PDA

View Full Version : Origins of E-V22?



BAR123
01-09-2021, 10:48 PM
Hey, so I did a test from ancestrydna then uploaded my rawdna to Moreley and got my Y-dna group back as E-V22 so I just had a few questions since I've seen a lot of conflicted information on it. This seems to be the same Y-dna as Ramses III and other Egyptian mummies, so is this Y-dna most common in Egypt? Is it more common in certain parts of Egypt?

Thanks

BAR123
01-09-2021, 11:05 PM
42425

The Saite
01-10-2021, 03:39 AM
A descendant of the E-Z1919 Mutation and a Sibling to the Main European based E-L618. This E-V22 Haplogroup Originated in the East Sahara of North Africa (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/) at the Egyptian Western desert sphere, with the most common recent ancestor for the Carriers around 6,300 years BC as per Yfull estimations (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/). The West desert of Egypt, at such a time, was Green (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent %2F313%2F5788%2F803%2Ftab-figures-data&psig=AOvVaw2IopY6RWsO11A2UEOuafcW&ust=1610335189029000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKi7rqi0kO4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD), Containing a specific human settlements with a certain archaeological behavior differed from nearby Libya but quite similar to the PPN cultures of the Levant and a Certain Mesolithic Egyptian Nile Dwellers Known as the Helwan Culture. Hence those groups furthest origins was likely in one of those two Areas. later in their History the human settlements broke and mass migrations retreated back to the Nile Valley to become what would be the Future Egyptians after some supposed extra ancestry inputs.
Nowdays This Haplogroup represents the Majority of E-M35 sub-clades in Lower Egypt as opposite to E-V12 in Upper Egypt as the two often being seen together. It's found also in certain Sudanese and East African populations primarily around the Saho Tribe Areas and Little information is available on the ways this clade went outside Africa. Yet it's now likely was linked to Historic People of the former areas migrating rather than a Neolithic or Cooper Age dispersal. Finally worth to note that it's most Basal and rare relative E-Z1919 (non V22, non E-L618) was reported inside Africa as well.

BAR123
01-10-2021, 03:51 AM
These were the results given by moreley, as soon as I get my 23andme results i'll see if it matches. I've read previously that several Ptolemaic era mummies, and Ramses III were E-v22 as well. So this originated in Egypt and spread downwards?

The Saite
01-10-2021, 03:59 AM
These were the results given by moreley, as soon as I get my 23andme results i'll see if it matches. I've read previously that several Ptolemaic era mummies, and Ramses III were E-v22 as well. So this originated in Egypt and spread downwards?

Yes it spread downwards, the East African Based Subclade is E-V3262, I would bet the Sudanese Fulani belong to it too. Still I meet Some Sudanese who were E-V22 belonging to Ja'alin tribe under different E-L1250 branch. But those were however sure they aren't originals in the tribe but rather immigrants from Egypt.

BAR123
01-10-2021, 04:02 AM
Thanks bro, please check DMs when you can

drobbah
01-10-2021, 05:14 AM
Yes it spread downwards, the East African Based Subclade is E-V3262, I would bet the Sudanese Fulani belong to it too. Still I meet Some Sudanese who were E-V22 belonging to Ja'alin tribe under different E-L1250 branch. But those were however sure they aren't originals in the tribe but rather immigrants from Egypt.
Atleast a third of the Cushitic Kenyan Pastoral male samples were E-V22 and can be found all over the Horn and SE Africa because of Cushitic migrations.

Farroukh
01-10-2021, 08:28 AM
I did a test from ancestrydna then uploaded my rawdna to Moreley
Morley's predictor is too old. For more detailed data use this link:
https://cladefinder.yseq.net/index.php

BAR123
01-10-2021, 09:47 PM
Morley's predictor is too old. For more detailed data use this link:
https://cladefinder.yseq.net/index.php

4246042461

SilkRoad
01-11-2021, 10:47 AM
E-V22 most likely was born in a Mesolithic Egyptian population probably either Helwan culture or Capsian culture (eastern Tunisia). It's not sure which was Proto-Afro-Asiatic.

NetNomad
01-14-2021, 02:17 PM
Probably somewhere in the Northeastern part of Africa, but nobody knows for sure, more ancient DNA needed from North and Sahara Africa.

Nobody/very few expected the Taforalt from Morocco all the way in the Northwest to be high and quite basal E-M78 instead of pre-E-V257/L19/E-M81.

Squad
03-05-2021, 04:31 AM
Probably somewhere in the Northeastern part of Africa, but nobody knows for sure, more ancient DNA needed from North and Sahara Africa.

Nobody/very few expected the Taforalt from Morocco all the way in the Northwest to be high and quite basal E-M78 instead of pre-E-V257/L19/E-M81.

I bet L19 will also be found we only have 5 samples from a single location.

leorcooper19
04-11-2021, 10:59 PM
"Nevertheless, many lineages now found among the Ethiopians and Somalians appear to have come from the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic period. This includes some E1b1b subclades like V22 (12,000 years old) and V32 (10,000 years old), but also undeniably Near Eastern lineages like T1a-CTS2214 and J1-L136."

It's really hard to see where Maciamo would have gotten that from. Suffice it to say that it is beyond clear that both E-V22 and E-V32 are deeply NE African, and were very likely not present in the Neolithic Fertile Cresent.

CPL05
08-08-2021, 06:43 PM
It's really hard to see where Maciamo would have gotten that from. Suffice it to say that it is beyond clear that both E-V22 and E-V32 are deeply NE African, and were very likely not present in the Neolithic Fertile Cresent.

What about E-FT161981 ? Do you think this was introduced to the Samaritans during the Egyptian dynasty ?
It seems that they were in Egypt over 3600 years ago before they entered the Near-East, but I'm not sure.

leorcooper19
08-09-2021, 02:12 AM
What about E-FT161981 ? Do you think this was introduced to the Samaritans during the Egyptian dynasty ?
It seems that they were in Egypt over 3600 years ago before they entered the Near-East, but I'm not sure.

It’s hard to say, with the upstream Lebanese it looks like this could be an old Canaanite line, only distantly derived from NE Africa. Of course, Egyptians are extremely undersampled, so we have no idea how they might (or might not) fit into the clade. But on the basis of modern spread alone, a MBA/LBA Egypt > Canaan route seems relatively unlikely.

Hitchcock
08-09-2021, 06:18 AM
I think this haplogroup was Neolithic Levantine related..

CPL05
08-09-2021, 07:42 AM
It’s hard to say, with the upstream Lebanese it looks like this could be an old Canaanite line, only distantly derived from NE Africa. Of course, Egyptians are extremely undersampled, so we have no idea how they might (or might not) fit into the clade. But on the basis of modern spread alone, a MBA/LBA Egypt > Canaan route seems relatively unlikely.

The Lebanese in this case comes from Mount Lebanon he's part of the Druze Project on FTDNA. The Druze came from the Golan Heights... It seems that this territory was conquered by the Amorites, the Hebrews, the Arameans ... Hard to know if the Canaanites left a genetic trace there.

leorcooper19
08-09-2021, 01:04 PM
The Lebanese in this case comes from Mount Lebanon he's part of the Druze Project on FTDNA. The Druze came from the Golan Heights... It seems that this territory was conquered by the Amorites, the Hebrews, the Arameans ... Hard to know if the Canaanites left a genetic trace there.

The Lebanese is indeed Druze, but it’s worth remembering that they are only ~1000 years old as a distinct ethno-religious group and therefore should not be thought of as pure BA/EIA holdovers from Golan Heights.

You may not have known this before, but not only are Amorites, Aramaeans, and Hebrews very closely related, but Hebrews are actually direct descendants of Canaanites. This is opinion of practically every mainstream archaeologist, linguist, or population geneticist specializing in this subject.

For a Samaritan line connecting to a Lebanese line to the late Chalcolithic / EBA, the most parsimonious MRCA would have probably lived in the Levant, speaking some early form of West Semitic. This again though assumes that the Lebanese and the Samaritan-Jordanian lines are not both from different MBA/LBA Egyptian migrants, which remains entirely possible.

Scythoslav
08-10-2021, 12:46 AM
Probably somewhere in the Northeastern part of Africa, but nobody knows for sure, more ancient DNA needed from North and Sahara Africa.

Nobody/very few expected the Taforalt from Morocco all the way in the Northwest to be high and quite basal E-M78 instead of pre-E-V257/L19/E-M81.

I don’t understand why it would be so unexpected for E-M78 to be found among Toforalt instead of E-L19, when Natufians were predominantly E-Z827, direct ancestor of E-L19. So we know that this was probably the dominant lineage in north east Africa and Levant.

NetNomad
08-17-2021, 04:42 PM
I don’t understand why it would be so unexpected for E-M78 to be found among Toforalt instead of E-L19, when Natufians were predominantly E-Z827, direct ancestor of E-L19. So we know that this was probably the dominant lineage in north east Africa and Levant.

Before those ancient results, a lot of anthro people assumed E-L19 = Northwest Africa while E-M78 = Northeast Africa and that most E-M78 in Northwest Africa was from more recent migrants from the NE, but the Taforalt samples completely destroyed that thesis.

It was already known that certain E-Z827 subtypes were common in the Levant and Red Sea region of Africa, but many people assumed ancient Northwest Africa to be proto-E-L19 dominant, even during Taforalt times.

leorcooper19
08-18-2021, 06:33 PM
I don’t understand why it would be so unexpected for E-M78 to be found among Toforalt instead of E-L19, when Natufians were predominantly E-Z827, direct ancestor of E-L19. So we know that this was probably the dominant lineage in north east Africa and Levant.


Before those ancient results, a lot of anthro people assumed E-L19 = Northwest Africa while E-M78 = Northeast Africa and that most E-M78 in Northwest Africa was from more recent migrants from the NE, but the Taforalt samples completely destroyed that thesis.

It was already known that certain E-Z827 subtypes were common in the Levant and Red Sea region of Africa, but many people assumed ancient Northwest Africa to be proto-E-L19 dominant, even during Taforalt times.

I think we still have a lot to learn about E-M35 and its subclades. Assuming an association with the Afro-Asiatic language family- which seems pretty likely- it seems probable to me that the speakers of PAA would have carried already-diversified clades like E-M78, E-M34, E-L19, (pre-?)E-CTS10880, and E-V2729. All of these clades would have been present in their early forms in where-ever the PAA Urheimat was; it's no coincidence to me that they all have TMRCAs between 13000-15000 ybp, which corresponds perfectly to TMRCA estimates for the language family itself.

In this theory, Natufians are an early (as in, not fully derived) Pre-PAA group that migrated into the Levant from Africa which makes sense given their E-PF1962* Y-chromosome. The Mesolithic inhabitants of Taforalt cave may be the same, but we don't know if they split E-M78.

As far as I have been told and have read, the most likely regions for the urheimat of PAA are in the Chad-Sudan-Ethiopia area. So, at some point, I believe M78 and Z830 carriers migrated to the northwest and the northeast before the "main/fully-derived" Afro-Asiatic migrants spread out.

CPL05
08-19-2021, 12:33 PM
The Lebanese is indeed Druze, but it’s worth remembering that they are only ~1000 years old as a distinct ethno-religious group and therefore should not be thought of as pure BA/EIA holdovers from Golan Heights.

You may not have known this before, but not only are Amorites, Aramaeans, and Hebrews very closely related, but Hebrews are actually direct descendants of Canaanites. This is opinion of practically every mainstream archaeologist, linguist, or population geneticist specializing in this subject.

For a Samaritan line connecting to a Lebanese line to the late Chalcolithic / EBA, the most parsimonious MRCA would have probably lived in the Levant, speaking some early form of West Semitic. This again though assumes that the Lebanese and the Samaritan-Jordanian lines are not both from different MBA/LBA Egyptian migrants, which remains entirely possible.

I bounce back on your words. I think You have 2 scenarios :

1/The Druze's a descendant of a Phoenician/Canaanite (Linked to the SNP E-FGC62855), belongs to a different subclade of E-FT161981 (Need a further testing), at this time it can be assumed that an ancient introduction has took place within the Samaritan community, namely that theoretically the earliest TMRCA dates back to 4000 ybp.

2/The Druze's linked to the Same Sub-Clade as the Samaritan and the Jordanian of Amman (E-FT161981), where its mutation dates back theoretically a little over 1000 years. Isn't it more plausible to assume that the Druze is a descendant of a Samaritan who has changed his religion, therefore it would be difficult to put forward the hypothesis of a Canaanite/Phoenician descent ?

leorcooper19
08-19-2021, 04:40 PM
I bounce back on your words. I think You have 2 scenarios :

1/The Druze's a descendant of a Phoenician/Canaanite (Linked to the SNP E-FGC62855), belongs to a different subclade of E-FT161981 (Need a further testing), at this time it can be assumed that an ancient introduction has took place within the Samaritan community, namely that theoretically the earliest TMRCA dates back to 4000 ybp.

2/The Druze's linked to the Same Sub-Clade as the Samaritan and the Jordanian of Amman (E-FT161981), where its mutation dates back theoretically a little over 1000 years. Isn't it more plausible to assume that the Druze is a descendant of a Samaritan who has changed his religion, therefore it would be difficult to put forward the hypothesis of a Canaanite/Phoenician descent ?

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The Druze's phylogenetic placement relative to the Samaritan-Jordanian clade is clear; E-FT161981 is defined only by the SNPs shared by the Samaritan and the Jordanian to the exclusion of the Druze. E-FGC62855 is defined by the SNPs that all three share to the exclusion of everyone else on the tree. The TMRCA between the Samaritan-Jordanian clade and the Druze is 5100 ybp / c. 3100 BCE, which is well before groups like Canaanites formed. The most recent common ancestor of the three individuals- I think- was simply a West Semitic-speaking, late Chalcolithic or early Bronze Age Levantine.

Or, again, the MRCA was an early Egyptian and the Lebanese's ancestor migrated north separately from the Samaritan-Jordanian ancestor.

CPL05
08-19-2021, 09:43 PM
I'm not sure I understand your argument. The Druze's phylogenetic placement relative to the Samaritan-Jordanian clade is clear; E-FT161981 is defined only by the SNPs shared by the Samaritan and the Jordanian to the exclusion of the Druze. E-FGC62855 is defined by the SNPs that all three share to the exclusion of everyone else on the tree. The TMRCA between the Samaritan-Jordanian clade and the Druze is 5100 ybp / c. 3100 BCE, which is well before groups like Canaanites formed. The most recent common ancestor of the three individuals- I think- was simply a West Semitic-speaking, late Chalcolithic or early Bronze Age Levantine.

Or, again, the MRCA was an early Egyptian and the Lebanese's ancestor migrated north separately from the Samaritan-Jordanian ancestor.

I propose that we peel the few candidate subclades that potentially could have a link with the Phoenicians.

Given the data we have available on Yfull, there should be 3 that I list below :

1/E-FGC62855 as already discussed.

2/E-FT137267 which was formed 7700 ybp. There's a Lebanese who is connected to it. He's from Mount Lebanon. I don't know if he's a Druze or a Maronite but what's even more interesting is that there are Italians(From the City of Enna) DownStream belonging to E-FT137676 with a mutation dating back to 2400 ybp. This could be linked to the spread of Phoenician merchants around the Mediterranean, including part of Sicily(The western part including cities like Motyé, Eryx, Lilybaeum ...).A Migration to the inland could have been possible.
Another hypothesis could be linked to the destruction of Carthage by the Romans, as well as the slavery of a certain number of Carthaginians(It seems to me that there were around 50,000) in the direction of Rome who settled there and who mixed with the local population.

3/E-Y95461 => E-Y30971 : This result surprised me insofar as there are potential genetic traces linked to ancient Roman legions (Slaves or descendants of Slaves who became Roman citizens or auxiliary soldiers / archer of the Roman army) from the Orient (Especially from Ancient Syria). This First sub-clade is related to a Lebanese from Nabatiyé but the downstream SNP one is Western European according to Yfull (I even discussed with a French linked to it who's from a city not far from the border with Belgium).

It's indeed difficult to make a link with the Egyptian dynasty given the lack of data available concerning Egypt.

NetNomad
08-20-2021, 12:36 PM
As far as I have been told and have read, the most likely regions for the urheimat of PAA are in the Chad-Sudan-Ethiopia area. So, at some point, I believe M78 and Z830 carriers migrated to the northwest and the northeast before the "main/fully-derived" Afro-Asiatic migrants spread out.

I think Ethiopia is pretty much out of the question for PAA, IMO. There is a lot evidence of neolithic migrations coming from the North (Red Sea region) with Cushitic speakers and the stark differences between Neolithic Ethiopians vs hunter-gatherer Ethiopians. It is a bit similar to Europe how the HG Western Europeans aren't at all similar to Yamnaya influenced Western IE Europeans. Moreover, practically all Omotic speakers carry some northern associated lineages, even the extremely hunter-gatherer leaning ones. I doubt Chad as well due to the Sahara and no life supporting river.

