PDA

View Full Version : Balkan Iron Gate Hunter-Gatherers (Hint to Possible E-L618 "E-V13" Entry to Europe?)



The Saite
10-08-2020, 09:11 PM
The band of Hunter-gatherers that inhabited the modern Geographic area stretching from Serbia to Romania in Mesolithic (as early as 9500 BCE) were Called the "Iron Gates HG", guys.

They were first tested and reported by (Mathieson et al.2018 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#Sec16)) as a Mixture of of both WHG and EHG related ancestries. However they showed an extra Component not present in the formers with affinities towards Neolithic Anatolians. As a matter of fact individuals with an entire northwestern-Anatolian-Neolithic-related ancestry were discovered in their area around (6200–5600 BC) as an Outliers. But the Study had presented an alternative possible theory on the arrival of this Ancestry among the Early tested specimen as follows :


We modelled Iron Gates hunter-gatherers as a mixture of WHG- and EHG-related ancestry (Supplementary Table 3), which showed that they are intermediate between the two (WHG contributing approximately 85%, and EHG approximately 15%, of ancestry). However, this qpAdm model does not fit well (P = 0.0003, Supplementary Table 3) and the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers show an affinity towards northwestern-Anatolian-Neolithic-, relative to WHG-, ancestry populations (Supplementary Table 2).... Possible scenarios include genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and a northwestern-Anatolian-Neolithic-related population, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split during a re-expansion into Europe from the southeast after the Last Glacial Maximum17,37

Another more recent Study Concerned about this Matter after testing more new Anatolian Skeletons (feldman et al.2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7)) had re-modeled the Iron gates hunters as (85%) WHG and (15%) Anatolian Hunters or as another three way model that may also involves Natufians (since the unknown ancestry detected is of the deep kind).


Accordingly, we find that Iron Gates HG can be modeled as a three-way mixture of Near-Eastern hunter-gatherers (25.8  5.0 % AHG or 11.1  2.2 % Natufian), WHG (62.9  7.4% or 78.0  4.6%, respectively) and EHG (11.3  3.3% or 10.9  3%, respectively); (χ2p = 0.308 and χ2p = 0.589 respectively; Supplementary Tables 4 and 9).

It's worth to note that one of the Iron gates samples (I5244) was carrying MT-DNA (K1f) which is related in Europe to an expansion from Anatolia. And this Sample was roughly 9000 BC in age. And Since we also have E-M35 positive result in Neolithic Anatolia and assuming an Earlier existence of it in the from of the E-M78 type. I can't dismiss the idea of a Possible entry of E-L618's ancestor at such event into Europe where eventually E-L618 originated (around 9,700 BC) and it later witnessed a two major bottleneck events one around 5,800 BC (the peak of Anatolian farmers migration?) and other between 2,800 - 2,200 BC (when the migrations from the steppe reached Europe?), of course these ages were illustrated from yfull's E-L618 TMRCA estimations (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/)). And some details may vary. However such evidences with the Scarcity of a more necessary Ancient DNA samples is still missing pieces up, a rather alternative late expansion with Anatolian agriculturists can still be possible and a suitable likely path too IMO.

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-019-09209-7/MediaObjects/41467_2019_9209_Fig3_HTML.png?as=webp

Riverman
10-08-2020, 10:01 PM
I like your approach and see no reason why not, yet its just a scenario as good as 10 others I could think of - but certainly one of the more likely ones imho.

Scythoslav
10-08-2020, 10:27 PM
It’s an interesting theory but physical proof is needed. The E-M35 in Turkey is most likely E-Z827 in my opinion. We need proof of E-M78 in Anatolia and levant. I’m waiting for at least 1 quality sample of it.

The Saite
10-08-2020, 10:39 PM
I like your approach and see no reason why not, yet its just a scenario as good as 10 others I could think of - but certainly one of the more likely ones imho.

Thanks for the reply your addition is precious, please tell me about the other as good as it 10 scenarios that you can think of

The Saite
10-08-2020, 11:04 PM
It’s an interesting theory but physical proof is needed. The E-M35 in Turkey is most likely E-Z827 in my opinion. We need proof of E-M78 in Anatolia and levant. I’m waiting for at least 1 quality sample of it.

