PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Egyptians and their DNA



Brandon S. Pilcher
02-03-2014, 03:57 AM
I don't know the reliability of the person posting this, and reading through posts on ForumBiodiversity can turn even the hardiest man's stomach, but if it is in fact based on data that is to be published, I think it is very interesting...

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43154-Egyptian-Old-Kingdom-and-New-Kingdom-Ancient-DNA-results?p=1178041&viewfull=1#post1178041

Basically, @beyoku lays out the following Old Kingdom (OK) and Middle Kingdom (MK) Y-SNP and mtDNA results:

Old Kingdom Samples:
A-M13, L3f
A-M13, L0a1
B-M150, L3d
E-M2, L3e5
E-M2, L2a1
E-M123, L5a1
E-M35, R0a
E-M41, L2a1
E-M41, L1b1a
E-M75, M1
E-M78, L4b
J-M267, L3i
R-M173, L2
T-M184, L0a

Middle Kingdom Samples:
A-M13, L3x
E-M75, L2a1
E-M78, L3e5
E-M78, M1a
E-M96, L4a
E-V6, L3
B-M112, L0b

If this data stands, then it looks like the ancient Egyptian genepool was much more African in both Y-DNA and mtDNA than it is today. Of interest to most who post on this site is the lone R1+ sample and the complete lack of mtDNA HV, H, K and U.
Apologies if responding to old posts within a thread is considered undesirable in this forum, but I happen to have that beyoku gentleman as a friend on Facebook. In all the years I've known him, I've seen no evidence that he is unreliable as a scholar. It would be ideal if the data he reports got published in a peer-reviewed paper, but given the political circumstances in Egypt I am not sure if that will ever happen.

It would be even more enlightening if we had autosomal data on these Egyptian remains. The DNA Tribes company does claim that they've done analyses on King Tut (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf) and Ramses III (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf) (both New Kingdom) that show sub-Saharan affinities, but a private company may not be the most reliable source.

Back to the subject of haplogroups, I've seen this 2012 paper on Ramses III (http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268) cited as saying that he had Y-DNA E1b1a, which I recall is widespread in Africa today.

Humanist
02-03-2014, 04:33 AM
The DNA Tribes company does claim that they've done analyses on King Tut (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf) and Ramses III (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf) (both New Kingdom) that show sub-Saharan affinities, but a private company may not be the most reliable source.

I believe you are referring to the autosomal STR data that was published. I checked the values myself, as well, in 2011. The following is what I posted on ABF:


When I had looked at the values manually, a few months ago, the "best" fits were African populations, and Mediterranean populations. And, this was only for some of the samples. Some samples appeared to be nearly exclusively African.

Brandon S. Pilcher
02-03-2014, 04:36 AM
I believe you are referring to the autosomal STR data that was published. I checked the values myself, as well, in 2011. The following is what I posted on ABF:
How did you do it? I've wanted to do something similar myself, but didn't have the tech at my disposal.

Humanist
02-03-2014, 05:09 AM
How did you do it? I've wanted to do something similar myself, but didn't have the tech at my disposal.

No worries. Not much tech required. :) Only a spreadsheet program, and a good deal of time. Created an excel sheet containing a great deal of autosomal STR data from various populations of the world. Compared the STR data with the markers overlapping from the published ancient Egyptian data. From that, it was quite apparent that the published autosomal STR data was most consistent, all things considered, with modern Africans.

newtoboard
02-05-2014, 06:57 PM
Apologies if responding to old posts within a thread is considered undesirable in this forum, but I happen to have that beyoku gentleman as a friend on Facebook. In all the years I've known him, I've seen no evidence that he is unreliable as a scholar. It would be ideal if the data he reports got published in a peer-reviewed paper, but given the political circumstances in Egypt I am not sure if that will ever happen.

It would be even more enlightening if we had autosomal data on these Egyptian remains. The DNA Tribes company does claim that they've done analyses on King Tut (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf) and Ramses III (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf) (both New Kingdom) that show sub-Saharan affinities, but a private company may not be the most reliable source.

Back to the subject of haplogroups, I've seen this 2012 paper on Ramses III (http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268) cited as saying that he had Y-DNA E1b1a, which I recall is widespread in Africa today.

Why hasn't this paper been published? Would really challenge the idea that Egypt was a West Eurasian civilization. I would also love to see a study on whether DE originated in Africa or is a back migration.

toast
02-05-2014, 08:00 PM
Why hasn't this paper been published? Would really challenge the idea that Egypt was a West Eurasian civilization. I would also love to see a study on whether DE originated in Africa or is a back migration.

because it has been done before. people who try to argue egypt was not west eurasian before, are scoffed at and labeled 'afro-centrists'

R.Rocca
02-05-2014, 08:20 PM
Why hasn't this paper been published? Would really challenge the idea that Egypt was a West Eurasian civilization. I would also love to see a study on whether DE originated in Africa or is a back migration.

The second link he provided is to a publication, no? Or am I missing something?

newtoboard
02-05-2014, 08:28 PM
The second link he provided is to a publication, no? Or am I missing something?

I meant the paper on the results beyoku posted about.

ADW_1981
02-05-2014, 08:39 PM
Egypt went through periods of change (ie: Old, Middle kingdom..etc) and migration should be treated as a gradual process, not an instantaneous population replacement, at least not in Egypt's case. I would imagine - and I think DNA and history will back it up that the earlier periods were more "SSA" for lack of a better word. Even by looking at STR results for the mummies, you can see non-African influence. Tut had sizeable scores of NW European and Mediterranean in his results, but he was nonetheless closest to other African populations today. My own father's FGS mtDNA I2 is only 2-steps away from the Greco-Roman period mummy found a few months back. Obviously there is no single modern population which can represent ancient Egypt.

newtoboard
02-05-2014, 08:53 PM
On one hand I don't think Egypt should had a major SSA component at any point. On the other hand it's West Eurasian component is more Levantine and Arabian like than North African like suggesting it is recent.

Brandon S. Pilcher
02-05-2014, 09:51 PM
I do believe the native Egyptians were biologically African people. That may not necessarily mean they were physically identical to any extant sub-Saharan population, but it would mean they were genetically closer to sub-Saharan peoples than to any of the other human meta-populations (e.g. Eurasians). Isn't one of the most basic rifts in human population genetics the African/non-African divide? If so, simply standing on the African side of the split would associate Egyptians with the various sub-Saharan populations before anyone else.

newtoboard
02-05-2014, 11:11 PM
I do believe the native Egyptians were biologically African people. That may not necessarily mean they were physically identical to any extant sub-Saharan population, but it would mean they were genetically closer to sub-Saharan peoples than to any of the other human meta-populations (e.g. Eurasians). Isn't one of the most basic rifts in human population genetics the African/non-African divide? If so, simply standing on the African side of the split would associate Egyptians with the various sub-Saharan populations before anyone else.

There is no way to know that. I wonder how anybody can be so confident? And that is directed at people believing they were West Eurasian or SSA like.

Brandon S. Pilcher
02-06-2014, 12:38 AM
There is no way to know that. I wonder how anybody can be so confident? And that is directed at people believing they were West Eurasian or SSA like.
I actually have done some research on the physical and cultural anthropology of the ancient Egyptians even discounting the STR data, but perhaps discussing that in depth would jeer this thread too far off topic.

newtoboard
02-06-2014, 12:45 AM
I actually have done some research on the physical and cultural anthropology of the ancient Egyptians even discounting the STR data, but perhaps discussing that in depth would jeer this thread too far off topic.

Well we would all love to see this. Perhaps you could open up a thread where you share your research?

AJL
02-06-2014, 12:50 AM
I do believe the native Egyptians were biologically African people. That may not necessarily mean they were physically identical to any extant sub-Saharan population, but it would mean they were genetically closer to sub-Saharan peoples than to any of the other human meta-populations (e.g. Eurasians). Isn't one of the most basic rifts in human population genetics the African/non-African divide? If so, simply standing on the African side of the split would associate Egyptians with the various sub-Saharan populations before anyone else.