Egypt, North Sudan, or Eritrea could be, but I doubt Ethiopia or Chad.

taharqa
08-20-2021, 10:31 PM
I think Ethiopia is pretty much out of the question for PAA, IMO. There is a lot evidence of neolithic migrations coming from the North (Red Sea region) with Cushitic speakers and the stark differences between Neolithic Ethiopians vs hunter-gatherer Ethiopians. It is a bit similar to Europe how the HG Western Europeans aren't at all similar to Yamnaya influenced Western IE Europeans. Moreover, practically all Omotic speakers carry some northern associated lineages, even the extremely hunter-gatherer leaning ones. I doubt Chad as well due to the Sahara and no life supporting river.

Egypt, North Sudan, or Eritrea could be, but I doubt Ethiopia or Chad.

Why are you talking about "neolithic movements" and using it to apparently "prove" a point about Afroasiatic origins when proto-Afroasiatic is very likely pre-neolthic

NetNomad
08-21-2021, 01:58 AM
Why are you talking about "neolithic movements" and using it to apparently "prove" a point about Afroasiatic origins when proto-Afroasiatic is very likely pre-neolthic

It isn't that far removed from the neolithic, at best a few thousand years.

Ethiopia was mostly populated by people similar to Mota man during that time. Unlikely to be the place of origin for PAA.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 12:51 PM
It isn't that far removed from the neolithic, at best a few thousand years.

Ethiopia was mostly populated by people similar to Mota man during that time. Unlikely to be the place of origin for PAA.

Not just unlikely, near impossible. It is quite obvious that there are just
- Nile Valley/North East Africa
- Sinai-Lower Levante
- Levante-Arabia

I don't get why Natufians are the most likely candidate, because they spread with advanced pre-Neolithic technology and partly developed, partly took over, the Neolithic package. They are in the right time in the right place and region. Chances are very high that E-M215 latest was in the Levante-Southern Arabia and spread from there, rather than being brought there. Also for Egypt, I don't think E-V22 is particularly likely to have been from Africa at all, but if, it could be not that far away from the Levante and definitely not Ethiopia.
Whether E1b1b could be associated with Basal Eurasians still existing in Southern Arabia and the Gulf has to be seen, once ancient DNA from those regions arrives. Probably new methods or well preserved findings allow it.

Scythoslav
08-21-2021, 03:22 PM
It isn't that far removed from the neolithic, at best a few thousand years.

Ethiopia was mostly populated by people similar to Mota man during that time. Unlikely to be the place of origin for PAA.

What is Mota man’s Y-DNA?

diini95
08-21-2021, 07:17 PM
What is Mota man’s Y-DNA?

E-M329

Finn
08-22-2021, 08:02 AM
I guess that the origins of E-V22 lay around the Nile, there was a founder effect after the desertification and settling around the Nile.


The Lebanese in this case comes from Mount Lebanon he's part of the Druze Project on FTDNA. The Druze came from the Golan Heights... It seems that this territory was conquered by the Amorites, the Hebrews, the Arameans ... Hard to know if the Canaanites left a genetic trace there.

About that:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20650-Haplogroup-E-in-Iraq&p=794133#post794133

Riverman
08-22-2021, 10:29 AM
I guess that the origins of E-V22 lay around the Nile, there was a founder effect after the desertification and settling around the Nile.



About that:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20650-Haplogroup-E-in-Iraq&p=794133#post794133

Why not with the developed Neolithic? Do we have any pre-Neolithic vs. Neolithic Egyptian DNA samples?

Finn
08-22-2021, 02:49 PM
Why not with the developed Neolithic? Do we have any pre-Neolithic vs. Neolithic Egyptian DNA samples?

I made this in cooperation with Wim Penninx. It's from a few years ago, may be time to refresh it:

E-M78 in the Western Desert

Why do we assume that’s the place? E-V22 is a subbranche of E-M78, originated about 14.000 years ago (y-full). In 2007 Prof. Cruciani stated that the origins of E-M78 lay in the Western Desert (Egypt/Libya). This is recently confirmed by prof. Trombetta e.a. (2015) they claimed: “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).”

Refugium Lake Nubia, humid phase

Battaglia (2009) wrote: ‘A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards’.

In the humid phases the haplogroup E-M78 spread around the whole Western Desert. In these phase E-M78 was according to the analist of Yfull.com mutated to E-V22 (9900-7200 ybp). So the old patriarch of E-V22 is to be placed in the Western Desert. E-V22 is with 22% of the population in Bahariya (Western Desert) the highest of whole Egypt (14% in the Delta).

Changing climate: desertification, move to the Nile

The humid phase in 5600 BC (7600 ybp) was followed by a desertification of the Sahara, spurred the migration tot he Nile. This corresponds with the Neolithization of Egypt at that time: ‘In the Nile Valley, the Saharian met and mixed with the descendants of the South Western Asian Neolithic population responsible for the introduction of the Southwest Asian agricultural tradition into the Nile Valley….’ (Peter Bellwood 2005).

Allison Smith (2009): ‘The prime Northeast African haplogroup E candidate related to the arrival of farmers and/or pastoralists from the Levant is undated E-M34. E-V12(xV32) and E-V22 may well represent local adaptation.’

Neolithization: founder effect along the Nile

The changing weather conditions, people moving to the Nile, and starting with forms of agriculture and sedentary life style counts for the whole area. Along the Nile within a relative short time, a few hundreds years, there where 7 mutations (subbranches) within the E-V22 markers (Y2530_2 and PH2818). This occurred about 7300 ybp. The migration from the Western Desert to the Nile and the development of a new kind of life style are mayor triggers for the different mutations of E-V22 and the founder effect of it.

leorcooper19
08-22-2021, 08:19 PM
Not just unlikely, near impossible. It is quite obvious that there are just
- Nile Valley/North East Africa
- Sinai-Lower Levante
- Levante-Arabia

I'm certainly not going to claim expertise here but I have to doubt your and others' confidence here. We're talking about a language family with almost all of its branching happening in Africa, clear ultimate origins (for hg E) in Africa, and several very suggestive hints that it is simply undertesting of relevant groups in North, East, and Central Africa that have prevented us from seeing the whole story: that the Levant was a sink for Afro-Asiatics, just like say Europe was a sink for Steppe lineages throughout the years.

Some of the hints can be seen here (http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2016/06/omotic-speakers-uniparental-data.html), where Christopher Plaster's thesis involved testing almost 2500 Ethiopian males for Y-DNA. The results are clear: E-M35 dominates over all other hgs. Even E-M34- which many people believe was formed in the Levant solely based on its modern spread- has been predicted (in this study) and confirmed (in others) to be huge among practically all Cushitic and Omotic-speaking groups. In my opinion, these finds should cause us to shift our original hypothesis and think more openly about possible PAA homelands in Africa outside of Egypt. See full spreadsheet with predictions by Passa here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hHEJ6z1_QPwYRyPAgYLEb_dt5fRBITrKvI0ezByNvTk/edit#gid=671929667).

I think many are also unaware of the African Humid Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period), which started around 14,500 ybp (cough cough) and continued into the early Bronze Age. During this wet period, most of the Sahara was grassland and savanna, and lakes like the Chad were much larger. Early Afro-Asiatics would have been able to traverse much of this now-barren landscape and we wouldn't be able to see their possible continuities in much of their former range.


I don't get why Natufians are the most likely candidate, because they spread with advanced pre-Neolithic technology and partly developed, partly took over, the Neolithic package. They are in the right time in the right place and region. Chances are very high that E-M215 latest was in the Levante-Southern Arabia and spread from there, rather than being brought there. Also for Egypt, I don't think E-V22 is particularly likely to have been from Africa at all, but if, it could be not that far away from the Levante and definitely not Ethiopia.
Whether E1b1b could be associated with Basal Eurasians still existing in Southern Arabia and the Gulf has to be seen, once ancient DNA from those regions arrives. Probably new methods or well preserved findings allow it.

Why in your opinion is all of E-M215 likely from the Levant/Southern Arabia? Is it only modern spread that suggests this to you, or are there other reasons? E-V22 too, why do you think it is not likely to be from Africa?

Riverman
08-22-2021, 08:58 PM
I'm certainly not going to claim expertise here but I have to doubt your and others' confidence here. We're talking about a language family with almost all of its branching happening in Africa, clear ultimate origins (for hg E) in Africa, and several very suggestive hints that it is simply undertesting of relevant groups in North, East, and Central Africa that have prevented us from seeing the whole story: that the Levant was a sink for Afro-Asiatics, just like say Europe was a sink for Steppe lineages throughout the years.

Some of the hints can be seen here (http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2016/06/omotic-speakers-uniparental-data.html), where Christopher Plaster's thesis involved testing almost 2500 Ethiopian males for Y-DNA. The results are clear: E-M35 dominates over all other hgs. Even E-M34- which many people believe was formed in the Levant solely based on its modern spread- has been predicted (in this study) and confirmed (in others) to be huge among practically all Cushitic and Omotic-speaking groups. In my opinion, these finds should cause us to shift our original hypothesis and think more openly about possible PAA homelands in Africa outside of Egypt. See full spreadsheet with predictions by Passa here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hHEJ6z1_QPwYRyPAgYLEb_dt5fRBITrKvI0ezByNvTk/edit#gid=671929667).

I think many are also unaware of the African Humid Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period), which started around 14,500 ybp (cough cough) and continued into the early Bronze Age. During this wet period, most of the Sahara was grassland and savanna, and lakes like the Chad were much larger. Early Afro-Asiatics would have been able to traverse much of this now-barren landscape and we wouldn't be able to see their possible continuities in much of their former range.

Why in your opinion is all of E-M215 likely from the Levant/Southern Arabia? Is it only modern spread that suggests this to you, or are there other reasons? E-V22 too, why do you think it is not likely to be from Africa?

To begin with, even the origin of haplogroup DE in Africa is no sure things. It could have been back migration and spread with ANA first, or at least the non E-M215 branches did. ANA was a back migration or it came from North East Africa too. So basically all the modern-non Basal African lineages have a most likely origin either in North East Africa or the Levante-Arabia.

The next is that every kind of expansion needs to have an advantage and there are usually three possible ones, often combined:
- Genetic innovation
- Cultural innovation
- Demographic dominance

If we look at the African landscape, the areas from which a solid migratory expansion could have happened in the times to be considered is rather small. The archaeological evidence is meagre and the physical remains point to continuity in the Near East. Actually, even the related back migrants to North Africa, the Iberomaurusians, are at the opposite ends (robust-large vs. gracile-small) of the spectrum. I posted two studies on the issue, with Iberomaurusians being an absolute extreme of hypermorphic character in their time, closer to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans in some respects. While the predecessors of Natufians in the Levante - which, incidently, already developed in the direction of Natufians and seem to have been continuous inhabitants for at least 25.000 years, were fairly small and gracile boned, with remarkable differences to the IBM specimen.

There is absolutely no evidence for any kind of massive, major migration from Africa, especially not West or South of Egypt, to the Levante and Arabia in the relevent time period, but we have plenty of evidence for movements of people in the opposite direction and even more evidence for the spread of the Neolithic package from the the Levante to North Africa. This events being practically everywhere, with just very few exceptions, accompanied by demographic turnover and replacement scenarios.


I think many are also unaware of the African Humid Period, which started around 14,500 ybp (cough cough) and continued into the early Bronze Age. During this wet period, most of the Sahara was grassland and savanna, and lakes like the Chad were much larger. Early Afro-Asiatics would have been able to traverse much of this now-barren landscape and we wouldn't be able to see their possible continuities in much of their former range.

These people existed and we can observe how a shift took place, with the newly incoming (E1b1b heavy) migrants pushing South, and those from the humid African landscape pushing South too. Before these events, we find Basal African and archaic remains in Western Africa. With this shift southward, it changed. So the whole stream of people and technology went in Africa itself from bridge of Levante-Sinai-Egypt both southward and southwestward.

The debate about PAA is old, but there is not even circumstantial evidence as to where it really came from. The haplogroups without more ancient DNA won't help, because just like so many other haplogroup debates and even if its about personal results, like I recently wrote in another thread: After 200 years nothing remains autosomally, if the haplogroup was primarily male transmitted and very expansive. Just like with R1b in West Africa.

All the groups in question even have Natufian-related ancestry, so its not that the autosomal signature got completely lost, with some extremes which might be explained by very old assimilation. Indeed, E-M35 is present in all of them. But how basal are they and what evidence do we have when it entered Africa from where?
So far the only samples of relevant age from the Iberomaurusians and these were West-Basal Eurasian and ANA mixed. Where and how they picked up what has to be shown, but they look like an African development from a Near Eastern impulse and migration.

Of course, E-M215 could be from Africa, but not far away from Egypt-Sinai and E-V22 could be from Africa too, same place. But the signal looks to me Neolithic, more than anything else. The modern distribution suggests this minimum as much as the opposite direction. Ancient DNA is the only reliable source to decide that though.

leorcooper19
08-22-2021, 10:34 PM
To begin with, even the origin of haplogroup DE in Africa is no sure things. It could have been back migration and spread with ANA first, or at least the non E-M215 branches did. ANA was a back migration or it came from North East Africa too. So basically all the modern-non Basal African lineages have a most likely origin either in North East Africa or the Levante-Arabia.
1. My point was specifically about hg E, which is undoubtedly of African origin (as in, the MRCA lived in Africa). But given D0's presence among Nigerians as found by Hallast et al. 2020, DE and thus all of hg CT is of almost certain African origin, with the crown Eurasian hgs being D1, C, and F.
2. What do you mean by "modern non-basal African lineages"?


The next is that every kind of expansion needs to have an advantage and there are usually three possible ones, often combined:
- Genetic innovation
- Cultural innovation
- Demographic dominance

If we look at the African landscape, the areas from which a solid migratory expansion could have happened in the times to be considered is rather small. The archaeological evidence is meagre and the physical remains point to continuity in the Near East. Actually, even the related back migrants to North Africa, the Iberomaurusians, are at the opposite ends (robust-large vs. gracile-small) of the spectrum. I posted two studies on the issue, with Iberomaurusians being an absolute extreme of hypermorphic character in their time, closer to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans in some respects. While the predecessors of Natufians in the Levante - which, incidently, already developed in the direction of Natufians and seem to have been continuous inhabitants for at least 25.000 years, were fairly small and gracile boned, with remarkable differences to the IBM specimen.

There is absolutely no evidence for any kind of massive, major migration from Africa, especially not West or South of Egypt, to the Levante and Arabia in the relevent time period, but we have plenty of evidence for movements of people in the opposite direction and even more evidence for the spread of the Neolithic package from the the Levante to North Africa. This events being practically everywhere, with just very few exceptions, accompanied by demographic turnover and replacement scenarios.

Sadly not many people know about how Lazaridis and his team changed their take on the relationship between Natufians and Iberomaurusians:


Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa." "An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf


These people existed and we can observe how a shift took place, with the newly incoming (E1b1b heavy) migrants pushing South, and those from the humid African landscape pushing South too. Before these events, we find Basal African and archaic remains in Western Africa. With this shift southward, it changed. So the whole stream of people and technology went in Africa itself from bridge of Levante-Sinai-Egypt both southward and southwestward.

The debate about PAA is old, but there is not even circumstantial evidence as to where it really came from. The haplogroups without more ancient DNA won't help, because just like so many other haplogroup debates and even if its about personal results, like I recently wrote in another thread: After 200 years nothing remains autosomally, if the haplogroup was primarily male transmitted and very expansive. Just like with R1b in West Africa.

All the groups in question even have Natufian-related ancestry, so its not that the autosomal signature got completely lost, with some extremes which might be explained by very old assimilation. Indeed, E-M35 is present in all of them. But how basal are they and what evidence do we have when it entered Africa from where?
So far the only samples of relevant age from the Iberomaurusians and these were West-Basal Eurasian and ANA mixed. Where and how they picked up what has to be shown, but they look like an African development from a Near Eastern impulse and migration.

Of course, E-M215 could be from Africa, but not far away from Egypt-Sinai and E-V22 could be from Africa too, same place. But the signal looks to me Neolithic, more than anything else. The modern distribution suggests this minimum as much as the opposite direction. Ancient DNA is the only reliable source to decide that though.

I disagree; while of course ancient DNA stands to greatly improve our knowledge related to this ancient group, we still have so much to do on actually understanding how modern North and East Africans fit into the story with their own Y-chromosomes. Modern spread means very little when we're entirely missing NGS/WGS-level representation of speakers of most languages of Afro-Asiatic. What ancient DNA will really help with is what exactly NE African autosomal profiles looked like in the Mesolithic, as Natufians do seem to be an early split-off from the main "Crown Afro-Asiatics", and therefore should not be used to represent the ancestry of people who, for example, brought Semitic into the Levant.

Riverman
08-22-2021, 11:33 PM
1. My point was specifically about hg E, which is undoubtedly of African origin (as in, the MRCA lived in Africa). But given D0's presence among Nigerians as found by Hallast et al. 2020, DE and thus all of hg CT is of almost certain African origin, with the crown Eurasian hgs being D1, C, and F.