I see, if you downloaded the mentioned (Mathieson et al.2018 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778#Sec16)) paper's Supplementary Data. You will find it confirming a 9,7 K years old sample from PPNB Levant tested first in Lazardis 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310) as E1b1b1a-V68 Positive. on the occasion of it, MT-DNA Haplogroup K that is carried by the also mentioned Iron gates hunter's sample in the thread, was a major MT-DNA Lineage occurring in the Syrian PPNB period (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401) itslef as old as 8 K BCE too. As For the Anatolian Neolithic M35. If we Judged it from how E-L618 was frequent throughout Neolithic Europe instead of E-Z827. The chances is actually in E-M78's favor.


https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401.t001

Riverman
10-08-2020, 11:06 PM
Thanks for the reply your addition is precious, and I'm curious what's the other 10 scenarios as good as it that you can think of

My number one is still that derivatives of E1b entered first the Northern Levante with Natufian and were swept, as a minority element, like H, with the majority of G2 Neolithics into Europe.
This could have happened either equally and randomly distributed, or with a specific wave of immigrants, which can already alter the scenario significantly into more than one. The advantage of this approach is that we have proof of E1b-lineages in the Levante (Natufian and succeeding cultures), as well as in various European Neolithic cultures (Impresso-Cardial, LBK-Lengyel, Michelsberger), but so far nothing from the time before.

Another scenario is the direct migration from North Africa into Europe, which I don't favour at all, but which still remains a possibility - depending on the exact time frame and culture, you get already more than one scenario out of that option too.

There is also the possibility that haplogroup E was present in the Mesolithic times of Europe, either by entering from the Levante-Anatolia or North Africa, but then again, when and how is pretty much everyones best guess and while this is pretty similar to your scenario, which is preferable, there could be other thinkable options too.

Anyway, I would suggest that your scenario is No. 2 after the Neolithic influx with G2 and H from Anatolia at a somewhat later time. Basically Levante-Anatolia is my best scenario, either Mesolithic (like you described) or Neolithic together with G2 and H in particular, especially with the Impresso-Cardial expansion around the Mediterranean, but a minority also taking a land route, ending up in the Northern Balkan-Carpathians where they survive the steppe expansion, whereas the other lineages become extinct or reduced, and expanding from there in the LBA-EIA transition. The scenario wouldn't be that different from yours, but I have troubles seeing the big impact of E1b-V13 precursors on Impresso-Cardial with an early colony primarily at the Iron Gates-Balkan zone. That's probably the best argument for a Neolithic-Anatolian expansion. But that are just my 2 cents, you are in my top 2-3 scenarios I read about so far. :thumb:

The Saite
10-08-2020, 11:22 PM
My number one is still that derivatives of E1b entered first the Northern Levante with Natufian and were swept, as a minority element, like H, with the majority of G2 Neolithics into Europe.
This could have happened either equally and randomly distributed, or with a specific wave of immigrants, which can already alter the scenario significantly into more than one. The advantage of this approach is that we have proof of E1b-lineages in the Levante (Natufian and succeeding cultures), as well as in various European Neolithic cultures (Impresso-Cardial, LBK-Lengyel, Michelsberger), but so far nothing from the time before.

Another scenario is the direct migration from North Africa into Europe, which I don't favour at all, but which still remains a possibility - depending on the exact time frame and culture, you get already more than one scenario out of that option too.

There is also the possibility that haplogroup E was present in the Mesolithic times of Europe, either by entering from the Levante-Anatolia or North Africa, but then again, when and how is pretty much everyones best guess and while this is pretty similar to your scenario, which is preferable, there could be other thinkable options too.

Anyway, I would suggest that your scenario is No. 2 after the Neolithic influx with G2 and H from Anatolia at a somewhat later time. Basically Levante-Anatolia is my best scenario, either Mesolithic (like you described) or Neolithic together with G2 and H in particular, especially with the Impresso-Cardial expansion around the Mediterranean, but a minority also taking a land route, ending up in the Northern Balkan-Carpathians where they survive the steppe expansion, whereas the other lineages become extinct or reduced, and expanding from there in the LBA-EIA transition. The scenario wouldn't be that different from yours, but I have troubles seeing the big impact of E1b-V13 precursors on Impresso-Cardial with an early colony primarily at the Iron Gates-Balkan zone. That's probably the best argument for a Neolithic-Anatolian expansion. But that are just my 2 cents, you are in my top 2-3 scenarios I read about so far. :thumb:

Actually, your Number 1 is my Number 1 too. And your number 2 supposedly it's near to the Thread's then it's My number 2 again. And for that I think your number 3 would be my number 3 same. Looks like we share the same priority arrangement ground here ;)