If that were true, one would expect neighbouring populations such as Libyans to show up as mainly Subsaharan. This is not the case:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047765

While the issue of what actually is Neanderthal DNA is contentious, this study gives us enough reason to be doubtful as to whether Egyptians were more like today's Subsaharan Africans than like today's Western Eurasians.

newtoboard
02-06-2014, 12:59 AM
If that were true, one would expect neighbouring populations such as Libyans to show up as mainly Subsaharan. This is not the case:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047765

While the issue of what actually is Neanderthal DNA is contentious, this study gives us enough reason to be doubtful as to whether Egyptians were more like today's Subsaharan Africans than like today's Western Eurasians.

Yea it would be really weird to have an SSA like population separating two west Eurasian regions (N.Africa and the Levant).

Brandon S. Pilcher
02-06-2014, 01:24 AM
Well we would all love to see this. Perhaps you could open up a thread where you share your research?
I shall, but it may take a while to compile everything.

I will say though that the Egyptian Nile Valley is cut off from the habitable areas of the Maghreb not only by the Sahara Desert but also the Atlas Mountains. A genetic disconnect between the Nile Valley peoples and those in the Maghreb wouldn't surprise me at all.

newtoboard
02-06-2014, 02:12 AM
I shall, but it may take a while to compile everything.

I will say though that the Egyptian Nile Valley is cut off from the habitable areas of the Maghreb not only by the Sahara Desert but also the Atlas Mountains. A genetic disconnect between the Nile Valley peoples and those in the Maghreb wouldn't surprise me at all.

The Atlas Mountains don't stretch to Libya and the Sahara does not stretch to the Mediterranean coast. Mountains are not perfect genetic barriers anyways. Even the Himalayas/Pamirs aren't much less the Atlas Mountains. You are right that to some degree the Mahgreb is cut off from the Nile Valley. But Lower Egypt is not cut off from West Asia and it is quite possible populations could have traveled along the Mediterranean coastline from the Levant through Sinai and into Lower Egypt. I expect Upper Egypt will have had more SSA influence but was probably still a mixture of West Eurasian and SSA elements like the Horn is today.

Jean M
02-06-2014, 10:53 AM
[Posted edited now that this topic has its own thread.]

North Africa has its own history. It has not been permanently severed from Sub-Saharan Africa for the whole of history and prehistory, but the Sahara was a formidable barrier for a long time. People entered North Africa from the Levant in a number of waves from the Palaeolithic onwards. I outline its history in three online pages:

Mediterraneans before writing: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mediterraneans.shtml

The first Mediterranean people: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/earlymediterraneans.shtml

The Phoenicians: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/phoenicians.shtml

TigerMW
02-06-2014, 12:17 PM
I'm starting this up as this was an off-tangent discussion from another topic that appeared to be getting a lot of interest.

Humanist
02-06-2014, 12:24 PM
I'm starting this up as this was an off-tangent discussion from another topic that appeared to be getting a lot of interest.

Thanks, Mike. I also moved my own posts, along with a few others, to this thread.

Hando
08-11-2014, 05:53 PM
I believe you are referring to the autosomal STR data that was published. I checked the values myself, as well, in 2011. The following is what I posted on ABF:

I did not know ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture. I thought they were largely W Eurasian coming from a mix of western Saharan migrants leaving a dessicating Sahara for the Nile combined with a population from the Nile valley. Perhaps these Nile valley inhabitants could have had Sub Saharan and mixed with a small amount of Mediterranean carried by the incoming desert dwellers. It would be good to know what these two latter populations were DNA wise, just to make sure.

Jean M
08-11-2014, 07:33 PM
I did not know ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture..

One huge problem here is that one paper after another has assumed that modern SSA DNA reflects ancient SSA DNA exactly. The idea that there were migrations into Africa has only fairly recently been considered.* Geneticists keep treating (for example) the Yoruba as a perfect genetic proxy for Anatomically Modern Humans 70,000 years ago in (for example) studies attempting to work out how much Neanderthal DNA we are carrying. The shock is liable to be severe when we finally work out how few modern Africans have actually managed not to get any non-African DNA. We need to be looking at present-day hunter-gatherers only, and even then it's not 100%, as we see from the Pickrell study below.


Jason A. Hodgson et al., Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa, PLoS Genet 10(6): e1004393. June 12, 2014: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004393
African genes tracked back, Nature News, 27 August 2013 : http://www.nature.com/news/african-genes-tracked-back-1.13607, based on Joseph K. Pickrell et al., Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa, http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.8014
Brenna M. Henn et al., Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations, PLoS Genet 8(1): e1002397. January 12, 2012: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002397
Fulvio Cruciani et al., A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes, Am J Hum Genet. May 2002; 70(5): 1197–1214: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447595/

Humanist
08-11-2014, 08:06 PM
I did not know ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture..

Autosomal STR markers are not great substitutes for autosomal SNPs. One review of the ancestry estimates of DNA Tribes will tell you as much.

ADW_1981
08-11-2014, 08:15 PM
I believe the OP's Y data is bogus and I have yet to see it supported anywhere. I believe the old kingdom was more African than the later periods. However, I believe there was a Eurasian back migration which was mostly, if not entirely R1b1 to the southern Levant, and a localized branch became derived for V88 and moved southwards from Libya/Egypt area during the late neolithic or copper age period.

Jean M
08-11-2014, 09:04 PM
I believe the old kingdom was more African than the later periods. However, I believe there was a Eurasian back migration which moved southwards from Libya/Egypt area during the late neolithic or copper age period.

So who brought farming to North Africa from the Levant? If farming arrived with farmers in Europe, why would it float to Africa all by itself? Cattle came to North Africa from the Near East. Wheat came to Africa from the Near East. Afro-Asiatic languages (as far as we can tell) came to Africa from the Levant. The Egyptian Old Kingdom was created by farmers taking to the Nile as the Sahara dried.

Agamemnon
08-11-2014, 09:47 PM
So who brought farming to North Africa from the Levant? If farming arrived with farmers in Europe, why would it float to Africa all by itself? Cattle came to North Africa from the Near East. Wheat came to Africa from the Near East. Afro-Asiatic languages (as far as we can tell) came to Africa from the Levant. The Egyptian Old Kingdom was created by farmers taking to the Nile as the Sahara dried.

We're still not sure about that, for all I can say AA probably arose along the African shores of the Red Sea before expanding with the introduction of pastoralism from the Levant.

Jean M
08-11-2014, 10:07 PM
We're still not sure about that, for all I can say AA probably arose along the African shores of the Red Sea before expanding with the introduction of pastoralism from the Levant.

The problem with that is that is that Proto-AA has farming vocabulary (shared with Semitic and the African branches). It is possible that an ancestor to PAA was spoken in NE Africa and moved into the Levant (with Y-DNA E) as the raised rainfall from melting glaciers greened Sinai and allowed passage. That way AA would develop in the Levant in contact with farming as the latter spread south into the Levant. Then Y-DNA E could return to N Africa with farming and AA. It seems significant that AA is not among the languages of the Caucasus. The latter was most probably peopled by farmers direct from the Neolithic heartland, rather than the Levant.

ADW_1981
08-11-2014, 11:14 PM
So who brought farming to North Africa from the Levant? If farming arrived with farmers in Europe, why would it float to Africa all by itself? .

Perhaps V88 is younger than farming, but nonetheless, it's pretty clear it did not arrive from NW Africa. I'm not suggesting the R1b1 guys necessarily brought farming. I was under the impression the Levant developed farming independently from the Anatolian wave anyhow.

Agamemnon
08-11-2014, 11:17 PM
The problem with that is that is that Proto-AA has farming vocabulary (shared with Semitic and the African branches). It is possible that an ancestor to PAA was spoken in NE Africa and moved into the Levant (with Y-DNA E) as the raised rainfall from melting glaciers greened Sinai and allowed passage. That way AA would develop in the Levant in contact with farming as the latter spread south into the Levant. Then Y-DNA E could return to N Africa with farming and AA. It seems significant that AA is not among the languages of the Caucasus. The latter was most probably peopled by farmers direct from the Neolithic heartland, rather than the Levant.