That's all not known at this point. Its certainly possible, but you can find plenty of arguments and even papers arguing otherwise.


2. What do you mean by "modern non-basal African lineages"?

All African lineages, including modern Subsaharans, which being introduced by a later split or backmigration and associated with ANA. Its no coincidene that most hunter gatherer populations and the oldest African lineages all are A and B, which are the only basal African lineages.


Sadly not many people know about how Lazaridis and his team changed their take on the relationship between Natufians and Iberomaurusians:

I knew it, but its not for sure whether their model is right, but even if so, it just meanst hat Natufians have something ANA-related from Africa. Its not from IBM, but most likely just trickled in from the North East of Africa and Sinai. Its also no decision as to where E1b1b came from originally, that's all undecided.


I disagree; while of course ancient DNA stands to greatly improve our knowledge related to this ancient group

Its the only safe point to start from. Everything else will always remain speculative, because even basal lineages can migrate.


we still have so much to do on actually understanding how modern North and East Africans fit into the story with their own Y-chromosomes. Modern spread means very little when we're entirely missing NGS/WGS-level representation of speakers of most languages of Afro-Asiatic.

That's true and I agree. Its always better to have more data and a full representation of all candidate populations. But without ancient DNA, it gets tough.


What ancient DNA will really help with is what exactly NE African autosomal profiles looked like in the Mesolithic, as Natufians do seem to be an early split-off from the main "Crown Afro-Asiatics", and therefore should not be used to represent the ancestry of people who, for example, brought Semitic into the Levant.

That's all speculation, you don't know for sure who split off from whom and at which exact time. Linguistics can't tell whether Natufians were PAA or not, they can only tell us what to look for, and they are still in the range everything considers. This means if Natufians or their direct predecessors and ancestors carried - in the ancient DNA - the lineages which later appear in East Africa, its a proof for an expansion from the Levante to East Africa.
If the preceding population in the region has very different uniparentals and shows an autosomal profile which lacks admixture from North East Africa, we have to look at North East Africa. And we can play that game until we land in Ethiopia, if that theory of some is right. But I doubt it. We will find the right profile either directly in the Levante-Arabia or in the Nile Valley-Sinai. Not further away. That's my current bet. East Africa is still an option, no doubt about it, but the currently available evidence doesn't really prove anything conclusively.

Another bet of mine is that there won't be a lot of any non-Basal African DNA in Subsaharan Africa before fairly late. Mota is probably one of the oldest you will get. Most of the haplogroup E spread even in West Africa just with ANA pushing southward, with the IBM and later Neolithic West Eurasians in their back and transmitting innovations the same time. This is very evident from the archaeological record in West Africa, as well as the fairly recent timing of the physically archaic looking skulls from Iwo Eleru.
There were at least two waves or more of E expanding into other regions of Africa from the North East and/or Levante-Arabia.
- Ancient North African
- Basal-West Eurasian = IBM, Natufian-related, Neolithic.


Present genetic data from modern samples7-9 suggests that North Africans’ ancestry has contributions from four main sources: 1) an autochthonous Maghrebi component related to a back migration to Africa ~12,000 years ago from the Levant; 2) a Middle Eastern component probably associated with the Arab conquest; 3) a sub-Saharan component derived from trans-Saharan migrations; and 4) a European component that has been linked to recent historic movements.


Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups obtained for IAM (Moroccan Early 126
Neolithic) and KEB (Moroccan Late Neolithic) suggest either a population replacement or an 127
important genetic influx into Morocco between 5,000–3,000 BCE. IAM samples belong to 128
the mtDNA haplogroups U6a and M1—both of which are associated with the back migration 129
to Africa from Eurasia in Upper Palaeolithic times18,19—while KEB samples belong to 130
haplogroups K1, T2 and X2, prominently found in Anatolian and European Neolithic 131
samples2,20 (Supplementary Note 4). Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry 132
Y chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while
e Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; though scarce and broadly 134
distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithic individuals16 135
(Supplementary Note 5). Both mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages (K1, J2 and T2 136
haplogroups, and G-M201 haplogroup, respectively) for samples from TOR (Iberian Early 137
Neolithic) are similar to those observed in Europe during Neolithic times20.


It is 152
worth mentioning that, compared to current North African samples, IAM and KEB do not 153
show any sub-Saharan African ancestry, suggesting that trans-Saharan migrations occurred 154
after Neolithic times. This is in agreement with the analysis of present-day genome-wide 155
data from Morocco, which estimated a migration of western African origin into Morocco 156
only ~1,200 years ago1

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/191569v2.full.pdf

The point of this quotes is not whether the Neolithic North Africans had SSA ancestry or not, but to show how important the Neolithic influence even in this region was. Its perfectly plausible that E-V22 could have spread with the Neolithic expansion from the Levante. It might be wrong, but what exactly would be, right now, conclusive evidence against before we get ancient DNA?

NetNomad
08-23-2021, 08:01 AM
E-M329

Despite its age (~39KYA) this lineage suspiciously is not found anywhere outside of Ethiopia except for a few Gulf Afro-Arabs with slave trade related ancestry from Southwest Ethiopia.

This makes me highly skeptical of PAA coming out of Ethiopia and Omotic being the first branch to simply have never left.

Many Omotic people also have E-M34 / E-M123 and T1 which seems to have more northerly origins and it is not that unusual for Omotic groups to carry mtDNA K1a as well.

Finn
08-23-2021, 08:32 AM
The point of this quotes is not whether the Neolithic North Africans had SSA ancestry or not, but to show how important the Neolithic influence even in this region was. Its perfectly plausible that E-V22 could have spread with the Neolithic expansion from the Levante. It might be wrong, but what exactly would be, right now, conclusive evidence against before we get ancient DNA?


There are two points in favour of E-V22 originating along the Nile/ NE Africa.

1. Trombetta e.a. (2015) “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).” E-M78 is of course an ancestor of E-V22.

2. When there is an founder effect of E-V22 that correspondences with the migration from the Western Desert to the Nile and the development of a new kind of life style are mayor triggers for the different mutations of E-V22 and the founder effect.


ca. 7000–4500 B.C.
(Neolithic) The earliest permanent settlements belong to this period. Their occupation is identified from the remains of huts, hearths, granaries, and nonportable stone tools for grinding grains. People had now begun to exploit domesticated plants and animals, although animal bones indicate that hunting of birds, small game, and fish continues to be important to the economy. Stone tools remain significant components of the material culture, but tools of bone and ceramic vessels are now used as well. At the site of Merimde Beni Salama in the Delta, a representation of a human face is the earliest known example of sculpture from ancient Egypt.


https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe.html

In the Y-full tree is 7400 ybp (chances over time) such a point in which several subclades appear. See:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

Indeed the proof of the pudding is in the definite sample, but seems a likely scenario.

Riverman
08-23-2021, 09:06 AM
There are two points in favour of E-V22 originating along the Nile/ NE Africa.

1. Trombetta e.a. (2015) “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).” E-M78 is of course an ancestor of E-V22.

2. When there is an founder effect of E-V22 that correspondences with the migration from the Western Desert to the Nile and the development of a new kind of life style are mayor triggers for the different mutations of E-V22 and the founder effect.



https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe.html

In the Y-full tree is 7400 ybp (chances over time) such a point in which several subclades appear. See:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

Indeed the proof of the pudding is in the definite sample, but seems a likely scenario.

I think there is just two question for E-V22, because it most certainly spread as a Neolithic marker:
- Was it introduced with the Neolithic package or was it already there and just picked it up.
- If they were already there, how long? Did Natufians descend from an Egyptian expansion or vice versa?

In my opinion there is no sufficient answer to this at the moment.
The Nile valley is one of these zones where hunter gatherers could have reached sufficient numbers to expand elsewhere or putting up a resistance and stronghold to force newcomers to share with them. That's especially true for the river systems. But I still think it was newly settled with colonists coming in, in the Neolithic. And E-V22 could very well have been one of the main markers for this.

leorcooper19
08-23-2021, 01:50 PM
That's all not known at this point. Its certainly possible, but you can find plenty of arguments and even papers arguing otherwise.

All African lineages, including modern Subsaharans, which being introduced by a later split or backmigration and associated with ANA. Its no coincidene that most hunter gatherer populations and the oldest African lineages all are A and B, which are the only basal African lineages.

I knew it, but its not for sure whether their model is right, but even if so, it just meanst hat Natufians have something ANA-related from Africa. Its not from IBM, but most likely just trickled in from the North East of Africa and Sinai. Its also no decision as to where E1b1b came from originally, that's all undecided.

That's all speculation, you don't know for sure who split off from whom and at which exact time. Linguistics can't tell whether Natufians were PAA or not, they can only tell us what to look for, and they are still in the range everything considers. This means if Natufians or their direct predecessors and ancestors carried - in the ancient DNA - the lineages which later appear in East Africa, its a proof for an expansion from the Levante to East Africa.
If the preceding population in the region has very different uniparentals and shows an autosomal profile which lacks admixture from North East Africa, we have to look at North East Africa. And we can play that game until we land in Ethiopia, if that theory of some is right. But I doubt it. We will find the right profile either directly in the Levante-Arabia or in the Nile Valley-Sinai. Not further away. That's my current bet. East Africa is still an option, no doubt about it, but the currently available evidence doesn't really prove anything conclusively.

You're absolutely correct that we do not have enough relevant data to be sure of anything at this point. In the end, that's all I'm really trying to say.

However, while all of these above points are technically possible, but there is an important difference between mine and yours: adherence to Occam's razor. Parsimony suggests that hg E- with E2, E1a, E1b1a, and much of E1b1b being found primarily among Africans- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that the Afro-Asiatic language family- with all but one branch being found in Africa- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that E-M78- being found among IBM, who Lazaridis et al believe is a two-way ANA-SSA mix- also began in Africa.

In your theory, multiple back migrations from the Levant into Africa are required to explain everything we see. In mine, only two migrations into the Levant are required: once with the patrilineal ancestors of Natufians, and once with the speakers of proto-Semitic. While the simplest/neatest solutions are certainly not always correct, there is a reason why parsimony is a guiding principle in our field: it works. The issue is, for Occam's razor to be accurately used, we need a full picture of the modern data. If we look at the YTree of E-M35 as it exists now then yes, a Levant-Arabia argument seems reasonable. But as there are only a few dozen total NE Africans on YFull, we are again missing too much to rely on modern spread.

To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if Ethiopia was the PAA Urheimat too. I just think that there's more genetic and linguistic evidence to suggest an origin in that area than in the Levant. If I had to guess where the PAA Urheimat was, I'd guess somewhere on the Nile in modern Sudan.


Another bet of mine is that there won't be a lot of any non-Basal African DNA in Subsaharan Africa before fairly late. Mota is probably one of the oldest you will get. Most of the haplogroup E spread even in West Africa just with ANA pushing southward, with the IBM and later Neolithic West Eurasians in their back and transmitting innovations the same time. This is very evident from the archaeological record in West Africa, as well as the fairly recent timing of the physically archaic looking skulls from Iwo Eleru.
There were at least two waves or more of E expanding into other regions of Africa from the North East and/or Levante-Arabia.
- Ancient North African
- Basal-West Eurasian = IBM, Natufian-related, Neolithic.

The point of this quotes is not whether the Neolithic North Africans had SSA ancestry or not, but to show how important the Neolithic influence even in this region was. Its perfectly plausible that E-V22 could have spread with the Neolithic expansion from the Levante. It might be wrong, but what exactly would be, right now, conclusive evidence against before we get ancient DNA?

These quotes are talking about Neolithic Morocco, where the Neolithic European Farmers had a significant impact. What does this have to do with Neolithic Levantines entering Egypt?

I do not know of conclusive evidence against that idea right now, but there is again suggestive evidence. If we take Lazaridis et al 2018's new interpretation (which I think we should, as it's not common for authors to publicly change their opinions), and consider that IBM were E-M78 and from 13000-15000 BCE, with E-M78's fully derived block having a TMRCA of only c. 11200 BCE, then there is a clear favor for E-V22 also to be native to at least northern Africa. That's because for E-V22 to be a Neolithic Levantine marker, then its modern spread and peaks in Africa would be the result of a back migration, which means two migrations (there and back). If E-V22 is a Neolithic Nile River marker, then no back migration explanation is needed.

leorcooper19
08-23-2021, 02:01 PM
Despite its age (~39KYA) this lineage suspiciously is not found anywhere outside of Ethiopia except for a few Gulf Afro-Arabs with slave trade related ancestry from Southwest Ethiopia.

This makes me highly skeptical of PAA coming out of Ethiopia and Omotic being the first branch to simply have never left.

Many Omotic people also have E-M34 / E-M123 and T1 which seems to have more northerly origins and it is not that unusual for Omotic groups to carry mtDNA K1a as well.

Not sure how E-M329 (which actually has a TMRCA of ~25kya) being a small subclade with one ancient Ethiopian from c. 4500 ybp is greater evidence against Ethiopia being the PAA homeland than the Omotic family's basal position against all other Afro-Asiatic languages. Some clades are just less successful than others and I'm not completely sure the Mota man should be thought of as representing continuity from 10,000 years before his time.

Here's the thing: while Y-hg T1 and mtDNA K1a are certainly of northern origin, I believe that E-M123/M34's commonness among practically all tested Cushitic AND Omotic groups implies that E-M123/M34 is not so northern in origin, but rather is fairly widespread and diverse across the Near East and Northeast/Eastern Africa.

Riverman
08-23-2021, 02:40 PM
You're absolutely correct that we do not have enough relevant data to be sure of anything at this point. In the end, that's all I'm really trying to say.

However, while all of these above points are technically possible, but there is an important difference between mine and yours: adherence to Occam's razor. Parsimony suggests that hg E- with E2, E1a, E1b1a, and much of E1b1b being found primarily among Africans- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that the Afro-Asiatic language family- with all but one branch being found in Africa- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that E-M78- being found among IBM, who Lazaridis et al believe is a two-way ANA-SSA mix- also began in Africa.

I think the situation might be quite similar to R1 in Europe and South Asia, as well as clades of O in South East Asia. Its possible that E came originally from Africa, it might be even likely, but still the Levante-Arabia are possible too and the ANA autosomal profile suggests so as well. They were either the result of a back migration or a population which was very close to the Out of Africa, Eurasian ancestors.
And there are indications of E and especially E1b1b being associated with Basal Eurasian. Its funny reading old threads about Natufians, in which people stated that its so unlikely that Natufians were E1b, they surely were G and what not.

There is no sign of an older, widespread distribution of E anywhere in Africa south of North Africa. North African ANA were most likely E, but this was the back migration or close branch. For E-M35 and even upstream E-M215 chances look good they were at home in the Levante-Arabia for at least 20.000 years and more.

IBM is a mix with no significant ancestral component comparable to modern SSA. The lingusitic AA branches in the Levante-Arabia are misleading, because that's like judging Indoeuropean diversity by the Slavic dominance in the Eastern European region today. Just one branch alive in the region, that's no great diversity. The same is even more true for the Levante, because we actually know that J did replace a large fraction of E1b1b in Arabia, with the Semitic expansion with a larger fraction of J, presumably in the Bronze Age. So whatever was there before, without a lot of ancient DNA, the older, the better, being completely buried. That's because in the region the local populations couldn't evade newly incoming people on the long run. Where could they go? They could go over the Red Sea or Sinai to Africa, what a lot of them did. And there they could push deeper and deeper into East Africa, with the newest wave in their back.

That's even visible in Egypt, where a layered model of migrations from the Levante, into Africa, is very clearly visible. Whereas the opposite dates to a very old age and even then being not really proven yet.


In your theory, multiple back migrations from the Levant into Africa are required to explain everything we see.

We have actual evidence for this back migrations. Its obvious not just in North East Africa, but down to West Africa. There were direct pushes from the Levante going down. You have nothing even remotely comparable in the opposite direction in the archaeolical record. The few possible exchanges between Sinai and the Levante are plausible, but that's just the limits I set before. Egypt-Sinai-Levante-Arabia. Somewhere in between, probably even interconnected. But Ethiopia? Not even a slice of evidence for any sort of massive expansion along these lines.
Its certainly possible, because to really exclude it 100 % is difficult, but I'm rather going by models of archaeological cultures, cultural innovations and demographic expansion. The demographic strength of the North was much too big. And if Mota proves anything, its that the local people were not involved in PAA, but just received the patrilineage some generations earlier. Because we can observe the genetical impact in the opposite direction autosomally and not vice versa.


In mine, only two migrations into the Levant are required: once with the patrilineal ancestors of Natufians, and once with the speakers of proto-Semitic. While the simplest/neatest solutions are certainly not always correct, there is a reason why parsimony is a guiding principle in our field: it works.