Johane Derite
10-08-2020, 11:52 PM
I saw recently on this vid (11:50) that there are signs of a neolithic skull cult at Gobekli Tepe:


https://youtu.be/CSaa_IB15m8

User Aspurg often mentions an adriatic skull cult that isnt in other regions in balkans. Most likely not related, but interesting to keep in mind.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 12:33 AM
This could be a connection to Natufians, even though skull cults appear in many times and cultures.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 12:56 PM
The Natufians Y-DNA E-M35 subclades which were revealed in Lazaridis paper were Ramonian Levantine HG IMO, while the Mushabian intruders were E-M78. The latter coming from Sebilian/Qadan cultures bringing with themselves the proto-idea of farming.

Shanck
10-10-2020, 11:19 AM
My number one is still that derivatives of E1b entered first the Northern Levante with Natufian and were swept, as a minority element, like H, with the majority of G2 Neolithics into Europe.
This could have happened either equally and randomly distributed, or with a specific wave of immigrants, which can already alter the scenario significantly into more than one. The advantage of this approach is that we have proof of E1b-lineages in the Levante (Natufian and succeeding cultures), as well as in various European Neolithic cultures (Impresso-Cardial, LBK-Lengyel, Michelsberger), but so far nothing from the time before.

The seemingly old (Mesolithic? Neolithic?) presence of E-V22 and E-V12 in the Levant also suggests this. However I don't believe the fact Natufians are also E-M35 contributes anything significant to this. Natufians are E-Z830 so the lineages are separated from tens of thousands of years.
However I think I have seen someone mention that E-M78 was found in 'Ain Ghazal in Jordan, some say it was E-M78* or E-V22. Can anyone confirm?

Riverman
10-10-2020, 11:39 AM
The seemingly old (Mesolithic? Neolithic?) presence of E-V22 and E-V12 in the Levant also suggests this. However I don't believe the fact Natufians are also E-M35 contributes anything significant to this. Natufians are E-Z830 so the lineages are separated from tens of thousands of years.
However I think I have seen someone mention that E-M78 was found in 'Ain Ghazal in Jordan, some say it was E-M78* or E-V22. Can anyone confirm?

Just check with, M78 was present in the Natufians:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=32.780119251566646%2C36.49755482499995&z=8

I mean its clear that there is a continuous stretch of E1b expansions from the Nile Valley/Southern Levant/Southern Arabia in practically all directions. The logical route is just the one of the Natufians. These samples however are early and probably just from one distinct group, E1b might, at that point, been much wider spread. Actually I think that it was pushed back in the Mesolithic by the descendents of F and being at home in the region from Nile Valley to the Levante/Arabia far longer in the form of "Basal Eurasian". I see for E no clear border between Africa and Asia, they were at the borderzone and my guess is that this was true for very, very long. Basically the same Mesolithic and early Neolithic pushes reached, from a centre in the Nile Valley/Levante/Southern Arabia the later Natufian zone and North Africa. That's why a precursor to V13 was present in both North West Africa (Taforalt) and the Levante (Natufian). Like the steppe people, they moved both West and East at roughly the same time, having a population dynamic, demographic and cultural advantage for a period of time.
Since this was a big push from the E1b heartland (Nile Valley and/or Southern Levante/Arabia), you will find a high diversity of E1b's among both of them. The diversity just became reduced with the advance and those staying behind in the Near East, like the predecessors of Arslantepe, were a different branch then those moving into Europe with G2 and H.

Shanck
10-10-2020, 11:52 AM
E-M78 was in the Natufians? All was found was E-Z830 & E1b1* "CT".

The Saite
10-10-2020, 12:21 PM
The seemingly old (Mesolithic? Neolithic?) presence of E-V22 and E-V12 in the Levant also suggests this. However I don't believe the fact Natufians are also E-M35 contributes anything significant to this. Natufians are E-Z830 so the lineages are separated from tens of thousands of years.
However I think I have seen someone mention that E-M78 was found in 'Ain Ghazal in Jordan, some say it was E-M78* or E-V22. Can anyone confirm?

Ain Ghazal's PPN sample isn't E-V22, it's roughly E-M78*. Although the Existence of both E-V22 & E-V12 in the Levant is likely to be Historic Egyptian more than it being Neolithic or Mesolithic. Their absence in the plenty of bronze to iron age Levant samples tested tells it IMO, And the news about the Iron age E-V22 Beirut Sample from Haber 2020 is inscure. Even tho Egyptian admixture was present noticeably in the city at that time. The Author still didn't confirm it.