It's actually even more complicated than that. PAA is at least 12,000 years old, I'm sure you'll agree this makes PIE look like a toddler.
So much of the PAA lexicon we managed to reconstuct reliably denotes pretty basic terms like "death", "birth" or traits such as grammatical gender distinction.
Ehret managed to gather around 1000 roots in "Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic" (1995), and most of the roots have loose semantic meaning (this has to do with Ehret's focus on Proto-Cushitic and his reconstruction of triconsonantal Proto-Semitic roots as originally biconsonantal).
Ehret rejects any kind of pastoralist association with PAA and discards any reconstruction of a pastoralist lexicon for PAA as irrelevant (since he thinks it was spoken 18,000 years ago). He even goes on to claim that pastoralism emerged independently in Africa and uses a very wobbly line of reasoning in order to make this point stand.

Militarev, on the other hand, sees pastoralism and PAA going hand in hand, he thus identifies the Natufian horizon as the PAA urheimat (you can add Diakonov & Václav Blažek to the list).

Personally, I find both views kind of extreme (and don't get me started with the Nostratic theory, some [Russian] linguists have this nasty habit of furthering a Nostratic agenda, and given PAA's insanely old date estimates this is sweet music to their ears). Afroasiatic studies are still in their infancy, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions just yet.
If anything, I think Blench's take on the spread of Berber is pretty convincing, since he associates this with the expansion of pastoralism in the Central Sahara back during the 5th millenium BP.
The problem here is that Berber went through a language levelling process from the 2nd century BCE to the 3rd century CE, which makes it pretty hard to include in a reconstruction of PAA (which is why Ehret excluded Proto-Berber altogether, in turn this seriously undermines the whole reconstruction)... We're basically dealing with mutually intelligible dialects of a single Berber language.
Which is why I'd label Guanche para-Berber as opposed to Berber per se.

I think that a back-migration into Africa is pretty convincing for the Northern branches of AA (Proto-Boreafrasian/Proto-North Afroasiatic; Berber, Semitic and Egyptian).
The same thing might've happened with Cushitic at some point, since MSA clearly has a Cushitic substratum.

All in all this is a big puzzle and we're merely getting started.

I think it's pretty clear that AA retains strong links both to Africa & the Near East, there's no simple solution here. As far as the genetics go, I think E-M35.1 is a very good candidate albeit not the only one. R-V88, T-M70 and J-M267 also happen to be good candidates.
One thing I'm almost sure of, though, is that Afroasiatic's northern branches did spread with the introduction of agro-pastoralism.

I agree, AA's absence in the Caucasus indeed is significant and I do think that Caucasian-like languages were once common in the Northern parts of the Fertile Crescent & Anatolia (this would provide a good explanation for the non-Semitic and non-AA toponyms one can find as far south as the Northern Levant).

Jean M
08-12-2014, 12:28 AM
I was under the impression the Levant developed farming independently from the Anatolian wave anyhow.

Looks like some confusion. The heartland of the western Eurasian Neolithic was the eastern Taurus and western Zagros. That is partly in Anatolia. It spread south into the Levant as a fully formed farming culture. Dairy farming came later, starting in earnest around the Sea of Marmara.

Jean M
08-12-2014, 12:37 AM
It's actually even more complicated than that.

I see we have found your specialist subject. :) It is not mine, but I go along with Militarev, as you can see.

vettor
08-12-2014, 01:39 AM
It's actually even more complicated than that. PAA is at least 12,000 years old, I'm sure you'll agree this makes PIE look like a toddler.
So much of the PAA lexicon we managed to reconstuct reliably denotes pretty basic terms like "death", "birth" or traits such as grammatical gender distinction.
Ehret managed to gather around 1000 roots in "Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic" (1995), and most of the roots have loose semantic meaning (this has to do with Ehret's focus on Proto-Cushitic and his reconstruction of triconsonantal Proto-Semitic roots as originally biconsonantal).
Ehret rejects any kind of pastoralist association with PAA and discards any reconstruction of a pastoralist lexicon for PAA as irrelevant (since he thinks it was spoken 18,000 years ago). He even goes on to claim that pastoralism emerged independently in Africa and uses a very wobbly line of reasoning in order to make this point stand.

Militarev, on the other hand, sees pastoralism and PAA going hand in hand, he thus identifies the Natufian horizon as the PAA urheimat (you can add Diakonov & Václav Blažek to the list).

Personally, I find both views kind of extreme (and don't get me started with the Nostratic theory, some [Russian] linguists have this nasty habit of furthering a Nostratic agenda, and given PAA's insanely old date estimates this is sweet music to their ears). Afroasiatic studies are still in their infancy, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions just yet.
If anything, I think Blench's take on the spread of Berber is pretty convincing, since he associates this with the expansion of pastoralism in the Central Sahara back during the 5th millenium BP.
The problem here is that Berber went through a language levelling process from the 2nd century BCE to the 3rd century CE, which makes it pretty hard to include in a reconstruction of PAA (which is why Ehret excluded Proto-Berber altogether, in turn this seriously undermines the whole reconstruction)... We're basically dealing with mutually intelligible dialects of a single Berber language.
Which is why I'd label Guanche para-Berber as opposed to Berber per se.

I think that a back-migration into Africa is pretty convincing for the Northern branches of AA (Proto-Boreafrasian/Proto-North Afroasiatic; Berber, Semitic and Egyptian).
The same thing might've happened with Cushitic at some point, since MSA clearly has a Cushitic substratum.

All in all this is a big puzzle and we're merely getting started.

I think it's pretty clear that AA retains strong links both to Africa & the Near East, there's no simple solution here. As far as the genetics go, I think E-M35.1 is a very good candidate albeit not the only one. R-V88, T-M70 and J-M267 also happen to be good candidates.
One thing I'm almost sure of, though, is that Afroasiatic's northern branches did spread with the introduction of agro-pastoralism.

I agree, AA's absence in the Caucasus indeed is significant and I do think that Caucasian-like languages were once common in the Northern parts of the Fertile Crescent & Anatolia (this would provide a good explanation for the non-Semitic and non-AA toponyms one can find as far south as the Northern Levant).

looks like conclusion matches Maciano

Correlating the mtDNA haplogroups of the original Y-haplogroup J1 and T1 herders


A recent paper on Madagascar Y-DNA and mtDNA made me realise that Y-haplogroups J1 and T1 probably both spread from the northern Zagros after having become nomadic herders during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Both haplogroups are usually found together in Europe, in the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, the Horn of Africa and Madagascar.

This made me wonder what could have been the original mitochondrial haplogroups linked to the diffusion of J1 (mostly J1-P58) and T. In order to achieve this I had to compare the mtDNA lineages found in places where Y-haplogroups J1 and T were found in relative isolation from other Western Eurasian paternal lineages. The best places for that are the Horn of Africa, where J1 and T are practically the only Middle Eastern lineages present, if we except E1b1b, which seems to have originated in the region and would therefore correspond exclusively to mtDNA L. Sudan and Yemen are also interesting as they have high percentages of J1, but hardly any T. These places might provide an opportunity to distinguish the maternal equivalents of J1 from those of T (as long as J1 and T didn't form a single ethnic group during their southward Neolithic migration).

Middle Eastern mtDNA of Yemeni

Data from Kivisild et al. 2004 (n=115).

K = 10%
M* = 7%
R0/HV = 5%
H = 4%
N1 = 8%
U(xU6) = 8%
J = 6%
X = 2%
M1 = 1%
T = 1%
HV1 = 0%
W = 0%



Middle Eastern mtDNA of Sudanese

Data from Afonso et al. 2004 (n=102). The percentages are approximate as only the pie chart is available. The total of Eurasian lineages is 22.5%, while M1 is at 4.9%

(pre)HV + H = 9%
M1 = 4.9%
J1 + T = 3%
U5 = 3%
K = 2%
M7 = 2%
U6 = 2%
N1 = 1%



Middle Eastern mtDNA of Ethiopians

Data from Kivisild et al. 2004 (n=270).

M1 = 17%
N1 = 4%
T = 3%
J = 2%
HV1 = 2%
U(xU6) = 2%
(pre)HV = 1.4%
H = 1%
K = 1%
W = 1%
X = 1%



Middle Eastern mtDNA of Somalians

Data from Mikkelsen et al. 2012 (n=190).

