.

Assuming I understood your question correctly, then yes?... but still no, not necessarily. The elevated affinity that Egyptians have to Levantine peoples even today would make little sense if there were no significant Levantine introgression at all in the relatively distant past. But still, I reiterate that any introgressions from the Levant during the dynastic period would not have drastically changed the population, only influenced it.

Is this reflected in their uniparental markers?

Well, yes, some indications of this exist, as Agamemnon had previously brought up here. The thread discusses Ancient Egyptian DNA, and he said the following:

...I have seen some Copts who do have typically Arabian uniparental lineages.

Make of that what you will.

[Xeon]

Yea I forgot about I2. There was a Q in Khvalynsk and I believe there is supposedly more Q in the forest steppe that will come out in upcoming papers.

What matters is the dating of the sample. Q is not a native to west eurasia. It is very much east eurasian which can be seen within many east eurasian communities, especially the altaic speakers.

The sample in Khvalynsk could be from any period in which there were migrations of altaic and Mongolian speakers from relatively eastern steppe / east asia to western eurasia.

[Coldmountains]

What matters is the dating of the sample. Q is not a native to west eurasia. It is very much east eurasian which can be seen within many east eurasian communities, especially the altaic speakers.

The sample in Khvalynsk could be from any period in which there were migrations of altaic and Mongolian speakers from relatively eastern steppe / east asia to western eurasia.

There is Y-DNA Q in Volosovo and Latvia with an EHG genetic profile. I dont think first Q in East Europe arrived much later than R1. In just happened to be more "successful" in Northeast Eurasia than Northwest Eurasia but if some historical parameters were slightly different we would see maybe Bell Beakers with Q instead of R1b.