The Saite
10-10-2020, 12:36 PM
Just check with, M78 was present in the Natufians:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=32.780119251566646%2C36.49755482499995&z=8

I mean its clear that there is a continuous stretch of E1b expansions from the Nile Valley/Southern Levant/Southern Arabia in practically all directions. The logical route is just the one of the Natufians. These samples however are early and probably just from one distinct group, E1b might, at that point, been much wider spread. Actually I think that it was pushed back in the Mesolithic by the descendents of F and being at home in the region from Nile Valley to the Levante/Arabia far longer in the form of "Basal Eurasian". I see for E no clear border between Africa and Asia, they were at the borderzone and my guess is that this was true for very, very long. Basically the same Mesolithic and early Neolithic pushes reached, from a centre in the Nile Valley/Levante/Southern Arabia the later Natufian zone and North Africa. That's why a precursor to V13 was present in both North West Africa (Taforalt) and the Levante (Natufian). Like the steppe people, they moved both West and East at roughly the same time, having a population dynamic, demographic and cultural advantage for a period of time.
Since this was a big push from the E1b heartland (Nile Valley and/or Southern Levante/Arabia), you will find a high diversity of E1b's among both of them. The diversity just became reduced with the advance and those staying behind in the Near East, like the predecessors of Arslantepe, were a different branch then those moving into Europe with G2 and H.

I actually have the capability to agree with most of the Theories you mentioned even it's kind of Exotic for most parts. But I wanted also to add here that the precursor to V13 (if you meant E-L618) wasn't present in the tested Taforalt individuals. That news was suggested by a researcher that SNP called one of them, However the same sample was negative to E-Z1919 (E-L618 ancestor) and it showed another negative SNP for E-M78 itself. Hence it was likely E-M78* as the others. It further looks like E-M78 basals were wide distributed among the late mesolthic hunters.

Riverman
10-10-2020, 12:59 PM
I actually have the capability to agree with most of the Theories you mentioned even it's kind of Exotic for most parts. But I wanted also to add here that the precursor to V13 (if you meant E-L618) wasn't present in the tested Taforalt individuals. That news was suggested by a researcher that SNP called one of them, However the same sample was negative to E-Z1919 (E-L618 ancestor) and it showed another negative SNP for E-M78 itself. Hence it was likely E-M78* as the others. It further looks like E-M78 basals were wide distributed among the late mesolthic hunters.

I didn't imply it was proven already, I just assume it, like testers assume positive SNP's in the presence of other proven ones, because its a logical consquence. In the same vein I'm pretty sure E-V22 was in the Neolithic Levante. Not sure about V12 though, but guess so too.

Hawk
10-10-2020, 01:04 PM
I have already posted this before, but this paper is very important on latter Early Neolithic revolution. Hunters from Paleolithic/Mesolithic Egypt are the world's first chert miners.



Chert rnines are among the first structures of prehistoric man's activities to
have been observed. The economical changes and the population expansion accompanying the spread of early agriculture in the Near East and Europe constitute a real technical revolution. According to G. Smolla (1987), flint mining
could have been an especially important part of this process, and indeed, until some years ago, all chert mining sites reported in the literature, were younger
than 12,000 years, most of them being confined to the period of 6,000 to 4,000
years ago (Weisgerber, Slotta and Weiner 1980).
Research by the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project of Leuven University since 1980 led to the discovery of two important Palaeolithic chert exploitation areas, one at Nazlet Safaha, near Qena, and another at Nazlet Khater, near
Tahta, both in southem Egypt (Fig. 1).

Middle Palaeolithic quarrying
The area of Nazlet Safaha is situated on the west bank of the Nile,
downstream of Dandara Temple (Vermeersch et al. 1986. In this publication the
site has been erroneously named Nazlet Sabaha). It is located near the river Nile,
on a Nile cobble terrace remnant, which is still quarried for gravel in many small
pits. The bars of the former channel deposits, with their top at about 7 m above
the Nile floodplain, are 2 to 3 m thick and rest disconformably on very coarse
Nile sands. The terrace deposits contain mainly metamorphous and eruptive,
but also quartz and chert cobbles with a diameter of up to 0.2 m. The matrix is
composed of pebbles and coarse sands. The chert cobbles are round or ellipsoidal. The cobble deposit is overlain by medium sands of variable thickness
(about 0.5 m).