M1 = 15.3%
N1 = 10.0%
R0 = 5.8%
K1 = 4.7%
U3/U9 = 2.1%
HV = 1.6%



I have excluded U6 and U9, who both seem to be African lineages. M1 is found almost only on the African side of the Red Sea, with only 1 or 2% in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but is otherwise not present in the Fertile Crescent region, and can therefore be excluded.

Based on the above data, it would seem that the maternal equivalent of J1 and T could include haplogroups HV, N1, U3, and K1.

Haplogroup HV reaches its maximum frequency in Mesopotamia and the Zagros, and matches very well the distribution of Y-haplogroup T.

Haplogroup N1 includes three Middle Eastern varieties N1a, N1b and N1c, which are found at equal frequencies (2.5% each) in Saudi Arabia. The studies for Ethiopia and Somalia do not specify the subclades, but apparently only N1a has been found in Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia and Egypt), especially among Semitic speakers. N1a is almost absent from Kurdistan and the Caucasus, meaning that it was probably native to the Arabian peninsula. Interestingly, N1a was also the variety of N1 found in many Neolithic sites in Europe. N1b is a common Jewish lineage and is also found in parts of the Middle East, Caucasus and Europe. It might have originated in the Fertile Crescent. N1b is commonest in the Arabian peninsula, the southern Levant (including Jewish people) and the central Caucasus (southwest Daghestan, Chechenya, Ossetia), where haplogroup J1 and J2 are dominant. N1c is mostly confined to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore haplogroup N1 appears to have originated with Y-haplogroup J or T.

Haplogroup U3 is most common in Jordan, Syria and in the North Caucasus. It could have been a minor lineage of either J1 or T.

Haplogroup K is particularly common in Daghestan, Georgia, Assyria, and the south of the Arabian peninsula. In my opinion, it was one of the original mt-haplogroups of Y-DNA G2a, J1 and R1b.

I would also add mt-haplogroup J, which is very strong in Saudi Arabia (21%) and Mesopotamia and is almost certainly linked to Y-haplogroup J1.

Haplogroup U5 was found only in Sudan, where some ethnic groups like the Hausa possess substantial levels of R1b-V88. U5 is found in all R1b population in Africa and Eurasia and therefore almost certainly came with R1b in Sudan and not with J1 or T.

Conclusion

The original carriers of Y-haplogroup J1 during the Neolithic probably carried mt-haplogroups J, K, T and U3.

The original carriers of Y-haplogroup T1 probably carried mt-haplogroups HV, N1a and U3.

Mt-haplogroups M1, R0 (pre-HV) and U6 were native of the Arabian peninsula (R0) and Northeast Africa (M1 and U6) and were assimilated by J1 migrants since the Neolithic. All three lineages are found in all North Africa and East Africa, from Morocco to Egypt and from Egypt to Kenya. They probably represent the original maternal lineages of Y-haplogroup E1b1b. Many L lineages are also linked to E1b1b, especially L3 (except L3b and L3e) and L5.

Mt-haplogroups N1 probbaly originated with Y-haplogroup J1 and/or T, although E1b1b cannot be ruled out.

Hando
08-12-2014, 04:57 AM
Autosomal STR markers are not great substitutes for autosomal SNPs. One review of the ancestry estimates of DNA Tribes will tell you as much.
I'm sorry but could you elaborate please? I'm not sure whether you are supporting or opposing the claim that ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture.

AJL
08-12-2014, 03:54 PM
I'm sorry but could you elaborate please? I'm not sure whether you are supporting or opposing the claim that ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture.

atSTRs were designed by the FBI to tell individuals apart, not to tell ethnicities apart. Unfortunately in the US, African Americans are disproportionally arrested and their DNA typed, so the atSTR database is skewed such that matching African Americans does not mean one necessarily has recent African ancestry.

Too, a dozen or two atSTRs is never going to achieve the levels of confidence of using half a million or more SNPs, especially when tens of thousands of the SNP variants have fairly discerning powers of ethnic identification.

Humanist
08-12-2014, 03:58 PM
I'm sorry but could you elaborate please? I'm not sure whether you are supporting or opposing the claim that ancient Egyptians were mostly Sub Saharan African with some Mediterranean admixture.

I am neither supporting nor opposing. I am stating what the autosomal STR data revealed.

parasar
08-12-2014, 04:45 PM
One huge problem here is that one paper after another has assumed that modern SSA DNA reflects ancient SSA DNA exactly. The idea that there were migrations into Africa has only fairly recently been considered.* Geneticists keep treating (for example) the Yoruba as a perfect genetic proxy for Anatomically Modern Humans 70,000 years ago in (for example) studies attempting to work out how much Neanderthal DNA we are carrying. The shock is liable to be severe when we finally work out how few modern Africans have actually managed not to get any non-African DNA. We need to be looking at present-day hunter-gatherers only, and even then it's not 100%, as we see from the Pickrell study below.


Jason A. Hodgson et al., Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa, PLoS Genet 10(6): e1004393. June 12, 2014: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004393
African genes tracked back, Nature News, 27 August 2013 : http://www.nature.com/news/african-genes-tracked-back-1.13607, based on Joseph K. Pickrell et al., Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa, http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.8014
Brenna M. Henn et al., Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations, PLoS Genet 8(1): e1002397. January 12, 2012: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002397
Fulvio Cruciani et al., A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes, Am J Hum Genet. May 2002; 70(5): 1197–1214: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447595/


I would also add the paper on the Chinese neolithic ancestors paper that laid out a case for Y-E back migration to Africa. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3897



1) haplogroups D and CF migrated out of Africa separately; 2) the single common ancestor of CF and DE migrated out of Africa followed by a back-migration of E to Africa. From this study, the short interval between CF/DE and C/F divergences weakens the possibility of multiple independent migrations (CF, D, and DE*) out of Africa, and thus supports the latter hypothesis

Nevetheless, this back migration is old enough by any measure for the ancient Egyptians mentioned (assuming the data is correct) in the first post in this thread to be considered almost exclusively African based on their Y and mtDNA.

Stellaritic
08-12-2014, 05:38 PM
I agree, AA's absence in the Caucasus indeed is significant and I do think that Caucasian-like languages were once common in the Northern parts of the Fertile Crescent & Anatolia (this would provide a good explanation for the non-Semitic and non-AA toponyms one can find as far south as the Northern Levant).

I don't think the Levant was once inhabited by caucasian-like-languages speakers, the fact that Sumerian and Elamite were both isolated languages means that numerous languages died out.
Early agriculturists may have spoken a few isolated languages due to their hunter-gatherer ancestry .

vettor
08-12-2014, 06:39 PM
I don't think the Levant was once inhabited by caucasian-like-languages speakers, the fact that Sumerian and Elamite were both isolated languages means that numerous languages died out.
Early agriculturists may have spoken a few isolated languages due to their hunter-gatherer ancestry .

they must have been, as the Uruk period went from babylon/sumerians to south caucasus and also to the levant (northern).

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html

people share languages in the ancient times as the vocabulary of each language was tiny, once a mix happens that extended vocabulary is shared within the kingdom.

With sumerians being ancient Babylonians, and the elamites being original persians ( as Susa was the old persian capital, it was in elamite lands) , I cannot see why these neighbours did not share everything. I cannot recall one wiping out the other.

Mehrdad
08-12-2014, 08:15 PM
Makes me wonder the extent to which each of the different periods from Ptolemy's reign to the Arab invasion would have had on the genetic makeup of Egypt.

ADW_1981
08-12-2014, 08:30 PM
I don't think the Levant was once inhabited by caucasian-like-languages speakers, the fact that Sumerian and Elamite were both isolated languages means that numerous languages died out.
Early agriculturists may have spoken a few isolated languages due to their hunter-gatherer ancestry .

I don't agree with your last conclusion. Why would having hunter-gatherer ancestry have anything to do with it? Everyone on planet earth was a hunter gatherer at some point. I think there is substantial evidence that early agriculturalists spoke isolate languages. ie: Minoan, Hattic, Sumerian, Elamite..etc

ZephyrousMandaru
08-12-2014, 09:13 PM
I doubt farming first started in Anatolia, the first proto-farming community started in the Levant with the Natufians around 12,000 years ago. These practices later transitioned into full scale agriculture, this is around the time where we see farming becoming more widespread as the primary source of sustenance in the Middle East.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-12-2014, 09:24 PM
I don't think the Levant was once inhabited by caucasian-like-languages speakers, the fact that Sumerian and Elamite were both isolated languages means that numerous languages died out.
Early agriculturists may have spoken a few isolated languages due to their hunter-gatherer ancestry .