With the same logic R1b did expand from Iberia. It works, more often than not. But that kind of simplistic analysis shouldn't ignore the evidence against such an interpretation. The continuity in the Near East, the autosomal profile of IBM and later waves, the archaeological evidence of migrations form the Levante-Near East down to West Africa and all of North Africa. The fact that E was not widespread anywhere in Subsaharan Africa before the Neolithic. Even just some thousands years ago, most of West Africa and Central Africa, probably even Eastern Africa, was dominated by the Basal African lineages A and B.


The issue is, for Occam's razor to be accurately used, we need a full picture of the modern data. If we look at the YTree of E-M35 as it exists now then yes, a Levant-Arabia argument seems reasonable. But as there are only a few dozen total NE Africans on YFull, we are again missing too much to rely on modern spread.

It will turn out like it did with E-V13 and the Southern Balkan: With more people from these regions getting tested, a lot of diversity will pop up, but little to no overlap which points to any sort of migraton up, to the North, and more and more evidence of a southward migration, from the Levante-Arabia. So the current studies and numbers are the only factual evidence in favour of the out of East Africa theory, because much of the earlier variation - local in Arabia, local in East Africa, got lost in the massive shift which took place. This shift means that E1b moved deeply into East Africa, while J and Semitic did move deep into Arabia. They both replaced what was dominant before in the respective region.
You will see the first ancient DNA from Yemen will be totally E dominated and it will be very diverse. And if they go back in time in the Levante, I would bet the same there.


To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if Ethiopia was the PAA Urheimat too. I just think that there's more genetic and linguistic evidence to suggest an origin in that area than in the Levant.

No way. There is absolutely nothing which points to an expansion of a culture or people from Ethiopia directly into the Levante, while we have piled up evidence, from all disciplines, pointing in the opposite direction. The greater linguistic diversity just means there were no massive replacement level expansions which the local languages couldn't evade. And the explanation for that is simple: They moved further South and fused with locals, again and again and again. In Yemen, people could just sail over to Africa or die. There is no way they could keep up their local ethnic units after the Bronze Age expansion of Semites, which came from further North.


These quotes are talking about Neolithic Morocco, where the Neolithic European Farmers had a significant impact. What does this have to do with Neolithic Levantines entering Egypt?

That's the same question as to ask what a Roman city in Serbia has to do with Italian replacement rates due to migration in Imperial times: if the West of Africa, down what is not solidly Subsaharan, was heavily impacted by one wave of Neolithic people from the Levante after another, do you really think Egypt was spared?
I would like to have the data for Egypt, but since there is none, I look at it as a station on the way. If 10 stations away a wave is still so big that truly shatters what was there before, what do you think it did to Egypt? I'm not talking about coastal hoppers from the Mediterranean, there are also plenty of evidence for migrations through the Sahara and pushed taking place, which brought non-E1b1b haplogroup E deep into Africa. I brought a lot of archaeological evidence for that up in an older thread. Its very clear that e.g. Niger-Kordofanian was the result of such a south migration and impulse from the North. They did replace earlier foragers dominated by A and B, possibly also other, archaic lineages (Iwo Eleru).


I do not know of conclusive evidence against that idea right now, but there is again suggestive evidence. If we take Lazaridis et al 2018's new interpretation (which I think we should, as it's not common for authors to publicly change their opinions), and consider that IBM were E-M78 and from 13000-15000 BCE, with E-M78's fully derived block having a TMRCA of only c. 11200 BCE, then there is a clear favor for E-V22 also to be native to at least northern Africa. That's because for E-V22 to be a Neolithic Levantine marker, then its modern spread and peaks in Africa would be the result of a back migration, which means two migrations (there and back). If E-V22 is a Neolithic Nile River marker, then no back migration explanation is needed.

The IBM people were majority wise West Eurasian Upper Palaeolithic people, an earlier people from West Eurasia, than we see them in the Natufians. They did mix with local elements and my guess is, that there actually was gene flow happening between the Nile Valley and the Levante on a more regular basis. So the question as to where exactly these clades came from might be kind of arbitrary, unless we are in search for a very specific clade like E-V22. But the one before might have been further West than the next and so on.

But Natufians surely had no significant influence from IBM, which were a different branch. I see two options:
- back migration of the IBM ancestors from the Levante
- split from one common source population in or around Egypt-Sinai with connections to the Levante

Whats no viable option is that IBM is local North African and Natufians descend from it. That's no viable option. If they had a common source not in the Levante, it was different from IBM and closer to Natufian, that's the point. Then, pretty much Natufian-like people, with just slightly more ANA possibly, should have lived in Egypt. That's an option.

Finn
08-23-2021, 03:30 PM
I do not know of conclusive evidence against that idea right now, but there is again suggestive evidence. If we take Lazaridis et al 2018's new interpretation (which I think we should, as it's not common for authors to publicly change their opinions), and consider that IBM were E-M78 and from 13000-15000 BCE, with E-M78's fully derived block having a TMRCA of only c. 11200 BCE, then there is a clear favor for E-V22 also to be native to at least northern Africa. That's because for E-V22 to be a Neolithic Levantine marker, then its modern spread and peaks in Africa would be the result of a back migration, which means two migrations (there and back). If E-V22 is a Neolithic Nile River marker, then no back migration explanation is needed.


I guess you are right here. Riverman has imo a later period in front of his eyes.

Oldest neolithic developments are from 5000 BC (or even before) around the Nile.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/09/02/archeologists-find-neolithic-remains-in-nile-delta

https://www.topoi.org/feature/the-neolithic-in-the-nile-delta/

That are pretty indigenous developments as fare as I know not by an influx from the Levant area.

E-M78 was already there in TMRCA 13200 BC was already there and the development that caused settling and agriculture along the Nile is congruent with the developments of E-V22 with many branches around 5500-5000 BC.

Scythoslav
08-23-2021, 04:01 PM
I think the situation might be quite similar to R1 in Europe and South Asia, as well as clades of O in South East Asia. Its possible that E came originally from Africa, it might be even likely, but still the Levante-Arabia are possible too and the ANA autosomal profile suggests so as well. They were either the result of a back migration or a population which was very close to the Out of Africa, Eurasian ancestors.
And there are indications of E and especially E1b1b being associated with Basal Eurasian. Its funny reading old threads about Natufians, in which people stated that its so unlikely that Natufians were E1b, they surely were G and what not.

There is no sign of an older, widespread distribution of E anywhere in Africa south of North Africa. North African ANA were most likely E, but this was the back migration or close branch. For E-M35 and even upstream E-M215 chances look good they were at home in the Levante-Arabia for at least 20.000 years and more.

IBM is a mix with no significant ancestral component comparable to modern SSA. The lingusitic AA branches in the Levante-Arabia are misleading, because that's like judging Indoeuropean diversity by the Slavic dominance in the Eastern European region today. Just one branch alive in the region, that's no great diversity. The same is even more true for the Levante, because we actually know that J did replace a large fraction of E1b1b in Arabia, with the Semitic expansion with a larger fraction of J, presumably in the Bronze Age. So whatever was there before, without a lot of ancient DNA, the older, the better, being completely buried. That's because in the region the local populations couldn't evade newly incoming people on the long run. Where could they go? They could go over the Red Sea or Sinai to Africa, what a lot of them did. And there they could push deeper and deeper into East Africa, with the newest wave in their back.

That's even visible in Egypt, where a layered model of migrations from the Levante, into Africa, is very clearly visible. Whereas the opposite dates to a very old age and even then being not really proven yet.



We have actual evidence for this back migrations. Its obvious not just in North East Africa, but down to West Africa. There were direct pushes from the Levante going down. You have nothing even remotely comparable in the opposite direction in the archaeolical record. The few possible exchanges between Sinai and the Levante are plausible, but that's just the limits I set before. Egypt-Sinai-Levante-Arabia. Somewhere in between, probably even interconnected. But Ethiopia? Not even a slice of evidence for any sort of massive expansion along these lines.
Its certainly possible, because to really exclude it 100 % is difficult, but I'm rather going by models of archaeological cultures, cultural innovations and demographic expansion. The demographic strength of the North was much too big. And if Mota proves anything, its that the local people were not involved in PAA, but just received the patrilineage some generations earlier. Because we can observe the genetical impact in the opposite direction autosomally and not vice versa.


With the same logic R1b did expand from Iberia. It works, more often than not. But that kind of simplistic analysis shouldn't ignore the evidence against such an interpretation. The continuity in the Near East, the autosomal profile of IBM and later waves, the archaeological evidence of migrations form the Levante-Near East down to West Africa and all of North Africa. The fact that E was not widespread anywhere in Subsaharan Africa before the Neolithic. Even just some thousands years ago, most of West Africa and Central Africa, probably even Eastern Africa, was dominated by the Basal African lineages A and B.



It will turn out like it did with E-V13 and the Southern Balkan: With more people from these regions getting tested, a lot of diversity will pop up, but little to no overlap which points to any sort of migraton up, to the North, and more and more evidence of a southward migration, from the Levante-Arabia. So the current studies and numbers are the only factual evidence in favour of the out of East Africa theory, because much of the earlier variation - local in Arabia, local in East Africa, got lost in the massive shift which took place. This shift means that E1b moved deeply into East Africa, while J and Semitic did move deep into Arabia. They both replaced what was dominant before in the respective region.
You will see the first ancient DNA from Yemen will be totally E dominated and it will be very diverse. And if they go back in time in the Levante, I would bet the same there.



No way. There is absolutely nothing which points to an expansion of a culture or people from Ethiopia directly into the Levante, while we have piled up evidence, from all disciplines, pointing in the opposite direction. The greater linguistic diversity just means there were no massive replacement level expansions which the local languages couldn't evade. And the explanation for that is simple: They moved further South and fused with locals, again and again and again. In Yemen, people could just sail over to Africa or die. There is no way they could keep up their local ethnic units after the Bronze Age expansion of Semites, which came from further North.



That's the same question as to ask what a Roman city in Serbia has to do with Italian replacement rates due to migration in Imperial times: if the West of Africa, down what is not solidly Subsaharan, was heavily impacted by one wave of Neolithic people from the Levante after another, do you really think Egypt was spared?
I would like to have the data for Egypt, but since there is none, I look at it as a station on the way. If 10 stations away a wave is still so big that truly shatters what was there before, what do you think it did to Egypt? I'm not talking about coastal hoppers from the Mediterranean, there are also plenty of evidence for migrations through the Sahara and pushed taking place, which brought non-E1b1b haplogroup E deep into Africa. I brought a lot of archaeological evidence for that up in an older thread. Its very clear that e.g. Niger-Kordofanian was the result of such a south migration and impulse from the North. They did replace earlier foragers dominated by A and B, possibly also other, archaic lineages (Iwo Eleru).



The IBM people were majority wise West Eurasian Upper Palaeolithic people, an earlier people from West Eurasia, than we see them in the Natufians. They did mix with local elements and my guess is, that there actually was gene flow happening between the Nile Valley and the Levante on a more regular basis. So the question as to where exactly these clades came from might be kind of arbitrary, unless we are in search for a very specific clade like E-V22. But the one before might have been further West than the next and so on.

But Natufians surely had no significant influence from IBM, which were a different branch. I see two options:
- back migration of the IBM ancestors from the Levante
- split from one common source population in or around Egypt-Sinai with connections to the Levante

Whats no viable option is that IBM is local North African and Natufians descend from it. That's no viable option. If they had a common source not in the Levante, it was different from IBM and closer to Natufian, that's the point. Then, pretty much Natufian-like people, with just slightly more ANA possibly, should have lived in Egypt. That's an option.

There is also a possibility that E wasn’t part of basal eurasians, that the Levant was Anatolian Hunter gatherer like until a migration of E1b from Africa. One group of this migration stayed in the Levant later forming the natufians and another group moved into Maghreb after having picked up certain basal Eurasian and UHG female lineages(u6). The basal Eurasian autosomal dna being picked up into these populations completely through the female side with IBM and through both paternal and maternal in natufians.

Because early natufians were not completely E1b (they were ~40% CT) it would sense that they would be more basal than IBM.

In my mind Kebaran were Anatolian Hunter Gatherer/basal like, and Mushabians are the ones who brought E1b into Levant.

When looking at physical specimens, the Ohalo 2 sample of Kebaran culture is like a robust version of a Natufian. So there is physical continuity in that region. The IBM physical samples and other African physical samples that carry E don’t resemble the Ohalo 2 sample at all(it’s actually a very unique phenotype). Ohalo 2 shows us what Paleolithic people of Levant and most likely Arabia looked like. So if E came into Africa from a group similar to this, they would need to have at least some kind of phenotypically similarity right? Because their samples are from around the same age.

Riverman
08-23-2021, 06:09 PM
There is also a possibility that E wasn’t part of basal eurasians, that the Levant was Anatolian Hunter gatherer like until a migration of E1b from Africa. One group of this migration stayed in the Levant later forming the natufians and another group moved into Maghreb after having picked up certain basal Eurasian and UHG female lineages(u6). The basal Eurasian autosomal dna being picked up into these populations completely through the female side with IBM and through both paternal and maternal in natufians.

Because early natufians were not completely E1b (they were ~40% CT) it would sense that they would be more basal than IBM.

In my mind Kebaran were Anatolian Hunter Gatherer/basal like, and Mushabians are the ones who brought E1b into Levant.

When looking at physical specimens, the Ohalo 2 sample of Kebaran culture is like a robust version of a Natufian. So there is physical continuity in that region. The IBM physical samples and other African physical samples that carry E don’t resemble the Ohalo 2 sample at all(it’s actually a very unique phenotype). Ohalo 2 shows us what Paleolithic people of Levant and most likely Arabia looked like. So if E came into Africa from a group similar to this, they would need to have at least some kind of phenotypically similarity right? Because their samples are from around the same age.

Some speculate that a small group of E carrying or largely similar people moved into the Levante around that time, e.g. with the Mushabian in particular. The problem is two-fold, because that's the best bet if wanting to propose a more Western origin:
- We don't know where exactly the Mushabians themselves came from, even if there were broad similarities with IBM
- Whether there was a cultural transmission with or without a significant gene flow, especially one spreading E1b1b

This can't be answered from the archaeological material and remains highly speculative based on human remains. The only way to clarify the direction of the gene flow around that time period is to test the ancients. There is no other way.

Concerning Neolithic, just a quick response with reference to Wikipedia:

The period from 9000 to 6000 BC has left very little in the way of archaeological evidence. Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt.[19] Studies based on morphological,[20] genetic,[21][22][23][24][25] and archaeological data[16][26][27][28][29] have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region.


Some morphological and post-cranial data has linked the earliest farming populations at Fayum, Merimde, and El-Badari, to Near Eastern populations.[31][32][33] However, the archaeological data also suggests that Near Eastern domesticates were incorporated into a pre-existing foraging strategy and only slowly developed into a full-blown lifestyle, contrary to what would be expected from settler colonists from the Near East.[c][35][36]

So basically, nobody can know which groups dominated whom and spread which y-lineages. Without ancient DNA, we are completely in the dark. And then I came across this argument:


Finally, the names for the Near Eastern domesticates imported into Egypt were not Sumerian or Proto-Semitic loan words,[37] which further diminishes the likelihood of a mass migrant colonization of lower Egypt during the transition to agriculture.


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

To me that's one of the stupid arguments which go like: We have found no connecton to the later, historically known people from the region.

Well, that's nice, but it means nothing, because like I said, in the Bronze Age the expansion from the North spreading Semitic languages rolled over the region and in some places did probably led to the replacement of the vast majority of local patrilineages! That's even more evident if you think about the fact, that even the Semites from the North were not exclusively J, but had always a significant portion of E1b1b. So any change in frequency which results in J becoming dominant means that only very little, if anything at all, of the preceding paternal ancestry survived.
If we consider this fact, its actually quite astonishing how much haplogroup E diversity survived in the Arabian sphere. With the vast majority of diversified subclades looking local and not like being introduced due to recent migrations and slave trade. In fact, the samples we have from East Africa are not more upstream, or more diverse. There might be some surprises around, but even if, those will be rather in those which received recent West Eurasian admixture from those going over the Red Sea, rather than the earliest PAA. There will be some old branches in East Africa, because they split from the AA trunk the earliest and moved deep into the continent, but not qualifying them for the root of them all. That won't happen.

Finn
08-23-2021, 06:49 PM
@Riverman by the way E-V22 in modern times is much more sampled and on Y-full from UAE than in Egypt let alone Somalia......

Riverman
08-23-2021, 08:20 PM
@Riverman by the way E-V22 in modern times is much more sampled and on Y-full from UAE than in Egypt let alone Somalia......