Excavations in January 1988 resulted in the discovery of an area (sites 1
and 2) of about 3,000 m2 which had been exploited in Middle Palaeolithic times
(Fig. 2). Prehistoric man extracted the chert cobbles from the terrace deposits
in an open trench and pit system (Fig. 3) with a maximal depth of about 1.7 m.
This means that only the uppermost part of the cobble terrace was extracted.
The trenches exhibit vertical walls with only minor undercuttings. The trench
width varies from about 1 to nearly 2 m. At site 1, exploitation was so intensive
that an area of more than 1,000 m2 was completely exploited.


https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf

Riverman
10-10-2020, 01:10 PM
They should get ancient, pre-Natufian Mesolithic and if possible Paleolithic DNA from Egypt, Palestine and Yemen. That's crucial, not just for E1b, but also for the "Basal Eurasian" story. I heard they might work on it right now. As I see it, E1b-Basal Eurasian groups moved forth and back from the Levante into Egypt and vice versa.

The Saite
10-10-2020, 01:41 PM
I didn't imply it was proven already, I just assume it, like testers assume positive SNP's in the presence of other proven ones, because its a logical consquence. In the same vein I'm pretty sure E-V22 was in the Neolithic Levante. Not sure about V12 though, but guess so too.

Well, Let's see what we are going to find with more Neolithic Levant samples and also Egyptian ones. As you said it's really important to have this sort of samples as far as Paleolithic

Riverman
10-10-2020, 01:47 PM
Well, Let's see what we are going to find with more Neolithic Levant samples and also Egyptian ones. As you said it's really important to have this sort of samples as far as Paleolithic

The problem with Egypt is just that, most likely, the most important finds are below 10 m plus mud. I once heard that even more recent finds were quite submerged. The Nile valley might even be crucial, imho, for Homo sapiens evolutionary development, but living close to a river like the Nile is not ideal for archaeological conservation, unless they buried their dead in the desert, which they seem to have not for the most part. I think that's the main reason some dry East African regions are in the focus, while Egypt being not - its just not that friendly for archaeological excavations.

Like

Some of the oldest known structures were discovered in Egypt by archaeologist Waldemar Chmielewski along the southern border near Wadi Halfa, Sudan in Arkin 8 site. Chmielewski dated the structures to 100,000 BC.[4] The remains of the structures are oval depressions about 30 cm deep and 2 1 meters across. Many are lined with flat sandstone slabs. They are called tent rings, because the rocks supported a dome-like shelter of skins or brush. This type of dwelling provided a place to live, but if necessary, could be taken down easily and moved. They were mobile structures—easily disassembled, moved, and reassembled—providing hunter-gatherers with semi-permanent habitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Egypt

We can just assume that there was much more along the Nile, but its probably all gone forever or very hard to retrieve if possible at all.

Shanck
10-10-2020, 02:59 PM
Ain Ghazal's PPN sample isn't E-V22, it's roughly E-M78*. Although the Existence of both E-V22 & E-V12 in the Levant is likely to be Historic Egyptian more than it being Neolithic or Mesolithic. Their absence in the plenty of bronze to iron age Levant samples tested tells it IMO, And the news about the Iron age E-V22 Beirut Sample from Haber 2020 is inscure. Even tho Egyptian admixture was present noticeably in the city at that time. The Author still didn't confirm it.

Not to hijack the thread, but E-V22 and E-V12 subclades in the Levant seem to be much older than dynastic period. Maybe for E-V12, but E-V22 is quite Levantine. I don't see why E-V22 in Iron age Lebanon is far-fetched. Besides there's no Egyptian admixture in the populations of the Levant from that period, and the authors aren't entirely sure as to whether the family was an exception or a part of the phenomenon. Could be. We need more ancient DNA.

The Saite
10-10-2020, 05:03 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but E-V22 and E-V12 subclades in the Levant seem to be much older than dynastic period. Maybe for E-V12, but E-V22 is quite Levantine. I don't see why E-V22 in Iron age Lebanon is far-fetched. Besides there's no Egyptian admixture in the populations of the Levant from that period, and the authors aren't entirely sure as to whether the family was an exception or a part of the phenomenon. Could be. We need more ancient DNA.