The earliest agriculturalists didn't have hunter-gatherer ancestry, and neither do modern Middle Easterners. If hunter-gatherer ancestry in this context, is the one we see in David's latest K=6 run. That WHG ancestry is not the same as the one in the Lazaridis et al. paper, it is a broader West Eurasian cluster. There is not West European hunter-gatherer ancestry in modern Middle Easterners.

Jean M
08-12-2014, 09:50 PM
I doubt farming first started in Anatolia, the first proto-farming community started in the Levant with the Natufians around 12,000 years ago.

This was a popular idea a few years ago, but has now been disproved. See Zeder, Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact, PNAS, vol. 105, no. 33, pp. 11597–11604 (August 19, 2008). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/11/0801317105.abstract

Click to enlarge: 2373

Jean M
08-12-2014, 09:53 PM
The earliest agriculturalists didn't have hunter-gatherer ancestry, and neither do modern Middle Easterners..

Of course they did. Everyone in the world has hunter-gatherer ancestry. Our ancestors spent millennia hunting and foraging before farming was thought of. I suspect what you mean is that the first farmers in the Near East did not have Western European HG ancestry. No they didn't. Near Eastern hunters developed agriculture.

Agamemnon
08-12-2014, 10:31 PM
I don't think the Levant was once inhabited by caucasian-like-languages speakers, the fact that Sumerian and Elamite were both isolated languages means that numerous languages died out.
Early agriculturists may have spoken a few isolated languages due to their hunter-gatherer ancestry .

We know for a fact that the Hurrians spread to the Levant during the Bronze Age (take Abdi-Hepa for instance, a Hurrian king of Jerusalem).
Most of the region's language isolates have ergative-absolutive morphology, a feature quite prominent in modern Caucasian languages.
Considering the fact that a very good case can be made for the affiliation of NW Caucasian to Hattic-Kaskian and NE Caucasian to Hurro-Urartian, I think it is anything but outlandish to picture some sort of Caucasian-like (para-Caucasian?) language family being spoken in the Northern Levant prior to the spread of Semitic.
In fact, Proto-Semitic itself had weak ergative features and this might point towards a substratum where ergative morphology prevailed.

I agree that many languages died out and that we'll never be fully able to obtain a precise picture of the region's linguistic history. We're already having problems with our current knowledge of language isolates such as Kassite, and we're still faced with the possibility that some early Semitic languages (or branches) died out without leaving any substantial records.

As Jean said, agriculturalists themselves once were hunter-gatherers, so I'd be pretty astounded to learn that "hunter-gatherer languages" managed to survive since the Neolithic revolution contains all the hallmarks of language shift. That any language would survive this "Neolithic onslaught" is simply miraculous.
IMO pre-neolithic languages were quickly overwhelmed and they might only remain in highly diluted substratal forms.

In a sense you could say that all languages go back to the Mesolithic to some extent, I mean PAA itself is likely to have been spoken back during the Mesolithic (as I said earlier, I think PAA is 12,000 years old at the very least)... It's just harder to assess the amount of [linguistic] material inherited from such a remote time span (at least for language families such as IE).

While I would advise caution, it does seem likely that North Caucasian languages have an awful lot to do with languages spoken in the Near East & Aegean prior to the arrival of IE and AA languages, Tyrsenian exhibits interesting traits providing a link to NE Caucasian languages on the one hand while it might've been related to Eteocretan on the other hand (thus providing another potential link to the Caucasus).

Of course, this isn't a black & white issue. But that's just my take, I might be wrong, I might be right: Time & more research will tell.
Just my 2 cents.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-12-2014, 10:36 PM
This was a popular idea a few years ago, but has now been disproved. See Zeder, Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact, PNAS, vol. 105, no. 33, pp. 11597–11604 (August 19, 2008). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/11/0801317105.abstract

Click to enlarge: 2373

That idea may be reemerging again, especially in light of the Lazaridis et al. paper's implications on the Basal Eurasian ancestry of the early farmers, and it's SSA directionality. Given that Brace and other anthropologists described them morphologically as having Sub-Saharan African affinities, the idea that the Natufians may have possessed this Basal Eurasian component in exorbitant amounts is not unreasonable at all, as they even clustered with modern African populations. However, they also concluded that the Natufians and modern Middle Easterners were genetically discontinuous, and this view has also been challenged by Lazaridis and his team. If the Natufians were in fact rich in this Basal Eurasian component, and I suspect that they were. Then this would at the very least, cast doubt on Anatolia being the place where farming first started.

Another problem with this scenario is that if the early agriculturalists did expand from Anatolia, why isn't the Caucasus component as prevalent as the other main farmer related component Mediterranean? The reason for this is, is that Caucasus is a relatively new component, that probably only exists as a result of the ANE population interbreeding with a Mediterranean-like or Southwest Asian-like population. ANE arrived in the Caucasus less than 5,000 years ago, so if ANE's presence is less than 5,000 years old in the Caucasus, that would subsequently make Caucasus less than 5,000 years old.

So that only leaves Mediterranean. Mediterranean's ubiquity throughout the Middle East and Europe, and it's complete absence in Sardinians, makes it a likely candidate as the primary marker of the earliest agriculturalists. I think that second and third wave migrations by farmers did expand from Anatolia, but I don't think the first wave was. I think the first wave of farmers were probably 100% Mediterranean.

Jean M
08-12-2014, 10:57 PM
If the Natufians were in fact rich in this Basal Eurasian component, and I suspect that they were.

Me too. That would fit my idea that people bearing Y-DNA E had entered the Levant from North Africa. Moving northwards in the Levant they eventually encountered farmers coming south from the hilly flanks of the Zagros and Taurus. There is no doubt whatsoever that the people of the Levant became farmers. They just didn't invent the idea.


Then this would at the very least, cast doubt on Anatolia being the place where farming first started.

No it would not. It is archaeology that tells us where farming first started. We have in-the-ground evidence that is not going away. And let's get this straight. The heartland stretched between eastern Anatolia and western Iran. It was not just Anatolia. See the map.

It then spread into the Levant and from there on an island-hopping route via Cyprus and Crete to mainland Greece. There were other routes along both the north and south coasts of the Mediterranean (in which Y-DNA E was pretty clearly involved). There were yet other routes that by-passed the Levant and went direct from Iran to the Caucasus (Y-DNA J and G) and India (Y-DNA J).


if the early agriculturalists did expand from Anatolia, why isn't the Caucasus component as prevalent as the other main farmer related component Mediterranean?

Let's try to separate out the two stages here:

1. The initial development of farming. This did not take place in the Levant.
2. The spread of farming. This did involve the Levant in a big way.

Stellaritic
08-12-2014, 11:41 PM
The earliest agriculturalists didn't have hunter-gatherer ancestry, and neither do modern Middle Easterners. If hunter-gatherer ancestry in this context, is the one we see in David's latest K=6 run. That WHG ancestry is not the same as the one in the Lazaridis et al. paper, it is a broader West Eurasian cluster. There is not West European hunter-gatherer ancestry in modern Middle Easterners.

By hunter gatherer I meant local hunter-gatherers like the Natufians(semi-hunter-gatherers) .

Agriculture is a technology that spread through local Levantine hunter-gatherers who gradually became semi-hunter-gatherers and eventually sedentary.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-12-2014, 11:41 PM
Me too. That would fit my idea that people bearing Y-DNA E had entered the Levant from North Africa. Moving northwards in the Levant they eventually encountered farmers coming south from the hilly flanks of the Zagros and Taurus. There is no doubt whatsoever that the people of the Levant became farmers. They just didn't invent the idea.

No it would not. It is archaeology that tells us where farming first started. We have in-the-ground evidence that is not going away. And let's get this straight. The heartland stretched between eastern Anatolia and western Iran. It was not just Anatolia. See the map.

