Page 16 of 40 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 396

Thread: The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

  1. #151
    Registered Users
    Posts
    755
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Zanzibar
    Y-DNA (P)
    L1307
    mtDNA (M)
    L3b

    ZanzibarSultanate United Kingdom British Indian Ocean Territory
    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    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 greater relative to other neighboring ethnicities.
    Slightly off-topic but I've noticed the same in SE-Nigerians like Ogoniland people and Ekoi/Ejagham folks from Calabar. Of course Igbo have been well known to harbor such phenotypes, I can think of a slavery-time example between slave traders and slave cultivators/collaborators but can't find the source rn so won't quote it regarding the light coloring of SE people. Outside of skin color call me crazy but there's a distinct 'Eurasian' [I dislike using this term in this context but bear with me] phenotype in Nigerians from south to middle-belt that isn't present west or east of the country i.e. not present in non-admixed Senegambians or Bantus. Sometimes I attribute IBM admixture to this but who knows.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ThaYamamoto For This Useful Post:

     DgidguBidgu (11-28-2020)

  3. #152
    Registered Users
    Posts
    408
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Italian, 1/2 Armenian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a

    Quote Originally Posted by DgidguBidgu View Post
    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.
    Are we still arguing about the Anatolian hypothesis? Didn't realize it was still 2010.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to davit For This Useful Post:

     Awale (11-28-2020),  hartaisarlag (11-28-2020),  Kopfjäger (11-28-2020),  leorcooper19 (11-30-2020),  Michał (11-28-2020),  Michalis Moriopoulos (11-28-2020),  Power77 (11-28-2020),  Pribislav (11-28-2020),  Ryukendo (11-28-2020)

  5. #153
    Registered Users
    Posts
    408
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Italian, 1/2 Armenian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeon View Post
    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.
    Altaic and Mongolian speaker migrations to Europe from 4900-3500 BC? That would be something .

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to davit For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (11-28-2020)

  7. #154
    Registered Users
    Posts
    408
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Italian, 1/2 Armenian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a

    ANA

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    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.
    Agree. Given AG3 and MA1 had a very similar autosomal profile and are both descendants of P not sure what makes Q more intrusive to West Eurasia anymore than R.

  8. #155
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,354
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    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
    What he said is this:
    East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.
    What made me say this is, among other things, that there were different waves of H.s. entering South East Asia, making it to Australo-Melanesia and while spreading there mixing with local older H.s. groups and archaic forms (Denisovans) at a percentage the East Asians and many other "Eastern Eurasian" populations did not. They were on different evolutionary pathways and were, quite early on, genetically distinct. So the comment about what kind of range "Eastern Eurasian" phenotypes have (presence) seems to have been non-significant to me. Also, he didn't really tell a timing, which brings me to the next comment of yours:

    all this stuff about the "ethnology" of people from >30,000 years ago (how is this even possible to talk about?)
    He spoke about:
    East Eurasians include morphologically disparate groups such as Mongols and Papuans.
    Even among East Asians we have Mongols and Ainu the latter of which are often mistaken as Caucasoid.
    So he introduced all the terms and ethnicities which, like I said myself numerous times before, didn't even exist 30.000 years ago. I didn't even wanted to debate the issue, but I have the constant urge to answer, even in such cases, if I feel I have to make my point clear and was treated unfair

    Its however possible to talk about which ancient population from 30.000 years ago is closer by phenotype, genetically, geographically and in some cases even culturally to some other ancient or modern people, that's certainly possible.

    or even the "trajectory of the phenotypes" is simply besides the point
    If one group stayed a colder environment mixed with even more cold adapted people in the East, whereas another group of people tried to evade the extreme climate and moved down to mix with yet another temperate climate adapted people, they are on different trajectories. That's what I meant.

    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.
    Sure, especially since we have not that much finds from the earlier period and the latter specimen which quite ANE shifted show little traces of it. Siberia as such was always a transitional zone.

    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?
    I didn't say so. Of course other people could have been big game hunters too. But ANE groups seem to have been particularly specialised on it, as a large group, and they appear to have been particularly well-nourished, which allowed them to grow to the size they reached. I only said that they were big game hunters for a long period of time, I didn't say others were not. What I implied however, is that the situation in the East was more complicated, in part because they were cut off from the larger steppe regions to the West, and their refuge was comparatively smaller. But surely they would have been big game hunters too, if getting the chance to. I didn't exclude others, I just wanted to stress that for ANE the big game hunting seems to have been their specialisation.

    And where are you getting this idea of "ANA pastoralists" spreading Niger-kordofanian?
    That's because my assumption is, mostly based on the results of the Shum Laka paper and archaeological finds, that modern West Africans/Niger-Kordofanian came into existence different layers merging, with the latest being always more important than the one before, both percentage wise and culturally:
    Archaic Homo (Iwo Eleru) -> basic H.s. of the Southern sphere -> derived H.s. from North/East Africa or back migration from Eurasia. The latest showed signs for a more advanced productive technology and expanded on top of the older layers.