Hopefully more get tested over time. Like in all the other cases, like R1b in Iberia and E-V13 in the Balkans, numbers are not everything. One ancient DNA sample can change everything and I never said Egypt isn't possible, Egypt-Sinai is in any case a good candidate. Probably not better than the Levante-Arabia, but very close. I wouldn't bet a lot on either. But betting on Nile Valley-Sinai-Levante-Arabia vs. deeper down in East Africa, I would raise the stakes. :)
I think Yemen in particular will yield, sooner or later, ancient DNA results which will surprise many of us. I think the new paper on the Middle East gives us first hints:

In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where ∼50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016
). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009
; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010
; Lazaridis et al., 2016
). The majority of the J1 haplogroup chromosomes in our dataset coalesce around ∼5.6 (95% CI, 4.8–6.5) kya, agreeing with a potential Bronze Age expansion; however, we did find rarer earlier diverged lineages coalescing ∼17 kya (Figure S2). The haplogroup common in Natufians, E1b1b, is also frequent in our dataset, with most lineages coalescing ∼8.3 (7–9.7) kya, though we also found a rare deeply divergent Y chromosome, which coalesces 39 kya (Figure S2).

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00839-4#relatedArticles

The sampling and especially private testing from Yemen is not that great either by the way. Yet there are many private samples from Yemen on YFull, many being in their own clades, many fairly basal. Somali in particular are not well tested, for sure, but just look how close they cluster in E-V12:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z813/

That's like Albanians cluster in E-V13. There are Somali samples, not that few, but they all fall in the same younger subclades!

On E-M215 are at least 35 Somali related samples, but only 18 from the Palestinians. Only 18 Palestinians! And compare how they distribute, just compare the distribution.

Non-Somali Ethiopians are much worse tested and represented than Somalis. Somalis seem to have tested, for African people, relatively good. They just happen to fall in specific subclades most of the time. Non-Somali Ethiopians on the other hand almost don't exist on YFull. They are severely undertested.

And Palestinians though having less samples than Somali are much more upstream and diverse within E-M215.

Finn
08-24-2021, 06:23 AM
@Riverman

We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009)

In the case of E-V22 and the origin of many subbranches we are talking about 7400-8300 ybp.......

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

NetNomad
08-24-2021, 10:13 AM
Hopefully more get tested over time. Like in all the other cases, like R1b in Iberia and E-V13 in the Balkans, numbers are not everything. One ancient DNA sample can change everything and I never said Egypt isn't possible, Egypt-Sinai is in any case a good candidate. Probably not better than the Levante-Arabia, but very close. I wouldn't bet a lot on either. But betting on Nile Valley-Sinai-Levante-Arabia vs. deeper down in East Africa, I would raise the stakes. :)
I think Yemen in particular will yield, sooner or later, ancient DNA results which will surprise many of us. I think the new paper on the Middle East gives us first hints:


https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00839-4#relatedArticles

The sampling and especially private testing from Yemen is not that great either by the way. Yet there are many private samples from Yemen on YFull, many being in their own clades, many fairly basal. Somali in particular are not well tested, for sure, but just look how close they cluster in E-V12:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z813/

That's like Albanians cluster in E-V13. There are Somali samples, not that few, but they all fall in the same younger subclades!

On E-M215 are at least 35 Somali related samples, but only 18 from the Palestinians. Only 18 Palestinians! And compare how they distribute, just compare the distribution.

Non-Somali Ethiopians are much worse tested and represented than Somalis. Somalis seem to have tested, for African people, relatively good. They just happen to fall in specific subclades most of the time. Non-Somali Ethiopians on the other hand almost don't exist on YFull. They are severely undertested.

And Palestinians though having less samples than Somali are much more upstream and diverse within E-M215.

Somalis are not typical for Eastern Africa though (big founder effect favouring E-Y18629 and T-BY181210). :biggrin1:

Eritreans and Ethiopians tend to have more diverse uniparentals.

Riverman
08-24-2021, 10:41 AM
Somalis are not typical for Eastern Africa though (big founder effect favouring E-Y18629 and T-BY181210). :biggrin1:

Eritreans and Ethiopians tend to have more diverse uniparentals.

I know, which makes the case all the more extreme. Ethiopia should be quite diverse if considering recent ethnic migrations alone.

@Finn: But that's important, because the Near East experienced replacement in the BA. A lot of the E1b1b might have been lost and even more of the linguistic. But many argue the Near East is a bad candidate for PAA because theres just one branch AA.
That for sure was different before the Bronze Age.

Finn
08-24-2021, 12:24 PM
I know, which makes the case all the more extreme. Ethiopia should be quite diverse if considering recent ethnic migrations alone.

@Finn: But that's important, because the Near East experienced replacement in the BA. A lot of the E1b1b might have been lost and even more of the linguistic. But many argue the Near East is a bad candidate for PAA because theres just one branch AA.
That for sure was different before the Bronze Age.

Ok but the topic is the origin of E-V22 and I guess this shows that the highest chances are that the branch E-V22 developed around the Nile in this time:


The new dates do not provide earlier dates, although a pre-5000 BC date is still suspected for the first evidence of Neolithic settlement.
Recent research by colleagues working in the Faiyum has shown that there is no gap between the Qarunian Epipalaeolithic (conventionally dated to 7,570 to 6,200 cal BC) and the Early Faiyumian Neolithic (5,550 to 4,650 cal BC). The early sixth millennium appears to have been a transitional period in the Faiyum prior to pastoralism being introduced into the region. Throughout the Western Desert, mixed pastoral groups had existed from ca. 6,100 cal BC. Mixed farming with domesticated flora and fauna only occurred in the Faiyum during the Late Faiyumian (4,650 to 4,200 cal BC).


https://www.topoi.org/project/a-2-4/

Riverman
08-24-2021, 12:54 PM
I would concentrate on the mixed pastoralists first. Related groups in the Sahara appeared physically like being copies of Natufians. The key issue is where Natufians came from in the first place. They clearly are rather Levantine, but could have been influenced by Mushabians and other North East Africans before.
This and the origin of Mushabians themselves need to be clarified.
So we need ancient samples from
- pre-BA Yemen, ideally from Paleolithic on. Archaeologically, Yemen is a black hole at the moment, but there was human occupation since OOA
- pre-Natufians from the Levante
- Mushabians
- pre-Neolithic vs post-Neolithic Egyptian samples
And much more.
So far we are in the dark.

Finn
08-25-2021, 08:31 AM
I would concentrate on the mixed pastoralists first. Related groups in the Sahara appeared physically like being copies of Natufians. The key issue is where Natufians came from in the first place. They clearly are rather Levantine, but could have been influenced by Mushabians and other North East Africans before.
This and the origin of Mushabians themselves need to be clarified.
So we need ancient samples from
- pre-BA Yemen, ideally from Paleolithic on. Archaeologically, Yemen is a black hole at the moment, but there was human occupation since OOA
- pre-Natufians from the Levante
- Mushabians
- pre-Neolithic vs post-Neolithic Egyptian samples
And much more.
So far we are in the dark.

My essential point is that indeed there are more fingers pointing at an 'indigenous' development around the Nile with regard to E-V22 than to some 'external' influence.
Indeed a kind of pastoral NE Africans that settled down at a given point.
From there they could probably influenced related Natufian groups and may be flux and reflux.

You mention the Mushabians, according to Ofer Bar-Yosef :


"A contemporary desertic entity was labeled "Mushabian," and was considered to be, on the basis of the technotypological features of its lithics, of North African origin. The fieldwork done in recent years in northern Sinai and the Negev has shown that the forms of the Mushabian microliths (mainly curved and arched backed bladelets) and the intensive use of the microburin technique was a trait foreign to previous Levantine industries, but instead is closer to the Iberomaurusian."[4]


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

There are no indices that E-V22 is another than a NE African offshoot.....

Finn
08-25-2021, 08:48 AM
The development of E-V22 correspondences with the Fayum and Merimde cultures. They are NE African/ Nile Delta based. From there it influenced Natufian culture.

Merimde and Fayum in purple:
https://i.postimg.cc/cJyFv54S/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-25-om-10-42-39.png (https://postimg.cc/3k1X61vS)

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/fayum/neolitafric.html

It makes sense that E-V22 migrated from Fayum and Merimde c.q. the Nile Valley to the other Levant parts.....(which is of course no one way street).

Riverman
08-25-2021, 09:20 AM
The development of E-V22 correspondences with the Fayum and Merimde cultures. They are NE African/ Nile Delta based. From there it influenced Natufian culture.

Merimde and Fayum in purple:
https://i.postimg.cc/cJyFv54S/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-25-om-10-42-39.png (https://postimg.cc/3k1X61vS)

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/fayum/neolitafric.html

It makes sense that E-V22 migrated from Fayum and Merimde c.q. the Nile Valley to the other Levant parts.....(which is of course no one way street).

If that's all the case, just if, the inhabitants of the Lower Nile region before the Natufians must have been much more Natufian-like than the IBM. All this needs to be tested. Its much less important where they were sitting, but which ancestral profile, uniparentals and archaeological culture they had. The problem is the lack of information about Egypt, to be sure about anything in this respect.

Finn
08-25-2021, 09:54 AM
If that's all the case, just if, the inhabitants of the Lower Nile region before the Natufians must have been much more Natufian-like than the IBM. All this needs to be tested. Its much less important where they were sitting, but which ancestral profile, uniparentals and archaeological culture they had. The problem is the lack of information about Egypt, to be sure about anything in this respect.

Ok but we can use the infomation that is available ..... way MUST the inhabitants of the Lower Nile region be Natufians before Fayum Neolithic? What's the source?
Even more when the ancestor of E-V22 namely E-M78 is originated in the Western Desert?

Riverman
08-25-2021, 10:16 AM
Ok but we can use the infomation that is available ..... way MUST the inhabitants of the Lower Nile region be Natufians before Fayum Neolithic? What's the source?
Even more when the ancestor of E-V22 namely E-M78 is originated in the Western Desert?

Mushabians were nearby and should have been closer, because otherwise we would deal with a minimal input from an very IBM-like population which resulted in the E1b1b dominance. And the IBM-population was physically very different too. Of course, this could be combined:
- minimal autosomal input
- no phenotypical change
- just spread of patrilineages
But such events are rare, even more in that period of time, because I would expect a much higher impact of IBM and increased ANA-like in Natufians, which however, is not there. I'm just waiting for more samples, then we'll see. I don't think the currently available evidence is conclusive other than that we can say that gene flow and migrations between North East Africa and the Levante did take place. But which side brought what and when, especially uniparentals, is in the dark.

Finn
08-25-2021, 11:24 AM
Mushabians were nearby and should have been closer, because otherwise we would deal with a minimal input from an very IBM-like population which resulted in the E1b1b dominance. And the IBM-population was physically very different too. Of course, this could be combined:
- minimal autosomal input
- no phenotypical change
- just spread of patrilineages
But such events are rare, even more in that period of time, because I would expect a much higher impact of IBM and increased ANA-like in Natufians, which however, is not there. I'm just waiting for more samples, then we'll see. I don't think the currently available evidence is conclusive other than that we can say that gene flow and migrations between North East Africa and the Levante did take place. But which side brought what and when, especially uniparentals, is in the dark.

But it's not zero Riverman.

We know a departure point. Trombetta e.a. (2015) claimed: “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).

Ok we know that E-V22 is a E_m78 derivative, we know already that during Fayum neolithic, during settling from the Western Desert to the Nile, it was the time of the birth of several E-V22 subclades.

So absolute true the proof of the pudding is the sampling. But's it's not total darkness imo.

Riverman
08-25-2021, 11:38 AM
But it's not zero Riverman.

We know a departure point. Trombetta e.a. (2015) claimed: “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).

I remember some other claims from the time between 2007-2015, many being now refuted. And favoured just means they consider it more likely, its not even close to be proven. And that was all before the Near Eastern samples trickled in, with upstream positions. I do expect E-M78 to be present in Natufian times in Africa and the Near East. The question is what was before Natufian, even bevore IBM.


Ok we know that E-V22 is a E_m78 derivative, we know already that during Fayum neolithic, during settling from the Western Desert to the Nile, it was the time of the birth of several E-V22 subclades.

But that doesn't tell you whether Neolithic settlers, newcomers to the Nile Valley, even from further West than Sinai, brought the innovations and had founder effects. I think we all can agree that the borderline between Egypt-Sinai-Levante-Arabia had to be permeable, that's without a doubt, if looking at IBM with West Eurasian and Natufian with at least minimal ANA admixture (supposedly). For E-V22 in particular, since there was a Neolithic founder effect, its even harder to tell how far they migrated or whether its about Nile inhabitants just adopting new toolkits.

Finn
08-25-2021, 11:56 AM
I remember some other claims from the time between 2007-2015, many being now refuted. And favoured just means they consider it more likely, its not even close to be proven. And that was all before the Near Eastern samples trickled in, with upstream positions. I do expect E-M78 to be present in Natufian times in Africa and the Near East. The question is what was before Natufian, even bevore IBM.


But that doesn't tell you whether Neolithic settlers, newcomers to the Nile Valley, even from further West than Sinai, brought the innovations and had founder effects. I think we all can agree that the borderline between Egypt-Sinai-Levante-Arabia had to be permeable, that's without a doubt, if looking at IBM with West Eurasian and Natufian with at least minimal ANA admixture (supposedly). For E-V22 in particular, since there was a Neolithic founder effect, its even harder to tell how far they migrated or whether its about Nile inhabitants just adopting new toolkits.

Ok but let's say that although this is no proof, it's likely though that E-M78 was originated in the Western Desert (Cruciani).

When this is the departure point it's not odd to assume that on offshoot of E-M78 was as the the climate became dryer, the people settled around the Nile and adopted a neolithic, sedentary lifestyle that goes along an 'explosion' of subbranches, it is as real scenario.

You can blow away every statement with no samples no proof, but that's also a knockdown argument.

Riverman
08-25-2021, 12:50 PM
Ok but let's say that although this is no proof, it's likely though that E-M78 was originated in the Western Desert (Cruciani).

When this is the departure point it's not odd to assume that on offshoot of E-V22 was as the the climate became dryer, the people settled around the Nile and adopted a neolithic, sedentary lifestyle that goes along an 'explosion' of subbranches, it is as real scenario.

You can blow away every statement with no samples no proof, but that's also a knockdown argument.

The main problem I have with this is that in the past, e.g. for Europe and South Asia, some "pots not people" type of archaeologists always claimed that the locals just adopted the technological package. This is particularly uncommon for "late adopters", which the Egyptians seem to have been and far more common for "early adopters" and those in a very strong position. If the scenario some scientists favoured 2015 includes a departure from the Western deserts, I think its more likely the split off even further to the East, from developed farmers, and there was later back migration causing a distribution which makes it look like coming from the "Western desert", because at that point no older clades were found to the East and probably will never be found, because they left.
I just doubt that the adoption of the Neolithic package in Egypt was done by people just coming in shortly before from the Western desert or sitting in the Nile Valley. At that time frame, we have the pastoralists half-Neolithicised people and we have the full package. I think we have to choose one and if they were from the Western desert or the Nile Valley directly, the earliest pastoralists would be a better bet. But does the distribution of E-V22 look like that? Rather not.
So I think they came in as an offshot from a Levantine, fully developed Neolithic group which fused with locals but they were dominant and therefore their paternal ancestry prevailed.
These scenarios which concentrate on "climatic change" are most of the time failures, because what people need first is always opportunity, the ability to overrun the neighbours in case they need new land and being in this new land more successful because of the package (genetic, cultural, numbers) they carry.
Sinai being also preferred because of the better preservation status than in most of the Nile Valley. Let's look at the available pre-genetic evidence for the South Sinai:

All the graves were found within the living area of
sites. Some aspects of the burials hint to a common inherited ideology with other Levantine Neolithic
groups as : the burials are associated with dwellings or courtyards; adult skulls were removed for
secondary burials: children and adults were treated differently; "nest" burials, known from Jericho and
'Ain Ghazal, are present; no offerings were found with the dead.


Although they show more resemblance to the Levantine PPN
populations than to any other circum-Mediterranean group, it seems that the Sinai Pre-pottery
population may have their biological roots, neither in the Levant nor in North Africa, but most probably
in the Arabian Peninsula.


In sum, the Sinai PPN skulls present a very gracile morphology. The skulls are small in size, with nearly unnoticeable muscles markings, especially in the case of the masticatory apparatus. Sexual dimorphism is small, and the population, in general, is morphologically homogeneous,


Generally, the teeth are small in size, very similar to that of the Natufian and Neolithic group of the Levant (Table 4

The Egyptian problem case - not enough remains:


Today, it is well accepted that most of the native populations of the Circum-Mediterranean area have their roots in the Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic) period. For example, in the Levant we can follow a biological continuity from late Upper Paleolithic populations, through the Epipalaeolithic to the Natufians. and to the Neolithic populations (53). A similar proposition was made concerning the North African populations (54). Unfortunately, the case of the Egyptian populations, which is crucial to our discussion, is much less clear. First, there are only scanty remains from the time span of the Early Neolithic PPN period. Second, a detailed morphological analysis of nine Pre and Early Dynastic skull series revealed a population heterogeneity (55). that makes the search for their biological roots rather difficult.