I see your point. But It's far-fitched because E-V22 isn't ordinary for a Levantine. It don't exist in Either bronze or iron age Levant, also no existence recorded in the Neolithic or Cooper age periods out of very many tested ancient Levant samples from important Various sites of such wide region (You Can mail the Author of the E-V22 Beriut individual that some researchers predicted it. He is fast responding and will dis-confrim the sample being E-V22 in first place). Coming back to the researchers predicting the samples (One of them is the E-V22 site owner (http://e-v22.net/the-phylogenetic-tree-based-on-str-data/)) they regard it actually as a sign of Egyptian influence after discovery. Haplogroup E-V22 TMRCA is just around 6000BC originating in the East side of North Africa (Eugenia D'Atanasio et al.2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/)) And the Egyptian branches of it are diverse not on a single lineage below. A quick Comparison between Ancient Levant with ancient Egypt as an example from the 6 known trusted Samples so far. (3 of Abusir and 1 of which is Ramsis and 2 from Pushkin). You notice that Out of these 6 possibly all originating from the North a total of 3 are E-V22 (if you would discard Ramses due to Markers insecurity prediction that would make it 2, which yet still a strong presence of the total). Judging E-V22 as Levantine because it have significant presence in Now days southern Levant isn't accurate and isn't counting the Egyptian migrations to this area in the last 1000 years.
I know some information about this Subclade because I belong to it myself and I catched up with plenty other Egys who do. And I know information about the Egyptian migrations to the Levant, because I myself have relatives doing it in the only last 300 years. Also it's recorded by Middle ages historians. And others in Muhammed Ali's reign.
And yes I think we really Hijacked the thread away for enough non-related topics. (Well At least E-V22 is distantly related to E-L618, and more aDNA would surely be useful for this manner)

Scythoslav
10-13-2020, 03:16 AM
I actually have the capability to agree with most of the Theories you mentioned even it's kind of Exotic for most parts. But I wanted also to add here that the precursor to V13 (if you meant E-L618) wasn't present in the tested Taforalt individuals. That news was suggested by a researcher that SNP called one of them, However the same sample was negative to E-Z1919 (E-L618 ancestor) and it showed another negative SNP for E-M78 itself. Hence it was likely E-M78* as the others. It further looks like E-M78 basals were wide distributed among the late mesolthic hunters.


Can we really attribute Y-DNA E to basal though? There are suggestions that it comes from the deep ancestral North African component.

Scythoslav
10-13-2020, 03:18 AM
I see your point. But It's far-fitched because E-V22 isn't ordinary for a Levantine. It don't exist in Either bronze or iron age Levant, also no existence recorded in the Neolithic or Cooper age periods out of very many tested ancient Levant samples from important Various sites of such wide region (You Can mail the Author of the E-V22 Beriut individual that some researchers predicted it. He is fast responding and will dis-confrim the sample being E-V22 in first place). Coming back to the researchers predicting the samples (One of them is the E-V22 site owner (http://e-v22.net/the-phylogenetic-tree-based-on-str-data/)) they regard it actually as a sign of Egyptian influence after discovery. Haplogroup E-V22 TMRCA is just around 6000BC originating in the East side of North Africa (Eugenia D'Atanasio et al.2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/)) And the Egyptian branches of it are diverse not on a single lineage below. A quick Comparison between Ancient Levant with ancient Egypt as an example from the 6 known trusted Samples so far. (3 of Abusir and 1 of which is Ramsis and 2 from Pushkin). You notice that Out of these 6 possibly all originating from the North a total of 3 are E-V22 (if you would discard Ramses due to Markers insecurity prediction that would make it 2, which yet still a strong presence of the total). Judging E-V22 as Levantine because it have significant presence in Now days southern Levant isn't accurate and isn't counting the Egyptian migrations to this area in the last 1000 years.
I know some information about this Subclade because I belong to it myself and I catched up with plenty other Egys who do. And I know information about the Egyptian migrations to the Levant, because I myself have relatives doing it in the only last 300 years. Also it's recorded by Middle ages historians. And others in Muhammed Ali's reign.
And yes I think we really Hijacked the thread away for enough non-related topics. (Well At least E-V22 is distantly related to E-L618, and more aDNA would surely be useful for this manner)


E-V22 isn’t ordinary for a Levantine and neither is E-M78 in general. Only one very poor quality sample of E-M78 was found in levant. And the iberomaurusian samples predate the E-L618 mutation so who would even be expecting them to have it? Or even it’s precursor. Those samples are around 15,000 years old.