    The genetical point of view is based on one possible Shum Laka interpretation, in detail discussed in thread in which this topic came up, from the archaeological point of view, I found this interesting, just a repeat of an older post with a link to it:

    The paper about the sites in Senegal is quite interesting. Too bad they could not retrieve a DNA sample, because the transition to the Iron Age in West Africa was probably the single most important event in all of Subsaharan more recent prehistory and we know very little about the people involved.

    Occupation at Walaldé began in the period 800-550 cal BC and continued until ca 200 cal BC. The sequence appears to document the transi-tion from stone- to iron-based technology, with the use of iron objects and stone initially, followed by evidence for iron smelting and forging from 500-200 cal BC. Copper with the distinctive chemical signature of the Akjoujt mines in Mauritania was also present after 500 cal BC, attesting to interaction over long distances.
    The 1999 Walaldé excavations cast considerable new light on our understanding of the initial coloniza tion of the MSV, pushing back the date by 700-1000 years, and linking the early colonists to both Neolithic and copper-using groups farther west and north.The Walaldé agropastoralists used and smelted iron, and wore jewelry crafted from imported copper.
    Most of the slag and 46 of the tuyere pieces came from Walaldé Unit W1, which clearly was the locus of significant metallurgical activity during the later phase of occupation -i.e., after 500 cal BC.
    Most of the identifiable remains are domestic stock. Over half were cattle, and approximately 10 % were ovi-caprines
    Agropastoralists with millet and cattle, plus a few sheep and goat, first occupied Walaldé sometime between 800 and 550 cal BC.
    Comparative multivariate craniometric analysis by Isabelle RIBOT (2003) of the Feature 9 skull indicated that it was more similar to present-day West African groups such as Ashanti than to North Africans and modern Serer.
    The vault appears to be long and broad, the face is high and prognathic with long zygomatics, the nose is moderately high and wide, and the mandible is relatively large.
    The affinities of this early assemblage are sug-gested by the pottery, which shares some similari-ties in vessel rim form and decoration with pottery to the west and north. Ceramics collected from the surface by R. Vernet (pers. comm.) in the Lac Rkiz area show close affinities, as do ceramics excavated by M.A. MBOW (1997) from the oyster shell middens at Poudioum and Bole de Mengueye near St. Louis on the Senegal River delta.
    First, at Walaldé, as at other first millennium BC smelt-ing locales in the Sahel (Jenne-jeno, Do Dimmi, Bou Khzama (pending 14C dating)), early iron appears to arrive with pastoral or agropastoral peoples who tran-shume and have wide-reaching networks for movement and exchange.Copper artifacts from Akjoujt ores testify to the circulation of pastoralists/agropastoralists and objects in western Mauritania ca 2600-2200 bp.
    https://www.academia.edu/5846186/Exc..._using_peoples

    It seems to me that we deal with a similar situation as in the North Pontic steppe, that indigenous foragers and semi-Neolithicised people adopted advanced technologies from newcomers and were, probably because of the favourable habitat and already large numbers, as well as ecological barriers (including endemic diseases like Malaria) for the newcomers, able to keep their independence. It seems to be the root of the Niger-Kordofan expansion, whether its exactly this people (likely), or a related group from the same wider region. A sufficient DNA sample could have helped a big deal to resolve this. Its unfortunate.

    From this thread:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ction-and-repl
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-28-2020 at 01:03 AM.

  9. #156
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Also, there are some Q lineages in Europe. The most obvious one is Scandinavia's cluster, but there are other lineages scattered throughout Europe, even as far as Ireland (Q-Y2998* and Q-Y2200*) and southern Spain (Q-BY106206).

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to JRD For This Useful Post:

     davit (11-28-2020)

  11. #157
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,354
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by JRD View Post
    Also, there are some Q lineages in Europe. The most obvious one is Scandinavia's cluster, but there are other lineages scattered throughout Europe, even as far as Ireland (Q-Y2998* and Q-Y2200*) and southern Spain (Q-BY106206).
    I think its pretty much comparable to the situation with R1a and R1b. That one ended up in South Asia, the other Western Europe, was not chance, that would be too much, but it was about splits and branching events, coming from a common root. And yes, it could have gone otherwise by changing, at one point, minor details of their history.

    Genetically and phenotypically, I want to stress once more, that American Natives were and are not in the same category as the East Asian core groups. So probably one can argue that ANE was closer to East Asians by using other arguments, but not by making comparisons based on the fact that American Indians have that component. That's beside the point. American Indians are not East Asians (proper), but the result of a complex mixture which details are not fully understood yet. Part of the mix was ANE, but that's it.
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-28-2020 at 01:32 AM.