Four options should be considered - they were local, they came from the Levant, North Africa, and/or from the Arabian Peninsula. The archaeological survey of the Sinai is limited to a very small region (56). but uncovered good evidence for human occupation in pre Neolithic times (57). Nevertheless, from the crucial time span of 20,000-22.000 years B.C. to 13,000, there are as of now no archaeological finds (58). In the absence of any human remains from the pre-Neolithic periods, it is impossible to test the direct local ancestry of the Neolithic peoples. Culturally, the sites' architecture and the lithic assemblages do not furnish clues to the origins of their makers (59). In addition, mortuary practices, especially as manifested in Ujrat el Mehed. are unique with no known parallel examples in the surrounding region.


Although they show more resemblance to the Levantine PPN populations than to any other circumMediterranean group (61), their biological relationships are unknown. Indeed, an argument in favor of such relationship can be derived from Levantine-wide comparative analysis of arrowheads (62). However, the presence of those from an Epi-Palaeolithic entity, the Mushabian in northern Sinai, indicates a possible affinity to North East African cultures (63). On the other hand, from very early prehistory, Sinai, an essentially arid to semi-arid region, may have been only a major crossroad for humans.


On the basis of the enlarged sample, we suggest here that the Sinai Pre-Pottery Neolithic population differs greatly from contemporary populations in the Circum-Mediterranean region including the Levant. However, the populations of the latter region are the closest morphologically. The remarkable graci- lity of the Sinai skeletons in both postcrania and crania stands in sharp contrast to the pronounced robusticity of their neighboring populations.

Unfortunately:

The late Epipalaeolithic populations of North Africa that are considered contemporaneous with the Natufian are different from the Sinai Neolithic group and therefore could not have been the ancestral population. In more detail, (fig. 30), Sinai teeth are considerably smaller when compared to the Afalou or Wadi Haifa dentition and much alike those of the Natufians. The gracile appearance of the Sinai skeletons stand in sharp contrast to the robusticity of the North African skeletons from Jebel Sahaba-site 117, site 8905(77), Wadi Haifa (78) in Nubia, or Afalou-bou-Rhummel (79) and Taforalt (80) in the Maghreb. The North African relics, from west and east, are very homogenous morphologically and metrically (81 ). The skulls are extremely robust, doli- chocranic in shape. The supracilliary eminence and glabella are extremely developed, the face are broad, the orbits are large, squared shape, the nasal aperture wide, and the subnasal clivus protrude anteriorly. Metrically, both cranial and dental measurements are much smaller in the South Sinai material.
Both the North African and the Levant populations are in fact poor candidates for the position of direct ancestry. The only remaining option is the population of the Arabian Peninsula. Unfortunately, the major part of this enormous region is still anthropologically terra incognita, especially with regard to the periods under discussion.

Even though modern Yemenites heavily admixed from the North in the meantime, they are still among the most gracile people in the whole West Eurasian spectrum. A similar trend was seen for Natufians, while the exact opposite, an extreme hypermorphic, very unique, much more Upper Palaeolithic character was typical for IBM.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_1994_num_20_2_961

Concerning the whole origin story of Natufians and E1b1b alike, we have to wait for ancient samples from these region, from the archaeological horizons in question. And like I said, similar people as to those from Natufian, from Southern Sinai, were present all the way down to West Africa. They were specific types of early pastoralists and later introduced the full Neolithic package, from the Levante.

Like the authors wrote:


This conclusion will need to be reexamined when skeletal material from the latter region becomes available.

We have nothing from Arabia, almost nothing from Egypt, no ancient DNA which would be really relevant for the debate. This means in a way, yes, E-V22 could have been from the Sinai in particular, but that doesn't tell anything about E-M78, and basically their most direct ancestor, directly before they were there, came from the Levante. Their ancestry, culture, physical characteristics, everything being Levantine-Arabian in character. The Sinai was just their last stop before they colonised the Nile Valley.

Hitchcock
08-25-2021, 03:38 PM
May i contribute ?
based on Ancient DNA and its Autosomal finds, E-V22 could be related to North african ancestry in Taforalt or Levantine ancestry in Natufians /Levant PPNB.
this is the most likely.

Scythoslav
08-25-2021, 06:40 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/59998-46-prehistoric-sites-saudi-arabia.html

46 sites and no samples yet?

My bet is on E-M78 being more of a western and a local Maghrebi and African haplogroup and only spreading further east and into Levant in the late Mesolithic when the transition into the Neolithic and farming began.

After the initial migration of E-M35 from Africa (whatever group that was) into the levant there was both a back migration into Africa and a settlement in the Levant. E-M78 lineages are those that backmigrated after having picked up eurasian dna and E-Z827 are those that stayed and contributed to developing the Natufian culture. There was a hard cut off line between E-M78 and E-Z827 probably somewhere in Egypt going more east you’d get more E-Z827 and going more west you’d get more E-M78. And this changed drastically during the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic when large scale migrations began. That is why I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you find IBM samples so far dominated by E-M78 and Natufian samples so far dominated by E-Z827. The lack of diversity in my opinion shows that these clans were separated until the Neolithic.

Finn
08-25-2021, 07:48 PM
But does the distribution of E-V22 look like that?


Done by member Passa a few years ago:

https://i.postimg.cc/x8T8jn3g/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-25-om-21-46-34.png (https://postimg.cc/BLk4MWy1)

CPL05
08-26-2021, 11:20 AM
May i contribute ?
based on Ancient DNA and its Autosomal finds, E-V22 could be related to North african ancestry in Taforalt or Levantine ancestry in Natufians /Levant PPNB.
this is the most likely.

It's hard to say knowing that among the 6 Taforalt males tested [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/03/14/science.aar8380.DC1/aar8380_vandeLoosdrecht_SM.pdf], 5 of them are part of E-m78 and one of E1b1b. The most accurate result is for TAF009 and gives E-V13(The equivalent of E1b1b1a1b1). It's therefore difficult to estimate an approach of the 5 other Males with E-V22 knowing that below E-M78 the contemporary Maghreb is mainly linked to E-V65 even though this area of ​​Africa has a stronger link with E-M81 nowadays.
Concerning the Levant We can see that PPNB was Mixed according to https://haplotree.info [We can find E-M35/E-M78/E-CTS10298 even F-M89 and H-P96 in Ain Ghazal PPNB for Example] knowing that Natufians were more related, under E, to E-Z830(Linked to a different branch of E-m78).
I think that the source of E-V22 is predynastic Egypt territory and the presence of some of its subclades in the Near East is probably ancient and less ancient(Migrations due to climate change or other vs Migrations of modern Egyptians in Palestine).

taharqa
08-26-2021, 10:20 PM
It isn't that far removed from the neolithic, at best a few thousand years.

Ethiopia was mostly populated by people similar to Mota man during that time. Unlikely to be the place of origin for PAA.

We do not know for sure how northern the "Mota" like ancestry was at that time. And importantly? Mota is just ONE man discoverrd so far in Ethiopia. We do not know what ancestry were in Ethiopia and East Africa at that time. It is quite sillly to assume that we know the ancestry of such a vast region from the rather accidental discovery of a SINGLE dna called Mota.

Really sillly

taharqa
08-26-2021, 10:25 PM
Not just unlikely, near impossible. It is quite obvious that there are just
- Nile Valley/North East Africa
- Sinai-Lower Levante
- Levante-Arabia

I don't get why Natufians are the most likely candidate, because they spread with advanced pre-Neolithic technology and partly developed, partly took over, the Neolithic package. They are in the right time in the right place and region. Chances are very high that E-M215 latest was in the Levante-Southern Arabia and spread from there, rather than being brought there. Also for Egypt, I don't think E-V22 is particularly likely to have been from Africa at all, but if, it could be not that far away from the Levante and definitely not Ethiopia.
Whether E1b1b could be associated with Basal Eurasians still existing in Southern Arabia and the Gulf has to be seen, once ancient DNA from those regions arrives. Probably new methods or well preserved findings allow it.

Apart from the fact that the above is purely your conjunctions not based on actual facts(which is limited) and current lines of argument and certainly not supported by archaeological evidence, where did other E subclades(ex- EM215) originate from and where does the ancestors of E1b1 originate from?

Hoping i dont have to state the reasons for asking the question

CLUE::: Y- chromosome of Mota man himself

taharqa
08-26-2021, 10:42 PM
That's all not known at this point. Its certainly possible, but you can find plenty of arguments and even papers arguing otherwise.



All African lineages, including modern Subsaharans, which being introduced by a later split or backmigration and associated with ANA. Its no coincidene that most hunter gatherer populations and the oldest African lineages all are A and B, which are the only basal African lineages.



I knew it, but its not for sure whether their model is right, but even if so, it just meanst hat Natufians have something ANA-related from Africa. Its not from IBM, but most likely just trickled in from the North East of Africa and Sinai. Its also no decision as to where E1b1b came from originally, that's all undecided.



Its the only safe point to start from. Everything else will always remain speculative, because even basal lineages can migrate.



That's true and I agree. Its always better to have more data and a full representation of all candidate populations. But without ancient DNA, it gets tough.



That's all speculation, you don't know for sure who split off from whom and at which exact time. Linguistics can't tell whether Natufians were PAA or not, they can only tell us what to look for, and they are still in the range everything considers. This means if Natufians or their direct predecessors and ancestors carried - in the ancient DNA - the lineages which later appear in East Africa, its a proof for an expansion from the Levante to East Africa.
If the preceding population in the region has very different uniparentals and shows an autosomal profile which lacks admixture from North East Africa, we have to look at North East Africa. And we can play that game until we land in Ethiopia, if that theory of some is right. But I doubt it. We will find the right profile either directly in the Levante-Arabia or in the Nile Valley-Sinai. Not further away. That's my current bet. East Africa is still an option, no doubt about it, but the currently available evidence doesn't really prove anything conclusively.

Another bet of mine is that there won't be a lot of any non-Basal African DNA in Subsaharan Africa before fairly late. Mota is probably one of the oldest you will get. Most of the haplogroup E spread even in West Africa just with ANA pushing southward, with the IBM and later Neolithic West Eurasians in their back and transmitting innovations the same time. This is very evident from the archaeological record in West Africa, as well as the fairly recent timing of the physically archaic looking skulls from Iwo Eleru.
There were at least two waves or more of E expanding into other regions of Africa from the North East and/or Levante-Arabia.
- Ancient North African
- Basal-West Eurasian = IBM, Natufian-related, Neolithic.







https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/191569v2.full.pdf

The point of this quotes is not whether the Neolithic North Africans had SSA ancestry or not, but to show how important the Neolithic influence even in this region was. Its perfectly plausible that E-V22 could have spread with the Neolithic expansion from the Levante. It might be wrong, but what exactly would be, right now, conclusive evidence against before we get ancient DNA?

Pure conjunctions and speculations.

So why were you talking previously witj so much "confidence" if you actually know that the evidence is very limited

taharqa
08-26-2021, 10:48 PM
I think there is just two question for E-V22, because it most certainly spread as a Neolithic marker:
- Was it introduced with the Neolithic package or was it already there and just picked it up.
- If they were already there, how long? Did Natufians descend from an Egyptian expansion or vice versa?

In my opinion there is no sufficient answer to this at the moment.
The Nile valley is one of these zones where hunter gatherers could have reached sufficient numbers to expand elsewhere or putting up a resistance and stronghold to force newcomers to share with them. That's especially true for the river systems. But I still think it was newly settled with colonists coming in, in the Neolithic. And E-V22 could very well have been one of the main markers for this.

There is no arcaheologixal evidence for a neolithic replacement or even signifcant movement from the near east to the Nile valley.

None.

If you know otherwise, please share

NOTE: sheep, goat, barley etc are not evidence of movement. Such things could also be evidence for contact and exchanges.
Coupled with clear examples of the neolithization process in parts of Eastern Sahara years(and during) the said period this neolithic supposedly came to Africa. I also hope you know that this neolithic exchanges were not one sided- some things also moved from Africa to the near east

taharqa
08-26-2021, 10:58 PM
You're absolutely correct that we do not have enough relevant data to be sure of anything at this point. In the end, that's all I'm really trying to say.

However, while all of these above points are technically possible, but there is an important difference between mine and yours: adherence to Occam's razor. Parsimony suggests that hg E- with E2, E1a, E1b1a, and much of E1b1b being found primarily among Africans- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that the Afro-Asiatic language family- with all but one branch being found in Africa- began in Africa. Parsimony suggests that E-M78- being found among IBM, who Lazaridis et al believe is a two-way ANA-SSA mix- also began in Africa.

In your theory, multiple back migrations from the Levant into Africa are required to explain everything we see. In mine, only two migrations into the Levant are required: once with the patrilineal ancestors of Natufians, and once with the speakers of proto-Semitic. While the simplest/neatest solutions are certainly not always correct, there is a reason why parsimony is a guiding principle in our field: it works. The issue is, for Occam's razor to be accurately used, we need a full picture of the modern data. If we look at the YTree of E-M35 as it exists now then yes, a Levant-Arabia argument seems reasonable. But as there are only a few dozen total NE Africans on YFull, we are again missing too much to rely on modern spread.

To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if Ethiopia was the PAA Urheimat too. I just think that there's more genetic and linguistic evidence to suggest an origin in that area than in the Levant. If I had to guess where the PAA Urheimat was, I'd guess somewhere on the Nile in modern Sudan.



These quotes are talking about Neolithic Morocco, where the Neolithic European Farmers had a significant impact. What does this have to do with Neolithic Levantines entering Egypt?

I do not know of conclusive evidence against that idea right now, but there is again suggestive evidence. If we take Lazaridis et al 2018's new interpretation (which I think we should, as it's not common for authors to publicly change their opinions), and consider that IBM were E-M78 and from 13000-15000 BCE, with E-M78's fully derived block having a TMRCA of only c. 11200 BCE, then there is a clear favor for E-V22 also to be native to at least northern Africa. That's because for E-V22 to be a Neolithic Levantine marker, then its modern spread and peaks in Africa would be the result of a back migration, which means two migrations (there and back). If E-V22 is a Neolithic Nile River marker, then no back migration explanation is needed.

Thank you.

Nuff said

Riverman
08-27-2021, 01:00 PM
Don't East Africans have Levant_N ancestry from the Neolithic, not counting the IA admix Semitic speakers have from past migrations?

That's correct, whereas the opposite is not correct. There is no Mota-like gene flow to the Levante, not even to North Africa of significance in that time frame.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 10:39 AM
Sometimes illustrations and maps can help too. I think this map nicely illustrates the splits of E-M78 in two directions, with E-L618 -> E-V13 heading West, over the Mediterranean, possibly with a stop in Cyprus, while E-V22 was going South, into Egypt from PPNB:
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live

It just seems like PPNB did contribute to the expansions in both directions, into Anatolia and the Northern Mediterranean, as well as Egypt and the Near East. The direct connection to the Nile Valley is of course the Sinai, which was, like my last posts have shown, inhabited by Neolithic culture bearers closer to the Levantine spectrum, probably from a branch in Arabia in the same time frame as their cousins started to move into Anatolia, Cyprus and the Aegean.

taharqa
08-29-2021, 02:12 PM
Sometimes illustrations and maps can help too. I think this map nicely illustrates the splits of E-M78 in two directions, with E-L618 -> E-V13 heading West, over the Mediterranean, possibly with a stop in Cyprus, while E-V22 was going South, into Egypt from PPNB:
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live

It just seems like PPNB did contribute to the expansions in both directions, into Anatolia and the Northern Mediterranean, as well as Egypt and the Near East. The direct connection to the Nile Valley is of course the Sinai, which was, like my last posts have shown, inhabited by Neolithic culture bearers closer to the Levantine spectrum, probably from a branch in Arabia in the same time frame as their cousins started to move into Anatolia, Cyprus and the Aegean.

E-M78(actually at the root) has been detected from ancient dna from individuals at Tofaralt(in Africa) thousands og years before the Natufians.
Yet according to you, EV22 is evidence of movement of Natufians to Africa. When, EV22 is not even a direct subgroup of the haplogroup the Natufians were carrying and the Natufians themselves carry Y chromosomal and even automosonal dna(ANA-like) from Africa.

Can you guys just give it up already

taharqa
08-29-2021, 02:20 PM
Don't East Africans have Levant_N ancestry from the Neolithic, not counting the IA admix Semitic speakers have from past migrations?

Levant N-like please, not actual Levant-N (at least we not sure of that yet).

Moreover, Levant N is a composite including "Natufian" which is madr up of something ANA-like from Africa.

NB: I am not arging that there was no contact nor mingling between ancient groups ffom Africa and the Near East including the Arabian peninsula. In fact, there was continuous and very ancient bi-mingling between Africa and the Middle East, thousands of years ago. The problem is in dtermining which amongst these components is "truly" African or not esp as there were certainly Eurasian-like African components related to the Eurasians that left Africa almost 60k years ago. Those people didnt leave the continent. There are Africans ams some of theif components is found across Africa e.g ANA.