It then spread into the Levant and from there on an island-hopping route via Cyprus and Crete to mainland Greece. There were other routes along both the north and south coasts of the Mediterranean (in which Y-DNA E was pretty clearly involved). There were yet other routes that by-passed the Levant and went direct from Iran to the Caucasus (Y-DNA J and G) and India (Y-DNA J).

Why do you think that the people of Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran did? Is it because the dates at which they domesticated farm animals are older than some settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean? According to the map, the dates for farming in Cyprus seem to be concordant with settlements in Iran and Anatolia overall. All it suggests, is that there were other farming communities outside of the Eastern Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent, it doesn't conclusively prove that farming first developed in Eastern Anatolia or Western Iran.


Let's try to separate out the two stages here:

1. The initial development of farming. This did not take place in the Levant.
2. The spread of farming. This did involve the Levant in a big way.

That still doesn't answer my question. If farming was first developed and diffused from Anatolia and Iran, where the Caucasus component would have probably been bimodal in at the time. Why do modern Europeans have such low frequencies of Caucasus compared to Mediterranean? A component that probably branched off from Basal Eurasian along with Southwest Asian? Why is Mediterranean more pervasive in Europeans today than Caucasus is?

Why do Sardinians, who are the descendants of the earliest farmers to arrive to Europe from Middle East lacking in this component?

ZephyrousMandaru
08-12-2014, 11:42 PM
By hunter gatherer I meant local hunter-gatherers like the Natufians(semi-hunter-gatherers) .

Agriculture is a technology that spread through local Levantine hunter-gatherers who gradually became semi-hunter-gatherers and eventually sedentary.

Yeah I understand what you meant, I just wanted to clarify that this is what you referring to. And not the WHG component from the Lazaridis et al. 2014 paper.

Stellaritic
08-12-2014, 11:51 PM
I don't agree with your last conclusion. Why would having hunter-gatherer ancestry have anything to do with it? Everyone on planet earth was a hunter gatherer at some point. I think there is substantial evidence that early agriculturalists spoke isolate languages. ie: Minoan, Hattic, Sumerian, Elamite..etc

Hunter-gatherers lived in small groups and were isolated from each other due to competition for resources. Entire sister languages were wiped out due to human(wars/competition for resources) and environmental factors(diseases) .

parasar
08-13-2014, 01:14 AM
That idea may be reemerging again, especially in light of the Lazaridis et al. paper's implications on the Basal Eurasian ancestry of the early farmers, and it's SSA directionality.

There is nothing clear about Basal Eurasian. It is just a construct, and even as a construct a complete misnomer as there is nothing much pan Eurasian about it. I think it is an early (>40000ybp) input to Africa from Europe or West Asia.

12/23, 2013:

The idea of basal Eurasian is nonetheless attractive, so we pursued it further ...

speculatively, some basal Eurasian admixture in the Near East may
reflect the early presence of anatomically modern humans7 in the Levant, or the populations
responsible for the appearance of the Nubian Complex in Arabia8, both of which date much earlier
than the widespread dissemination of modern humans across Eurasia. Finally, it could reflect
continuing more recent gene flows between the Near East and nearby Africa after the initial out-of-
Africa dispersal, perhaps associated with the spread of Y-chromosome haplogroup E subclades from
eastern Africa9, 10 into the Near East, which appeared at least 7,000 years ago into Neolithic Europe11

One consequence of our modeling is to show that a range of puzzling
observations can be reconciled with the evidence if one postulates at least one “ghost” population
(“Basal Eurasians”) contributing to present-day West Eurasian populations


4/5, 2014:


The split of basal Eurasians from other Eurasians (node non_African) must then be older than 40 thousand years ago.
There is uncertainty about the human autosomal mutation rate with implications about the
African/non-African divergence17,18; the resolution of this question may provide an upper bound for
the split of basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.
As suggested previously for Basal Eurasians, we caution against a too literal reading of terminology,
as the spatial and temporal distribution of the populations associated with the nodes of the model are
still incompletely known.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 02:44 AM
There is nothing clear about Basal Eurasian. It is just a construct, and even as a construct a complete misnomer as there is nothing much pan Eurasian about it. I think it is an early (>40000ybp) input to Africa from Europe or West Asia.

12/23, 2013:


4/5, 2014:

I actually don't think it's a pan Eurasian cluster. I'd even dispute its status as a West Eurasian cluster, especially considering how it splits away from the West Eurasian clade itself in the Lazaridis et al. chart. But from all the scientific publications released and experiments conducted thus far. I can be certain of this, that this Basal Eurasian component, whatever it is has an inclination towards African populations. I don't know if I'd consider a possible back migration population from around 40,000 years ago to be gene flow contributed by a "Eurasian" population, at that point in time it would have only been 20,000 to 30,000 years after the Out-of-Africa exodus.

If it did happen, the Eurasian population was probably still very African-like. It could be that Basal Eurasian is a transitive Eurasian-African clade, that is say it may not be African or Eurasian, but a transitionary component from Eurasians to Africans that failed to become differentiated for whatever reason. So there could have initially been multiple Basal Eurasian or Basal Eurasian-like components that diversified over time and went into their own directions like WHG and ANE did, which would give rise to some modern day components.

Whereas Basal Eurasian remained relatively unchanged, which could explain its Africanity.

Jean M
08-13-2014, 11:31 AM
Why do you think that the people of Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran did?

It is not me personally who has come to this conclusion. :biggrin1: It is specialists on the Neolithic. There are enough recent reviews of the Near Eastern Neolithic around that it should be quite easy for you to lay hands on one other than Ancestral Journeys chapter 5. But here are excerpts of same:


By the mid 1990s a consensus had formed that animal domestication began around 10,000 years ago. Then scientists gained new tools: genetic analysis and improved radiocarbon dating. Fascinating new findings have pushed that date back to 11,000 years ago. The native sheep and goats of the Taurus and Zagros Mountains were the earliest domesticates, with pigs and cattle following.

While in the 1990s the southern Levant was seen as the core area of crop and animal domestication, new techniques have shifted the spotlight northwards. Studies of animal bones show that domestication in the hills around the heads of the Tigris and Euphrates was earlier than in the Levant. The first crop cultivation also flourished on higher ground, where fields could be rain-fed, rather than needing irrigation.[Zeder 2008 and 2011; Conolly 2011.]

The first farmers were cautious. They did not abandon hunting immediately that the idea occurred of rearing animals for meat. At first domesticated animals contributed only a small proportion of the total meat in their diet. By 6500 BC that had risen to 40-45% within the heartland of the Neolithic. It was that increasingly confident new way of life that was exported south into the Levant [Conolly 2011]. Wild einkorn wheat is found today all over the Taurus and Zagros mountain region, but the domesticated forms are genetically linked to the wild variety of southeastern Turkey. It is in this region too that emmer wheat was probably domesticated.[Weiss and Zohary 2011.]


Foragers made use of the stands of wild wheat, barley and rye that had sprung up along the edge of the upland zone roamed by wild sheep and goats. Peas and lentils are native to the same region. The earliest tentative experiments in plant management can be discerned 12,000 years ago, though crop domestication was not well established until 8,000 BC, when the climate was improving. The first clear evidence of domesticated wheat comes from Cafer Höyük and Cayönü, in the hills near the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates. Meanwhile both sheep and goats were domesticated in the mountain and piedmont band stretching from the northern Zagros to southeastern Anatolia. These closely related species are suited to hill country. [Zeder 2008; Savard, Nesbitt, and Jones 2006; Weiss and Zohary 2011.]

In the Zagros mountains people had begun deserting their cave dwellings to create villages while still hunter-gatherers. Some of those villages, such as Zawi Chemi Shanidar, in what is now northern Iraq, bridge the change from foraging to farming.[Solecki, Solecki, and Agelarakis 2004.] In western Iran the pre-pottery Neolithic site at Sheikh-e-Abad in Kermanshah Province includes the remains of a house, and a ritual space decorated with horns of sheep and goats. It was founded by farmers c. 9810 BC, making it one of the earliest Neolithic villages in southwest Asia.[Matthews 2010.]