  12. #158
    Registered Users
    Posts
    500
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA (P)
    G1a
    mtDNA (M)
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    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.
    Let's say I don't disregard these studies. Although easily refutable(modelling Saudis and Bedouins as Megiddo_BA and Somali, doesn't take a genius to understand how uninformative that is). One study dates the SSA admixture event into the various Jewish populations to ca 2000yb, and into Muslim Levantines to the Middle Ages. The newer study dates the admixture event to the BA and beyond. Now tell me do these dates coincide with the period of proto-Semitic?
    But why are you ignoring my question? We have several EBA samples from the Levant now, from different sites all very likely early Semitic speakers. Can you link me to any studies showing East African admixture in these samples?


    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.
    Yep I read his comment and thanked it, and I would thank it again if I could. I don't know whether he used "you people" with an racist undertone. I'm not gonna vet users before thanking or liking what they wrote on an online forum where everyone uses aliases.
    My comparison is on point, really. And that's what it was just a comparison, I don't get how you make the jump me trying to define racism. That's a really fked up conclusion.


    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?
    Yes, no AEA at the time Berber and Semitic split I'm confident about that.
    The Abusir sample scores 1% Dinka in a simple Natufian/Anatolian/Iran_N run. Him getting it from contacts with neighbouring Dinka-rich populations is far more probable than being an inheritance from proto-Egyptians when we find no Dinka/AEA in the various EBA samples from the Levant considering Semitic broke off earlier than Egyptian.

    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.
    Oh I'm not challenging that. I do certainly believe that, especially after the leakes that some members here were privy to claiming Old Kingdom samples to be Levant_N like. Lower Egypt being close to the Levant even before the unification seems very likely. I don't believe Upper Egyptians were much different in having signficant amount of AEA, if these leakes turn out to be true. The argument that Upper Egyptians had signficant amount of Dinka-like admix but gradually losing it by mixing with Lower Egyptians makes little sense to me. That would mean the flow was exlcusively from North to South ever since the Early Dynastic period.

    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:
    Well I hope Aga can show us where he gets that from, I'm interested to see what kind of J1 and J2 clades Copts carry.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Helves For This Useful Post:

     The Saite (11-28-2020)

  14. #159
    Registered Users
    Posts
    182
    Sex
    Location
    Sydney
    Ethnicity
    Egyptian Copt
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-M78 (E-V22)
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a7
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-M78 (E-PF3198)
    mtDNA (P)
    M1a1

    Egypt Australia
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    Yep I read his comment and thanked it, and I would thank it again if I could. I don't know whether he used "you people" with an racist undertone. I'm not gonna vet users before thanking or liking what they wrote on an online forum where everyone uses aliases.
    My comparison is on point, really. And that's what it was just a comparison, I don't get how you make the jump me trying to define racism. That's a really fked up conclusion.
    interested to see what kind of J1 and J2 clades Copts carry
    As easily as it could get. He turned me to a fundamentalist racist because I used the Statement "You people".
    Obviously he did have so much options to understand the Statement in other ways one of them would have been certainly it's right way. Rather he just jumped and Speculated I was offending his Ethnicity. The same way he jumps in his too long type comments with bizarre speculations and looks like you should either agree with it or be portrayed negatively with a potential to get further called racist at any time and with any word that can be easily Manipulated.
    Also the thing is, Not only he interpreted the word on his own and haven't asked directly instead of overthinking about the meanings. He actually went as far as punishing those who thanked my reply as if they did something shameful!. Anyway how couldn't you know that in his neck of the woods saying "You People" is Considered racist, Helves ? And How dare you come from different background than him in first place? That's even putting more shame on you and on me and all those who thanked me at the same time !
    Last edited by The Saite; 11-28-2020 at 02:34 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to The Saite For This Useful Post:

     Helves (11-28-2020)

  16. #160
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    1,348
    Sex
    Location
    United States
    Ethnicity
    NW Europe+Ash/Seph Jewish

    England Star of David Netherlands Turkey Denmark Germany
    Glad to see the passionate debating here, but let's not forget to keep it civil and on topic guys!

  17. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to passenger For This Useful Post:

     Awale (11-28-2020),  Coldmountains (11-28-2020),  diini95 (11-28-2020),  hartaisarlag (11-28-2020),  Keneki20 (11-29-2020),  leorcooper19 (11-30-2020),  Michał (11-28-2020),  Michalis Moriopoulos (11-28-2020),  Power77 (11-28-2020),  Ryukendo (11-28-2020),  ThaYamamoto (11-28-2020),  The Saite (11-28-2020)

Page 16 of 40 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-03-2019, 06:47 PM
  2. The First Farmers if Europe Prof Stephan Shennan
    By Judith in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2018, 07:57 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2018, 05:54 AM
  4. Early farmers from across Europe were direct descendants of Aegeans
    By rock hunter in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 10:43 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •