The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[gihanga.rwanda]

I was talking about the first one which sampled them which had them as 65%.
But yeah 55-60% ballpark in theory, without actual ANA remain data.

The original paper modeled Taforalt as 65% Natufian and 35% SSA (Yoruba + Hadza). It was a poor fit, which isn’t surprising since we shouldn’t use younger or modern pops to model an ancient pop, and the authors admitted as much in the original paper.

Yes which shows how theoric all this is. At its base, they are more or less triying to guess without the revelant Ancient datas.

I can agree that we need more ancient DNA from across Africa to develop a more ironclad and robust model for African population genetics. That being said, I wouldn’t reduce the work of geneticists, especially not the folks at the Reich lab, to simple guessing; they’ve presented models based on the available data and will adjust those models as new data comes to light (as we’ve seen with the three studies on the Iberomaurusians that were published in the last two years). Lazaridis and Lipson both introduced new data in the form of Dzudzuana and Shum Laka that are important in understanding the phylogeny of African populations.

Not sure where you're going with. Many papers that came out in the past with theories went wrong when newer datas came up. Simply because those where theories, nobody is disregarding anything, just not taking very serious.

Usually with Afrocentrists, they just take information that fit their bias. When the situation goes against them, they easily swept into crazy ideas like it is vaguely normal (like when they act the minor ANA in Natufians turn them into an actual SSA pop when Natufians are closest to Anatolian Neolithic farmers/Dzudzuana in their overwhelming ancestry).

That’s fair enough. It sounded like you were dismissing the Shum Laka paper and not applying the same treatment to the Dzudzuana paper, which sounded hypocritical to me.

I personally haven’t seen anyone in this thread refer to the Natufians as an SSA population. Natufians have minor African ancestry but they’re still a predominantly Western Eurasian population.

[Megalophias]

But people claiming minor ANA in Natufians made them craniologically and morphologically completely different different from Anatolian farmers are just hallucinating.

Do we have DNA from the morphologically SSA-looking (or whatever) Natufians? They aren't all the same, are they?

[gihanga.rwanda]

Do we have DNA from the morphologically SSA-looking (or whatever) Natufians? They aren't all the same, are they?

I doubt they’ll be much intra population variation, but that will be an interesting twist. Did the “African” morphological affinities observed in the Natufians diminish over time?

[maroco]

Distances will be high of course but this is what happens when you try to model both natufian samples:

Distance: 14.1261% / 0.14126059
Target: Early_Levantine_Farmer:Levant_Natufian:I1072
62.8 Early_European_Farmer
36.9 Iberomaurusian
0.3 Iran_Neolithic

Distance: 13.5843% / 0.13584324
Target: Early_Levantine_Farmer:Levant_Natufian:I0861
53.3 Early_European_Farmer
32.0 Iberomaurusian
13.6 Iran_Neolithic
1.1 Ancient_Iberian_Hunter-Gatherer

[maroco]

Deleted

[maroco]

Megiddo outlier seemed to give the best results for me and looked to be free from ana but still represents my Levantine input
Distance: 2.5904% / 0.02590411
32.3 Early_European_Farmer
30.9 Iberomaurusian
22.8 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1
10.7 West_African_(simulated)
3.0 Iran_Neolithic
0.3 Ancient_Iberian_Hunter-Gatherer

Near identical results with Shum Laka:

Distance: 3.9998% / 0.03999788
33.4 Early_European_Farmer
30.3 Iberomaurusian
21.5 Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o1
10.6 Africa_Mesolithic
3.9 Iran_Neolithic
0.3 Ancient_Iberian_Hunter-Gatherer

[maroco]

You can also model yourself this way:

Distance: 2.4571% / 0.02457137
49.9 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
30.0 Iberomaurusian
11.0 West_African_(simulated)
5.4 Iran_Neolithic
2.3 Steppe_Pastoralist
1.4 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer


Distance: 3.8507% / 0.03850681
50.1 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
29.5 Iberomaurusian
11.0 Africa_Mesolithic
5.4 Iran_Neolithic
3.1 Steppe_Pastoralist
0.9 Western_Hunter-Gatherer

[Echo]

Do we have DNA from the morphologically SSA-looking (or whatever) Natufians? They aren't all the same, are they?

Samples are just labeled 'Natufians'.

Culturally the formed a coherent grouping, so I don't know.

[etrusco]

You can also model yourself this way:

Distance: 2.4571% / 0.02457137
49.9 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
30.0 Iberomaurusian
11.0 West_African_(simulated)
5.4 Iran_Neolithic
2.3 Steppe_Pastoralist
1.4 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer


Distance: 3.8507% / 0.03850681
50.1 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
29.5 Iberomaurusian
11.0 Africa_Mesolithic
5.4 Iran_Neolithic
3.1 Steppe_Pastoralist
0.9 Western_Hunter-Gatherer

How much West Eurasian score Natufians? I mean WE only without basal

[CopperAxe]

In the second Paper they sequenced several new EHGs from Minimo, Russia. Very interesting. All of them have the allele derived in the SLC24a5 gene, one of those responsible for fair skin.

There is a lot of interesting information in that second dissertation but they really should've compared Neolithic European farmers to their Anatolian hunter gatherer ancestors and their contemporary Anatolian when it came to phenotypes and the spread of them.

It's hard to say if climate or diet induced vitamin D deficiencies are what lead to lighter skin pigmentation of Europeans, spurred on by Neolithic Anatolians migrating to the northern, less sunny regions if they did not even look at actual Anatolian HG or early farmer samples.