What i am saying however is that in the Neolithic, most of the developments that happened in Africa including the northeast Africa were done by Africans already in place. There was continued bj-directional mingling but at this stage it was secondary. This is what arcaheology also indicates

Riverman
08-29-2021, 03:04 PM
E-M78(actually at the root) has been detected from ancient dna from individuals at Tofaralt(in Africa) thousands og years before the Natufians.
Yet according to you, EV22 is evidence of movement of Natufians to Africa. When, EV22 is not even a direct subgroup of the haplogroup the Natufians were carrying and the Natufians themselves carry Y chromosomal and even automosonal dna(ANA-like) from Africa.


Taforalt is just an expansive movement of people from the Levante to North West Africa. They were very different from Natufians, more like Upper Palaeolithic Europeans and North Africans combined, what they were. Because the incoming Levantine people picked up more of the local ancestry, they had more ANA, whereas in Natufians there was just a very small portion of it from the constant exchange over the Sinai bridge. The Sinai Neolithics showed close cultural and anthropological ties to PPN Ain Ghazal, from which we have E1b1b1a1-CTS675 (9900-9700 ybp). So the link is clear and obvious from PPNB on at least.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=35.74596350469617%2C32.95111879939344&z=7
I1710 - 'Ain Ghazal E-M78 (E1b) T1a2 9565 Jordan - PPNB
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Jordan&ybp=500000,0

Scythoslav
08-29-2021, 03:48 PM
Taforalt is just an expansive movement of people from the Levante to North West Africa. They were very different from Natufians, more like Upper Palaeolithic Europeans and North Africans combined, what they were. Because the incoming Levantine people picked up more of the local ancestry, they had more ANA, whereas in Natufians there was just a very small portion of it from the constant exchange over the Sinai bridge. The Sinai Neolithics showed close cultural and anthropological ties to PPN Ain Ghazal, from which we have E1b1b1a1-CTS675 (9900-9700 ybp). So the link is clear and obvious from PPNB on at least.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=35.74596350469617%2C32.95111879939344&z=7
I1710 - 'Ain Ghazal E-M78 (E1b) T1a2 9565 Jordan - PPNB
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Jordan&ybp=500000,0


But Natufians are more related to upper Paleolithic Europeans through their affinity/admixture of UHG than IBM. Mechtoids are also very different compared to European cromags, yes they are both robust but their features are completely different not related at all.

Also that sample from Ain Ghazal doesn’t really say much because earlier natufians samples had 0 E-M78 meaning to me at least that it was not a widespread lineage there at all. This later sample might be due to some migration from Maghreb.

In any case the dominance of E-M78 among the IBM is not to be ignored and I don’t think it’s just some kind of coincidence.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 04:03 PM
But Natufians are more related to upper Paleolithic Europeans through their affinity/admixture of UHG than IBM. Mechtoids are also very different compared to European cromags, yes they are both robust but their features are completely different not related at all.

That's true and the reason is that the IBM population had way more ANA than Natufians or any Levantine population. Also, they were very different in their specialisation, a different culture, time frame and habitat.


Also that sample from Ain Ghazal doesn’t really say much because earlier natufians samples had 0 E-M78 meaning to me at least that it was not a widespread lineage there at all. This later sample might be due to some migration from Maghreb.

Its important because PPNB might be, at least in part, ancestral to Cardial-Impresso culture in Europe and the Sinai Neolithic which played a possible role in the Neolithisation of Egypt. So regardless of how it came into PPNB, it might have spread from there both to Europe, Anatolia-West Asia and the Nile Valley in the same time frame, with different branches.


In any case the dominance of E-M78 among the IBM is not to be ignored and I don’t think it’s just some kind of coincidence.

For sure not. But their ANA percentage was much too high, pointing to their regional North African character, after the incoming West-Basal Eurasian foragers from the East settled down. They were an expansion group from the East, that is very, very obvious. There is absolutely no way to explain IBM from North African locals. The question is therefore not whether they came from the East or not, but how far from the East. Their clearly West Eurasian part has to be from the Levante or Europe, but the more Basal Eurasian one could be either from the Levante, Arabia or the Nile Valley. And that's the question which needs to be answered with more ancient DNA. Where was Basal Eurasian, where was E1b1b before. Its definitely unlikely to have been West of the Nile region and East or North of the Near East. But that's it, we can't narrow it down much more.

taharqa
08-29-2021, 06:13 PM
Taforalt is just an expansive movement of people from the Levante to North West Africa. They were very different from Natufians, more like Upper Palaeolithic Europeans and North Africans combined, what they were. Because the incoming Levantine people picked up more of the local ancestry, they had more ANA, whereas in Natufians there was just a very small portion of it from the constant exchange over the Sinai bridge. The Sinai Neolithics showed close cultural and anthropological ties to PPN Ain Ghazal, from which we have E1b1b1a1-CTS675 (9900-9700 ybp). So the link is clear and obvious from PPNB on at least.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=35.74596350469617%2C32.95111879939344&z=7
I1710 - 'Ain Ghazal E-M78 (E1b) T1a2 9565 Jordan - PPNB
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Jordan&ybp=500000,0

You are citing PPNB.

Ok, lets talk about it.

You do know that tje skeletons so far found from this culture had a significant(maybe even a majoriry) E haplogroup with ultimate Afrucan origins as well as such African mitochondrial dna as L and U6 (and i believe N*) which show migling with groups from Africa. So if you look properly, you would see that your very example defeats your argument. Your argument cannot stand any scrutiny anyways.

However, PPNB also had halpgroup T, where i think some of the T that later came into Africa may have come from. Again, intermingling

Scythoslav
08-29-2021, 08:23 PM
That's true and the reason is that the IBM population had way more ANA than Natufians or any Levantine population. Also, they were very different in their specialisation, a different culture, time frame and habitat.



Its important because PPNB might be, at least in part, ancestral to Cardial-Impresso culture in Europe and the Sinai Neolithic which played a possible role in the Neolithisation of Egypt. So regardless of how it came into PPNB, it might have spread from there both to Europe, Anatolia-West Asia and the Nile Valley in the same time frame, with different branches.



For sure not. But their ANA percentage was much too high, pointing to their regional North African character, after the incoming West-Basal Eurasian foragers from the East settled down. They were an expansion group from the East, that is very, very obvious. There is absolutely no way to explain IBM from North African locals. The question is therefore not whether they came from the East or not, but how far from the East. Their clearly West Eurasian part has to be from the Levante or Europe, but the more Basal Eurasian one could be either from the Levante, Arabia or the Nile Valley. And that's the question which needs to be answered with more ancient DNA. Where was Basal Eurasian, where was E1b1b before. Its definitely unlikely to have been West of the Nile region and East or North of the Near East. But that's it, we can't narrow it down much more.

This then brings us to the same important question, what Y-DNA were ANA then if E1B was brought there by west basal eurasians? (and ended up dominating for some reason)

We know that U6 was most likely if not absolutely certainly Eurasian in origin, so from which side was ANA picked up then? Paternal or maternal? If both E1b and U6 are Eurasian in origin, and these are the dominant clades in IBM. This would mean that IBM maintained around 50 percent of their dna from ANA while replacing their paternal and Maternal clades almost completely. This doesn’t make sense in my mind, but maybe I’m misunderstanding something.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 09:17 PM
This then brings us to the same important question, what Y-DNA were ANA then if E1B was brought there by west basal eurasians? (and ended up dominating for some reason)

We know that U6 was most likely if not absolutely certainly Eurasian in origin, so from which side was ANA picked up then? Paternal or maternal? If both E1b and U6 are Eurasian in origin, and these are the dominant clades in IBM. This would mean that IBM maintained around 50 percent of their dna from ANA while replacing their paternal and Maternal clades almost completely. This doesn’t make sense in my mind, but maybe I’m misunderstanding something.

There are several possibilities, but for answering that, we need to zoom out a bit and look at the bigger picture. At the time of IBM, much of Africa was still populated by Basal Africans (only A and B) and physically archaic Hominids (genetically unknown) like Iwo Eleru. The only region populated by a younger branch, closer related to Eurasians was Ancient North Africans. So the first question to answer is what haplogroup had ANA, which was the closest to Eurasians from Africa, and the answer is clearly haplogroup E.
But the important factor is, they spread it to the South, deeper into Africa, only when IBM came in and pushed on, as well as when they picked up and developed a more advanced Neolithic toolkit. Shum Laka shows that at about 3.000 years ago, the process of replacement of old African foragers by the more Northern-Western coming Niger-Kordofanians, dominated by haplogroup E, was still ongoing!


The analysis focused on DNA from four individuals unearthed at Shum Laka in western Cameroon. They sequenced the full genomes of an eight-year-old boy buried some 3,000 years ago and a 15-year-old boy buried 8,000 years ago. They also studied the genetic variation in the DNA—known as an SNP analysis—of the remains from two four-year-olds, one from each of the same periods.

Comparison of the ancient DNA to modern groups across Africa revealed a few surprises, including that these Shum Laka individuals were not related to modern western Cameroon groups or current Bantu-speakers, who make up roughly one in three Africans today and are thought to trace their ancestry back to the region where Shum Laka nestles.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/first-ancient-genomes-west-africa-complexity-human-ancestry

Subsaharan African are genetically diverse, but homogeneous. The reason for this is that multiple admixture events formed them, and this single diverse population replaced most of the rest of Homo in Africa, with little admixture, which further increased their diversity. But its basically one large expansion, with a higher replacement rate than Indoeuropeans.

And the new ancestry they brought was coming from North Africa, and it brought haplogroup. But unlike the IBM, Natufian, PPNB and other Basal-West Eurasian populations, it was not E1b1b. If compare the distribution map of E1b1b with West Eurasian ancestry in Africa, it overlaps near 100 percent.

My personal opinion is that E1b1b is either the branch which stayed behind in case of a back migration, or which migrated into the Levante early, at least more than 20.000 years ago. The continuity in the region doesn't allow otherwise, the spread of E1b1b makes a later date unlikely, but not impossible. The only other place where it could have wintered is of course the Nile region-Sinai, very North East Africa.

But main ANA, without significant Basal and coming from an older branching event or even back migration to Africa, is supposed to have been, at the time of the IBM, mainly basal E and especially E1b1a. This makes them split from the North East African/Levantine/Arabian E1b1a more than 40.000 years ago.

Note that we have, so far, no ancient DNA for E1b1a/E-V38 in Africa. So there is still a lot of research to do how the sea and Green Sahara people moved South, adopted the agricultural toolkit, soon after metalworking - I wrote about that in another thread dedicated to that subject - and expanded throughout most of Subsaharan Africa in a couple of centuries.

There are also mtDNA groups associated with ANA from North East Africa/an early back migration to Africa, namely various clades of L in particular, which are suspiciously common also outside of Africa. The dates are still shaggy, but it goes like that:


To help bridge differences between the molecular and fossil record ages, in this article we assess the possibility that mtDNA macrohaplogroup L3 matured in Eurasia and returned to Africa as basal L3 lineages around 70 kya.


The coalescence ages of all Eurasian (M,N) and African (L3 ) lineages, both around 71 kya, are not significantly different. The oldest M and N Eurasian clades are found in southeastern Asia instead near of Africa as expected by the southern route hypothesis. The split of the Y-chromosome composite DE haplogroup is very similar to the age of mtDNA L3. An Eurasian origin and back migration to Africa has been proposed for the African Y-chromosome haplogroup E. Inside Africa, frequency distributions of maternal L3 and paternal E lineages are positively correlated. This correlation is not fully explained by geographic or ethnic affinities. This correlation rather seems to be the result of a joint and global replacement of the old autochthonous male and female African lineages by the new Eurasian incomers.

https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4

At this point, we don't even know for sure where the Basal Eurasians were sitting and since when. Like I wrote before, Arabia was inhabited from the first Out of Africa, yet we have almost nothing from there. Little in the fossil, archaeological, and of course absolutely nothing from the genetic record. We have similarly not much from Egypt from Predynastic times. So two of the most important regions for the whole debate have NOTHING we can actually talk about. Then there is the Levante, much better studied, but the ancient DNA is too young for assessing the problem. So we really need more data.

As for the uniparentals vs. autosomal contribution in IBM: Well, this was still a fairly small sample and we don't really know which admixture processes worked. There are other, similar cases, in which recent founder effects simply mask the preceding stage. We just need to wait for more data to be sure, but if for Europe many questions are unanswered, what do you think about Africa? There is really not that much. And how completely wrong the linguists and archaeologists were you can see in Shum Laka. They expected them to be something like "Proto-Bantu", yet they were only beginning to get admixed with ANA/non-Basal Africans and from a very different branch than most modern Subsaharan Africans/Niger-Kordofanians.

The replacement of the basal lineages A and B will be very interesting to trace back to the big events in North Africa which being associated with early Neolithic people, which were basically copies of Natufians/Sinai Neolithics. They pushed on, the half-Neolithic people pushed on, and all developed, with some disappearing, others having great success stories, like the Niger-Kordofanians.

Dehlisandwich
08-29-2021, 09:34 PM
There are also mtDNA groups associated with ANA from North East Africa/an early back migration to Africa, namely various clades of L in particular, which are suspiciously common also outside of Africa. The dates are still shaggy, but it goes like that:



https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4




Are you arguing for a non African origin of L3? Aside from the fact that L3 deriving from the first wave of people out of Africa seems very unlikely, arent most L3 subclades ( L3a, L3b'f, L3c'd etc.) firmly African? And sister branches L4 and L6 also seem firmly African as well. Wasn't that study just based off the author's assumption that non Africans are the descendants of the first wave of people out of the African continent, instead of the second?

Riverman
08-29-2021, 10:20 PM
Are you arguing for a non African origin of L3? Aside from the fact that L3 deriving from the first wave of people out of Africa seems very unlikely, arent most L3 subclades ( L3a, L3b'f, L3c'd etc.) firmly African? And sister branches L4 and L6 also seem firmly African as well. Wasn't that study just based off the author's assumption that non Africans are the descendants of the first wave of people out of the African continent, instead of the second?

The decisive point of this study is less where it happened, which is hard to answer without more data and ancient DNA, which we might never get for that time period, but who knows, but when. The point is, ANA is a late splitter, as is haplogroup E and L3. I guess you know the Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L3_(mtDNA)

Little being for certain without more data, but that wasn't the only author arguing for a fairly recent split and even out of Africa for L3.

Basically what I'm assuming is that E1b1a and L3 might have been ANA, before they mixed with IBM recent back migrants and were replaced in the North, while, especially paternally, expanding Southward into Africa.

taharqa
09-06-2021, 06:30 PM
Just read this article by Staurt Thomas which perhaps gives tbe best summary of ancient Egypt origin from a northeast African culture("pastoral complex), an origin it shares with other "Nubian" and saharan cultures both before and during its formative stage as well as throughout the leghth of its civilization.

You would start to understand while the culture of ancient Egypt was profoundly and Fundamentally African and perhaps whilst it at a contrast with the cultures of the Near East and the general Mediterranean.

Take your time and read please https://www.academia.edu/43275151/Gift_of_the_Nile_Climate_Change_the_Origins_of_Egy ptian_Civilization_and_Its_Interactions_within_Nor theast_Africa?email_work_card=view-paper

Riverman
09-07-2021, 03:34 PM
Just read this article by Staurt Thomas which perhaps gives tbe best summary of ancient Egypt origin from a northeast African culture("pastoral complex), an origin it shares with other "Nubian" and saharan cultures both before and during its formative stage as well as throughout the leghth of its civilization.

You would start to understand while the culture of ancient Egypt was profoundly and Fundamentally African and perhaps whilst it at a contrast with the cultures of the Near East and the general Mediterranean.

Take your time and read please https://www.academia.edu/43275151/Gift_of_the_Nile_Climate_Change_the_Origins_of_Egy ptian_Civilization_and_Its_Interactions_within_Nor theast_Africa?email_work_card=view-paper

The paper offers little new information and even less evidence. The cattle complex origins itself might be from the Near East and the later Neolithic and metal age influences are not to be downplayed.
We just need more ancient DNA to clarify things.

Finn
09-07-2021, 06:10 PM
Just read this article by Staurt Thomas which perhaps gives tbe best summary of ancient Egypt origin from a northeast African culture("pastoral complex), an origin it shares with other "Nubian" and saharan cultures both before and during its formative stage as well as throughout the leghth of its civilization.

You would start to understand while the culture of ancient Egypt was profoundly and Fundamentally African and perhaps whilst it at a contrast with the cultures of the Near East and the general Mediterranean.

Take your time and read please https://www.academia.edu/43275151/Gift_of_the_Nile_Climate_Change_the_Origins_of_Egy ptian_Civilization_and_Its_Interactions_within_Nor theast_Africa?email_work_card=view-paper

I tend to go with you. Why?

Just two things.

1.Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin (2006):
"a sharp break of settlement in the Egyptian Sahara at about 5300 B.C.E. (except for some ecologically favored refuges such as the Gilf Kebir Plateau), the time when Neolithic and predynastic farming communities began flourishing in the Nile valley"
2. Lots of E-V22 lines that have a TMRCA about 5300 BC c.q 7300 ybp.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH2818/

Of course this is no evidence, could be coincidence, but I don't expect this is coincidence. But we have to wait for real samples of that time.....