Riverman
10-13-2020, 08:25 AM
Can we really attribute Y-DNA E to basal though? There are suggestions that it comes from the deep ancestral North African component.

Its not known for sure, but the ANA is like an earlier branch from the fully modern trunk, which too spread into most of Africa from a centre, for which the same is true as for Basal Eurasian later. So basically its like that: ANA spread West and mixed later with archaic sapiens, Basal Eurasian stayed at home or moved East with little mixture, "crown" Eurasians moved East and mixed to a higher degree with Neandertals. Where exactly each group was staying, when and where, is so far still unknown.
Chances are high that Basal Eurasian stayed either in the Nile Valley and/or the Levante/Near East and was E1b1b, whereas ANA spread the clades of E which are now primarily common in Subsaharan Africa. That Iberomaursian predates Natufians doesn't matter, because its a later migration into North West Africa from the centre, whereever it was (Nile Valley or Levante). What matters more, foir the debate and for proving whether E was first ANA and then developed into Basal Eurasian which was spread by E1b1b, are earlier samples from Egypt, Palestine and Yemen in particular. Without having those, we don't actually know who was sitting where. It remains speculative. Yet I doubt that E1b already had its centre anywhere West to the Nile Valley, that's, from my point of view, very unlikely. Because that's the most important demographic stronghold in North and East Africa, if they weren't there, there wouldn't have been the Natufian E1b dominance and wider spread into the Levante.

The Saite
11-27-2020, 01:47 AM
So boys, looks like we have some new interesting notes related to our talks here from a Recent study (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.394502v1) sequencing additional high quality aDNA samples from SE Europe :


In further support for the demic diffusion scenario comes from f-statistics showing Levantine populations to share more drift with Aegeans than with Central Anatolian Neolithic individuals (Fig. S57). This signal could either be due to some long distance gene flow between the Aegeans and the Levant, a higher level of central HG admixture observed in Boncuklu (Fig. S56), or a combination of i) an early migration of the Boncuklu HG ancestors from the Fertile Crescent to Central Anatolia before the Younger Dryas (Fig. 3a, 4c), ii) some gene flow between people from the Levant and the ancestors of Aegeans, who would have remained in the Fertile Crescent and only later migrated to the West.

Maybe we are also dealing with a sort of a Mobile long distanced type of direct migration as well (and not necessarily a full Diluted Anatolian_Neolithic like population migrating).

Bane
11-27-2020, 08:14 AM
Just check with, M78 was present in the Natufians:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=32.780119251566646%2C36.49755482499995&z=8


Quoting myself:


There was only one E-M78 out of 8 Natufian and PPNB Levant samples.
I think I already wrote about length of the time periods which divide E subbranches due to very early separation of E from the rest of the tree. For example, only E-M78 is 6000-7000 year older than R-M269.
In that sense, discussing about E-M78 based on some other E branch would be almost like discussing R-M269 based on some ancient Q sample (because R and Q are relatively close haplogroups).

The Saite
11-27-2020, 10:10 AM
More Study's notes from the Supp files :


As Greece Peloponnese samples also show more influence from the Levant (with Israel samples as proxies) than Marmara, Greece (Late Greece) and central European samples (Klein7), see Fig. S57. In addition, the same analyses conducted with the Peloponnese Early Neolithic sample I5427 (labelled here Diros_EN) showed that higher amounts of Levantine ancestry was already present in the Early Neolithic, at least compared to the Barcın samples (Bar8 and Bar25).


In general, samples from Northern Greece and NW Anatolia show a relatively high level of heterogeneity in shared drift with samples from other populations (Fig. S58, Fig. S57). Particularly interesting differences include the excess shared drift with Levantine samples found for the Nea Nikomedeia sample Nea3 (the older) but not Nea2 (the younger) when comparing these to other samples from the region (Fig. S57). Rev5, which is of similar age as Nea3, also shows a bit more of the Levantine ancestry (Fig. S57), suggesting a decrease in that ancestry over time. While there is no significant f-statistics when directly comparing Rev5 to Nea2 or Nea3, it does seem that all comparisons with the 4 HG_Central and HG_West genomes in our dataset show a trend for an excess shared drift with HG samples for Rev5 and Nea3 (Supp. Table 5).

capsian
11-30-2020, 07:32 PM
More Study's notes from the Supp files :

I think remain from Turkey Barcin 8600 yaers old it s very likely was PreE-L618