Farming reached Cyprus by about 9000 BC. This is a case study in colonization. Though hunter-gatherers might make occasional visits to the islands of the Mediterranean, they did not take to permanent island life. These islands were settled by farmers. They had to bring stock and seed with them; the islands were not home to wild goats, sheep, pigs or cattle.


As you can see from the number of references to it, this is a key paper: Conolly, J. et al. 2011. Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry, Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (3), 485-754. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440310003638 . It is a massive study of over 400,000 animal bones recovered from 114 archaeological sites from SW Asia and SE Europe. It shows very clearly where domestication began and its (comparatively) late adoption in the Levant.

parasar
08-13-2014, 02:43 PM
Re: the Levant vs. Anatolia issue

The only Y group now clearly implicated with European neolithic is G2.
R1b, J, are not to be found in the mix.

So is G2's expansion from the Levant or Anatolia or somewhere else (Europe and the Indus Valley come to mind)?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kH2SpcVbwq0/T7PeEiRWrgI/AAAAAAAAE2k/sDqgLRSLqRM/s1600/haplogroupG.png
Rootsi et. al. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n12/full/ejhg201286a.html


Haplogroup G, together with J2 clades, has been associated with the spread of agriculture, especially in the European context ...

the homeland of this haplogroup has been estimated to be somewhere nearby eastern Anatolia, Armenia or western Iran, the only areas characterized by the co-presence of deep basal branches as well as the occurrence of high sub-haplogroup diversity ...

Although the present-day frequency of G1 is low across its spread zone, the expansion time estimate (Supplementary Table S4) of 19 271±6158 years attests to considerable antiquity.
In contrast to G1, the absolute majority of hg G samples belonged to G2-P287-related sub-clades, with the vast majority of them being associated with G2a-P15-related lineages. Using Y-STR data, the Td expansion time for all combined P15-affiliated chromosomes was estimated to be 15 082±2217 years ago....

Unresolved G2a-P15* lineages occur across a wide area extending from the Near/Middle East to the Balkans and Western Europe in the west, the Caucasus (especially the South Caucasus) in the north and Pakistan in the east.


So as far as evidence from Rootsi goes, eastern Anatolia has more support.

Hando
08-13-2014, 04:27 PM
However, they also concluded that the Natufians and modern Middle Easterners were genetically discontinuous, and this view has also been challenged by Lazaridis and his team.
Are modern middle Easterners such as Jews and Arabs genetically descended from the Natufians? Is this the consensus?

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 04:31 PM
Are modern middle Easterners such as Jews and Arabs genetically descended from the Natufians? Is this the consensus?

If the Natufians are responsible for the diffusion of this Basal Eurasian component, then every population in the Middle East is descended from them. Any population that has farmer related ancestry is descended from.

Hando
08-13-2014, 06:11 PM
If the Natufians are responsible for the diffusion of this Basal Eurasian component, then every population in the Middle East is descended from them. Any population that has farmer related ancestry is descended from.

So all modern Europeans with EEF are also descended from the Natufians? If so, since many modern Europeans have 40% plus EEF, this would mean that they carry a substantial amount of Natufian DNA.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 06:30 PM
So all modern Europeans with EEF are also descended from the Natufians? If so, since many modern Europeans have 40% plus EEF, this would mean that they carry a substantial amount of Natufian DNA.

Assuming that the Natufians carried this Basal Eurasian component, and are responsible for its geographical distribution then yes. But this is all speculation, since we haven't tested any Natufians.

Hando
08-13-2014, 07:07 PM
I actually don't think it's a pan Eurasian cluster. I'd even dispute its status as a West Eurasian cluster, especially considering how it splits away from the West Eurasian clade itself in the Lazaridis et al. chart. But from all the scientific publications released and experiments conducted thus far. I can be certain of this, that this Basal Eurasian component, whatever it is has an inclination towards African populations. I don't know if I'd consider a possible back migration population from around 40,000 years ago to be gene flow contributed by a "Eurasian" population, at that point in time it would have only been 20,000 to 30,000 years after the Out-of-Africa exodus.

If it did happen, the Eurasian population was probably still very African-like. It could be that Basal Eurasian is a transitive Eurasian-African clade, that is say it may not be African or Eurasian, but a transitionary component from Eurasians to Africans that failed to become differentiated for whatever reason. So there could have initially been multiple Basal Eurasian or Basal Eurasian-like components that diversified over time and went into their own directions like WHG and ANE did, which would give rise to some modern day components.

Whereas Basal Eurasian remained relatively unchanged, which could explain its Africanity.

So let me get this straight. Basal Eurasian is an "Africanlike" clade or cluster that formed in the Levant and then moved into Africa 40,000 years ago, or it formed in Africa itself 40,000 years ago and then moved into the Levant where it possibly gave rise to the Natufians about 30,000 years later? I realise modern humans formed in Africa and then moved out to the Levant earlier, but I'm confused as to where Basal Eurasian itself formed. And I don't know what Basal Eurasian actually stands for either.

ADW_1981
08-13-2014, 07:43 PM
Re: the Levant vs. Anatolia issue

The only Y group now clearly implicated with European neolithic is G2.
R1b, J, are not to be found in the mix.

So is G2's expansion from the Levant or Anatolia or somewhere else (Europe and the Indus Valley come to mind)?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kH2SpcVbwq0/T7PeEiRWrgI/AAAAAAAAE2k/sDqgLRSLqRM/s1600/haplogroupG.png
Rootsi et. al. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n12/full/ejhg201286a.html


So as far as evidence from Rootsi goes, eastern Anatolia has more support.

If all of it goes back to eastern Anatolia, J cannot be thrown out of the mix. For instance, we know Sumerians were agriculturalists and had technologies such as writing and organized cities which Europe did not have until much later in history. Other than farming, we can say some later agriculturalists were much more advanced due to these technologies. It's plausible that other YDNA haplogroups were also agriculturalists, but had advanced technologies such as metals, writing, and city building that the agriculturalists in LBK (G2a3b1a2/F*) for instance did not have. I may be speaking in circles, but it's erroneous to associate farming as a single package represented by a single haplogroup when many culture spread with farming and later technologies.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 08:08 PM
So let me get this straight. Basal Eurasian is an "Africanlike" clade or cluster that formed in the Levant and then moved into Africa 40,000 years ago, or it formed in Africa itself 40,000 years ago and then moved into the Levant where it possibly gave rise to the Natufians about 30,000 years later? I realise modern humans formed in Africa and then moved out to the Levant earlier, but I'm confused as to where Basal Eurasian itself formed. And I don't know what Basal Eurasian actually stands for either.

I think that Basal Eurasian is either an East African component, aboriginal Arabian component or an undifferentiated Eurasian-African clade that arose either in Northeastern Africa or the Red Sea region in the Levant. Given it's widespread presence across the Middle East, Europe and parts of South-Central Asia. I would say that it arrived in the Middle East very early on, probably around 40,000-50,000 years ago, which would be concurrent with the timeline in which our species left Africa.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 08:12 PM
If all of it goes back to eastern Anatolia, J cannot be thrown out of the mix. For instance, we know Sumerians were agriculturalists and had technologies such as writing and organized cities which Europe did not have until much later in history. Other than farming, we can say some later agriculturalists were much more advanced due to these technologies. It's plausible that other YDNA haplogroups were also agriculturalists, but had advanced technologies such as metals, writing, and city building that the agriculturalists in LBK (G2a3b1a2/F*) for instance did not have. I may be speaking in circles, but it's erroneous to associate farming as a single package represented by a single haplogroup when many culture spread with farming and later technologies.

I agree, this is why I think farmers migrated to Europe in multiple waves, with the very early farmers being predominantly Mediterranean. I associate haplogroups G, J, E, T and perhaps even R1b as farmer lineages.

Ebizur
08-13-2014, 08:23 PM
I think that Basal Eurasian is either an East African component, aboriginal Arabian component or an undifferentiated Eurasian-African clade that arose either in Northeastern Africa or the Red Sea region in the Levant. Given it's widespread presence across the Middle East, Europe and parts of South-Central Asia. I would say that it arrived in the Middle East very early on, probably around 40,000-50,000 years ago, which would be concurrent with the timeline in which our species left Africa.From what I have gathered, "Basal Eurasian" appears to be the component that has contributed to the gene pool of modern Caucasoids/"Western Eurasians" (but including North Africans, etc.) that is least differentiated genetically not only from Sub-Saharan Africans, but also from Eastern Eurasians. It is simply the "least distinctively Caucasoid" component of modern Caucasoids, and not really "African" in any sense.

ZephyrousMandaru
08-13-2014, 08:56 PM
From what I have gathered, "Basal Eurasian" appears to be the component that has contributed to the gene pool of modern Caucasoids/"Western Eurasians" (but including North Africans, etc.) that is least differentiated genetically not only from Sub-Saharan Africans, but also from Eastern Eurasians. It is simply the "least distinctively Caucasoid" component of modern Caucasoids, and not really "African" in any sense.

Yes it has. But I would caution against referring to it as a West Eurasian component, especially considering it belongs to its own branch that's distinct from the main West Eurasian clades.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png

http://i.imgur.com/NMq5gcp.png

If it really is a West Eurasian or "Caucasoid" component. We would expect it to cluster along with WHG and ANE, which it isn't doing. Whether it's African or not has yet to be confirmed or falsified. But given that it belongs to its own clade, and groups who are heavily Basal Eurasian admixed are comparatively genetically closer to Africans, I doubt that we can confidently claim that it isn't really "African".

Jean M
08-13-2014, 09:12 PM
So let me get this straight. Basal Eurasian is an "Africanlike" ....


It is simply the "least distinctively Caucasoid" component of modern Caucasoids,

If you go back to Lazarides 2013/4, you will see that there is no mention of Basal Eurasian being genetically 'Africanlike' or 'least distinctively Caucasoid'. It is described as a "lineage that split prior to the diversification of all other non-African lineages" i.e. "prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE."


...The WHG must then have split from eastern non-Africans >40,000 years ago, as this is the age of the Chinese Tianyuan sample which clusters with eastern non-Africans to the exclusion of Europeans. The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia. Alternatively, evidence for gene flow between the Near East and Africa32, and African morphology in pre-farming Natufians from Israel, may also be consistent with the population representing a later movement of humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

What the authors are struggling for is an explanation of how there could be a genetic component in the Near East that did not make its way to Europe in the Palaeolithic. The answer could be a lot simpler than they are visualising. The groups which entered Europe in the Palaeolithic would represent a selection or sub-set of the genetic variation in the Near East at the time. Then genetic drift (and bottleneck in the LGM) would pull the populations further apart. We may not need to invoke entrants into the Near East from North Africa, though I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were some. Bear in mind that North Africa was also populated from the Near East in the Palaeolithic. That's why it has mtDNA U6. But again there would be some genetic drift.

The Natufian was not the only culture of the Near Eastern Neolithic. It is not the source of every farming population of western Eurasian and North Africa. We should not get too carried away by an interesting idea. ;)

ADW_1981
08-13-2014, 11:22 PM
I wonder if Basal Eurasian best represents the cro-magnons since it seems to have been absorbed by the EEF portion of the farmers who entered Europe from the east Mediterranean region.

parasar
08-14-2014, 02:42 AM
Yes it has. But I would caution against referring to it as a West Eurasian component, especially considering it belongs to its own branch that's distinct from the main West Eurasian clades ...

If it really is a West Eurasian or "Caucasoid" component. We would expect it to cluster along with WHG and ANE, which it isn't doing. Whether it's African or not has yet to be confirmed or falsified. But given that it belongs to its own clade, and groups who are heavily Basal Eurasian admixed are comparatively genetically closer to Africans, I doubt that we can confidently claim that it isn't really "African".

The thing is that that main branch is not West Eurasian at the branching point, so entitling 'Basal Eurasian' Basal West Eurasian should be close enough.

rokousa
08-14-2014, 07:06 AM
helloooou.....
what about aboriginal (dead) Egyptians?
Significant differences were found between Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations (Chen 1995; Krings 1999), but since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the the Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt. (Graver 2001)

parasar
08-14-2014, 12:29 PM
helloooou.....
what about aboriginal (dead) Egyptians?...

With so much Y-E Basal West Eurasian I suppose.

Stellaritic
08-14-2014, 02:40 PM
I wonder if Basal Eurasian best represents the cro-magnons since it seems to have been absorbed by the EEF portion of the farmers who entered Europe from the east Mediterranean region.

Cro-magnons/West European Hunter-gatherers(WHG) had a genetic component of their own.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png

parasar
08-14-2014, 03:36 PM
Cro-magnons/West European Hunter-gatherers(WHG) had a genetic component of their own.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png

There is a big gap in the archaeological record of West Asia and Europe for modern humans.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm

There's a large gap in the record for Asia and Europe, between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, a period in which the Middle East seems to have been occupied by Neanderthals; but around 50,000 years ago, the EMH appear again and flow back into Europe.

This is problematic, because there's very little data for these periods of time.


Basal West Eurasians were very likely a Mediterranean or Eastern African population with whom East Asians mixed to form what we have today in West Asia and Europe.
The above figure clearly shows an early split (100000ybp) after "non-African" and then a recombination of essentially these two early separating lines (albeit through intermediate stages and perhaps multiple prongs) forming modern Europeans.

Pretty much the same was postulated way-way back by Cavalli-Sforza using just a minimal set of informative markers.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7719.full.pdf

What we know of the occupation of different continents (1) shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years ago, although perhaps not permanently...

from East Asia both Europe and America were settled...

both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago ...

In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times.

Hando
08-25-2014, 02:15 AM
If you go back to Lazarides 2013/4, you will see that there is no mention of Basal Eurasian being genetically 'Africanlike' or 'least distinctively Caucasoid'. It is described as a "lineage that split prior to the diversification of all other non-African lineages" i.e. "prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE."



What the authors are struggling for is an explanation of how there could be a genetic component in the Near East that did not make its way to Europe in the Palaeolithic. The answer could be a lot simpler than they are visualising. The groups which entered Europe in the Palaeolithic would represent a selection or sub-set of the genetic variation in the Near East at the time. Then genetic drift (and bottleneck in the LGM) would pull the populations further apart. We may not need to invoke entrants into the Near East from North Africa, though I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were some. Bear in mind that North Africa was also populated from the Near East in the Palaeolithic. That's why it has mtDNA U6. But again there would be some genetic drift.

The Natufian was not the only culture of the Near Eastern Neolithic. It is not the source of every farming population of western Eurasian and North Africa. We should not get too carried away by an interesting idea. ;)
Do we know whether the basal Eurasians had physical appearances/attributes that looked like the ancient Egyptians and Natufians? Or did too much time pass between the arrival of basal Eurasians in NE and the advent of the Natufians and ancient Egyptians for this to be the case? Perhaps there aren't enough remains of these three populations from which we can arrive at such a conclusion...

nee4speed111
07-31-2016, 02:34 PM
Interesting conversation, how has this changed in light of the new information we have received over the past 2 years? Also were those Y-DNA and Mt-Dna results for the Old and Middle kingdom ever published?

Jean M
07-31-2016, 03:52 PM
Interesting conversation, how has this changed in light of the new information we have received over the past 2 years? Also were those Y-DNA and Mt-Dna results for the Old and Middle kingdom ever published?

The only ancient DNA published is mentioned in a more recent discussion http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7823-The-origins-of-Ancient-Egypt-in-the-desertification-of-the-Sahara

bones
07-31-2016, 07:32 PM
we know now for sure that basal euroasian has nothing to do with africa or sub-saharan africans. Natufians also lacked SSA admixture while having Y-dna E haplogroups, which is quite reaffirming when it comes to discussing the ancient back migrations into africa.

Constantine
08-06-2016, 05:09 AM
Is it just me, or is it painfully obvious that Mr. Basal is simply a proto-Mediterranian Caucasoid that engulfed most Eurasian archaics, helping to create the human tapestry we see today?

All of these siblings further interacted and created the various Caucasoid groups we see today.

West Africans and East Asians (by no coincidence on opposite sides of the Basal sphere) weren't as affected and developed in relative (genetic) isolation until much more recent history. Then they, too, expanded into Basal Eurasian territory.