Riverman
09-07-2021, 06:52 PM
I tend to go with you. Why?

Just two things.

1.Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin (2006):
"a sharp break of settlement in the Egyptian Sahara at about 5300 B.C.E. (except for some ecologically favored refuges such as the Gilf Kebir Plateau), the time when Neolithic and predynastic farming communities began flourishing in the Nile valley"
2. Lots of E-V22 lines that have a TMRCA about 5300 BC c.q 7300 ybp.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH2818/

Of course this is no evidence, could be coincidence, but I don't expect this is coincidence. But we have to wait for real samples of that time.....

The article is more about how "African" the ancient Egyptian, the Pharaonic culture was, whatever that's supposed to mean. They admit themselves its a fringe position, if going as far as some of the authors quoted being concerned. But the real issue is that even that "cattle complex" didn't came out of nowhere and the remains of some of those are copies of Natufian and Southern Sinai Neolithic people. They are no locals to North Africa. But then again, we don't know a lot about where they really came from, but very unlikely West of the Nile Valley or South of modern Egypt, but rather from the Levante originally. But we don't know, because phenotypical variation can be treacherous and there could have been numerous forth and back migrations anyway.

Finn
09-07-2021, 07:03 PM
The article is more about how "African" the ancient Egyptian, the Pharaonic culture was, whatever that's supposed to mean. They admit themselves its a fringe position, if going as far as some of the authors quoted being concerned. But the real issue is that even that "cattle complex" didn't came out of nowhere and the remains of some of those are copies of Natufian and Southern Sinai Neolithic people. They are no locals to North Africa. But then again, we don't know a lot about where they really came from, but very unlikely West of the Nile Valley or South of modern Egypt, but rather from the Levante originally. But we don't know, because phenotypical variation can be treacherous and there could have been numerous forth and back migrations anyway.

As shown E-M78 the ancestor of E-V22 most probably was 'born' in the Western Desert, a dryer climate and a 'run' to the Nile stood probably at the roots of E-V22.

Of course one of the scenario's. But imo a likely one. In that sense 'African'.

Levant can also be the case. Can't be ruled out.

But sometimes I see some kind of 'identity' discussion (inherent or underlying) Levant vs Africa. That's not my drive. I'm only interested were it really started nevertheless Africa or Levant.

Riverman
09-07-2021, 07:16 PM
As shown E-M78 the ancestor of E-V22 most probably was 'born' in the Western Desert, a dryer climate and a 'run' to the Nile stood probably at the roots of E-V22.

Of course one of the scenario's. But imo a likely one. In that sense 'African'.

Levant can also be the case. Can't be ruled out.

But sometimes I see some kind of 'identity' discussion (inherent or underlying) Levant vs Africa. That's not my drive. I'm only interested were it really started nevertheless Africa or Levant.

How and where do you think they picked up the same phenotype, cultural package and domesticated animals? Its largely a copy from PPN.
But similarity doesn’t have to mean identity, only DNA can prove that.

taharqa
09-07-2021, 08:22 PM
The article is more about how "African" the ancient Egyptian, the Pharaonic culture was, whatever that's supposed to mean. They admit themselves its a fringe position, if going as far as some of the authors quoted being concerned. But the real issue is that even that "cattle complex" didn't came out of nowhere and the remains of some of those are copies of Natufian and Southern Sinai Neolithic people. They are no locals to North Africa. But then again, we don't know a lot about where they really came from, but very unlikely West of the Nile Valley or South of modern Egypt, but rather from the Levante originally. But we don't know, because phenotypical variation can be treacherous and there could have been numerous forth and back migrations anyway.

1. Ist of all, yes the article asserts that the ancient egyptian culture was fundamentally African (and different from the cultures of Near East or Mediterranean) due to its common origin with other saharan/NE African cultures.

2. That Ancient egypt originated directly from the Badarian/Tasian/Early Naqada cultures of Upper(southern) Egypt.

3. That this Badarian/Tasian/Early Naqadan cultures are practically THE SAME as other cultures that covered much of the area from the Khartoum(above the 6th cataract) to Middle Egypt and the adjoining "desert" areas and generally later than them. Let me emphasize that these are practically the same cultures with local adaptations. You could call this Nubian or Pastoral or Saharo-Nubian culture.


Point 2 and 3 are NOT fringe theories. They are actually mainstream now. And they can be easily demostrated. This author was just wondering why the view is not as popular. What is in dispute is who these people were(i believe that it will not be shocking of they were "mixed" since the Nile Valley and even the sahara always have birectional movements both within and outside the continent). The nature of this "mixture" is what DNA and other lines of evidence would help us know.

NB::: There is NO cultural similarities between this Saharo-Nubian culture and Natufian(this is actually hilarious) and other Near Eastern cultures. That is the point. They were fundamentally different. Which is why even those persons whi argue for some movements from the Near East into the Nile Valley say that those persons were "absorbed" into any existing society. That is one of the reasons why there is no evidence for demic diffusion for the Nile valley unlike again Europe.

taharqa
09-07-2021, 08:27 PM
I tend to go with you. Why?

Just two things.

1.Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin (2006):
"a sharp break of settlement in the Egyptian Sahara at about 5300 B.C.E. (except for some ecologically favored refuges such as the Gilf Kebir Plateau), the time when Neolithic and predynastic farming communities began flourishing in the Nile valley"
2. Lots of E-V22 lines that have a TMRCA about 5300 BC c.q 7300 ybp.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH2818/

Of course this is no evidence, could be coincidence, but I don't expect this is coincidence. But we have to wait for real samples of that time.....

You are correct.

Both scholars and others after them(like Nicholl) demonstrated through geological and radiocarbon evidence that there is a relationship between the period when parts of the Eastern sahara started to really dry up and peole moving out to when we began to see population increase in parts of the Nile valley(Egypt and parts of Sudan). And guess what, these people had same culture with the culture on the Egyptian side been younger.

taharqa
09-07-2021, 08:32 PM
How and where do you think they picked up the same phenotype, cultural package and domesticated animals? Its largely a copy from PPN.
But similarity doesn’t have to mean identity, only DNA can prove that.

There is no similarity between PPN and the early cultures that gave rise to ancient Egypt (upper Egypt).

Please stop "asserting" what waa not there.

In fact , ironically it is in the sudan and parts of the eastern saharan would one find practically the same and other similar but older cultures.

CPL05
09-13-2021, 12:49 PM
Yes it spread downwards, the East African Based Subclade is E-V3262, I would bet the Sudanese Fulani belong to it too. Still I meet Some Sudanese who were E-V22 belonging to Ja'alin tribe under different E-L1250 branch. But those were however sure they aren't originals in the tribe but rather immigrants from Egypt.

Do you know your subclade ?
It seems to me that the few E-V22 Egyptian mummies that have been tested are below E-PH2818.

Riccardo
09-25-2021, 11:21 AM
I propose that we peel the few candidate subclades that potentially could have a link with the Phoenicians.

Given the data we have available on Yfull, there should be 3 that I list below :

1/E-FGC62855 as already discussed.

2/E-FT137267 which was formed 7700 ybp. There's a Lebanese who is connected to it. He's from Mount Lebanon. I don't know if he's a Druze or a Maronite but what's even more interesting is that there are Italians(From the City of Enna) DownStream belonging to E-FT137676 with a mutation dating back to 2400 ybp. This could be linked to the spread of Phoenician merchants around the Mediterranean, including part of Sicily(The western part including cities like Motyé, Eryx, Lilybaeum ...).A Migration to the inland could have been possible.
Another hypothesis could be linked to the destruction of Carthage by the Romans, as well as the slavery of a certain number of Carthaginians(It seems to me that there were around 50,000) in the direction of Rome who settled there and who mixed with the local population.

3/E-Y95461 => E-Y30971 : This result surprised me insofar as there are potential genetic traces linked to ancient Roman legions (Slaves or descendants of Slaves who became Roman citizens or auxiliary soldiers / archer of the Roman army) from the Orient (Especially from Ancient Syria). This First sub-clade is related to a Lebanese from Nabatiyé but the downstream SNP one is Western European according to Yfull (I even discussed with a French linked to it who's from a city not far from the border with Belgium).

It's indeed difficult to make a link with the Egyptian dynasty given the lack of data available concerning Egypt.

HI! I am E-FT137676! ;)

hantrolugharsts
09-25-2021, 12:32 PM
And what about E-FT155550 is there any news yet?

Riccardo
09-25-2021, 01:13 PM
And what about E-FT155550 is there any news yet?

Are you already in our E-V22 project?

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/e-v22/activity-feed

TuaMan
10-24-2021, 05:14 PM
Despite its age (~39KYA) this lineage suspiciously is not found anywhere outside of Ethiopia except for a few Gulf Afro-Arabs with slave trade related ancestry from Southwest Ethiopia.

This makes me highly skeptical of PAA coming out of Ethiopia and Omotic being the first branch to simply have never left.

Many Omotic people also have E-M34 / E-M123 and T1 which seems to have more northerly origins and it is not that unusual for Omotic groups to carry mtDNA K1a as well.

Are you referring to the samples on Yfull, and do you know for a fact that these individuals have obvious historical African ancestry?

There are a lot of intriguingly basal splits in E on Yfull that show up in Arabia. There's even a basal split in E2 shared by a Saudi and a Jewish Belarussian (no tmrca for their clade but it has to be at least 2,000+ I would imagine). I know these old E lineages are often hand-waived away as being relatively recent, post-Islam introgressions, and that Saudis and Gulf Arabs are just over-sampled. But I wonder if it really could be more complicated than that. E (and specifically E1b1b) is the most common Y lineage in the Arabian peninsula after J1, so I think it's a pretty good guess that before J1 most of the peninsula was inhabitated by E populations. As far as I'm aware, we don't see these amounts of deep splits in G, J, H, C, etc amongst Arabians popping up like we do with E, and obviously the total number of these lineages is just smaller in general than E.

I'm not as familiar with the archaeology, but I don't think the peninsula was totally depopulated before the Holocene, I believe there's evidence that it was inhabited during the Upper Paleolithic, though the record isn't the greatest. So I don't think it's unreasonable to think that E might have a more deeply rooted presence in Arabians than people might think.

TuaMan
10-24-2021, 06:26 PM
1. My point was specifically about hg E, which is undoubtedly of African origin (as in, the MRCA lived in Africa). But given D0's presence among Nigerians as found by Hallast et al. 2020, DE and thus all of hg CT is of almost certain African origin, with the crown Eurasian hgs being D1, C, and F.

So if not just DE, but even CT as a whole are "African," how is it that there are no other CT lineages in SSA aside from E (not including the handful of D0), but yet A and B somehow still have a respectable presence, particularly in East Africa, where CT and L3 are often hypothesized to have formed? So E left A and B in tact, but replaced all its CT brethren? And if E is so obviously "African," why is 90%+ of all E in SSA only a 15k E1b1a, and why are E2, E1a, etc., so much more marginal, with shallow time depths, and so geographically restricted to certain populations?

Most of these arguments based on modern diversity of E in Africa remind me a lot about the supposed "Southeast Asia" origin of K2 and even P, which was entirely based on finding rare, deeply divergent branches of those haplogroups in contemporary SE Asians. But we know more and more from aDNA that is is nonsense, SE Asia wasn't a source for K2 but a sink, they received these lineages from incoming groups from the north over time, the relative isolation of SE Asia from the rest of landmass is what preserved these rare lineages, not the area itself being some primordial well-spring for them. I think there's a good possibility the same thing is at play with Africa in regards to E.

leorcooper19
10-24-2021, 10:47 PM
So if not just DE, but even CT as a whole are "African," how is it that there are no other CT lineages in SSA aside from E (not including the handful of D0), but yet A and B somehow still have a respectable presence, particularly in East Africa, where CT and L3 are often hypothesized to have formed? So E left A and B in tact, but replaced all its CT brethren? And if E is so obviously "African," why is 90%+ of all E in SSA only a 15k E1b1a, and why are E2, E1a, etc., so much more marginal, with shallow time depths, and so geographically restricted to certain populations?

Most of these arguments based on modern diversity of E in Africa remind me a lot about the supposed "Southeast Asia" origin of K2 and even P, which was entirely based on finding rare, deeply divergent branches of those haplogroups in contemporary SE Asians. But we know more and more from aDNA that is is nonsense, SE Asia wasn't a source for K2 but a sink, they received these lineages from incoming groups from the north over time, the relative isolation of SE Asia from the rest of landmass is what preserved these rare lineages, not the area itself being some primordial well-spring for them. I think there's a good possibility the same thing is at play with Africa in regards to E.

1. Let's step back for a second and think about how the phylogeny of human Y-chromosomes is regularly organized. Haplogroup E is ten thousand years older than every top-level Eurasian haplogroup (C, D1, and F) and is a few tens of thousands of years older than haplogroups like G, R, I, J, or O. Why are E1a, E2, E1b1b1 not separate haplogroups with their own letter prefixes? I'm almost certain it's because the organization was done by Eurasians and not Africans. This is more true for the even older haplogroups like A and B, which could be split up into 20k-30k ybp haplogroups just like Eurasians are. If we take away all the letters and just have the phylogeny in front of us, it's actually pretty ambiguous where to draw the line between what should constitute an entire haplogroup and what constitutes a subclade. In a blank phylogeny starting at CT, we actually see several branching points for clades whose modern descendants are mainly African, then later at c. 48000 ybp we see branching points for clades that are dominant in Eurasia.

2. Why mention your disdain for arguments based on modern spread rather than aDNA for the origin of certain Y-clades when you use that exact kind of argument by suggesting that A and B's "respectable" presence in East Africa implies that CT and L3 could not be from there? I completely understand that modern spread can be difference from what aDNA proves, but it is my opinion that the deep divergences of the upper levels of E's phylogeny are evidence enough that a backmigration narrative doesn't really work, when we know the ultimate origin is in Africa.

3. To double-down on my distinction between E, D0 relative to C, D1, and F, check the TMRCAs:
C: c. 48800 ybp
D1: c. 46500 ybp
F: c. 48800 ybp

While E has no splits chains starting at this range and continuing on like we see in C, D1, and F. It's pretty clear to me that these Y-chromosomes were present in the Crown Eurasian group and that no parts of E seem to fit the pattern that exists between them.

4. As to your question why young, disparate clades like E-M2 are so dominant while others like E-M41 are so tiny, I would just point out obvious analogues in Eurasia. Why are L and T, or M and S, or basal forms of P, K, F, etc. all so small when they are just as diverged as their huge cousins like R or O? That is simply the name of the game here, not some blow against E. Each lineage has a story connected to the human past, with ups and downs, successes and failures. Just because a lineage ended up in a place with little population growth until the historical period doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards to explain their existence.

TuaMan
10-25-2021, 12:37 AM
1. Let's step back for a second and think about how the phylogeny of human Y-chromosomes is regularly organized. Haplogroup E is ten thousand years older than every top-level Eurasian haplogroup (C, D1, and F) and is a few tens of thousands of years older than haplogroups like G, R, I, J, or O. Why are E1a, E2, E1b1b1 not separate haplogroups with their own letter prefixes? I'm almost certain it's because the organization was done by Eurasians and not Africans. This is more true for the even older haplogroups like A and B, which could be split up into 20k-30k ybp haplogroups just like Eurasians are. If we take away all the letters and just have the phylogeny in front of us, it's actually pretty ambiguous where to draw the line between what should constitute an entire haplogroup and what constitutes a subclade. In a blank phylogeny starting at CT, we actually see several branching points for clades whose modern descendants are mainly African, then later at c. 48000 ybp we see branching points for clades that are dominant in Eurasia.

E is not 10,000 years older than C, D1, and F. On YFull C, D, E, F all have essentially the same formation date, it's the tmrca of E that's only about 3,500 older than C+F, and keep in mind that confidence intervals overlap anyway. You are either confused or willfully distorting the picture by comparing the top end of the CI for tmrca of E against the low ends of the tmrca of C and F.

CF and DE both broke down around 65k, and at some point between then and 50k, E got separated from the rest of them. I think at 65k pre-D hitched up with pre-C and pre-F, and I would bet pre-E tagged along with the other three as well for a while. It's just that some point between 65,000 and 50,000, E branched off from the rest, and understanding where and how that happened is what interests me.


2. Why mention your disdain for arguments based on modern spread rather than aDNA for the origin of certain Y-clades when you use that exact kind of argument by suggesting that A and B's "respectable" presence in East Africa implies that CT and L3 could not be from there? I completely understand that modern spread can be difference from what aDNA proves, but it is my opinion that the deep divergences of the upper levels of E's phylogeny are evidence enough that a backmigration narrative doesn't really work, when we know the ultimate origin is in Africa.

Step back for a second and ask yourself what sounds most parsimonious:

1. CT and/or DE emerge in Africa, and E manages to completely, selectively wipe out all other CT/D derived lineages, but somehow leaves enough A and B (these are not comparable to a handful of ultra rare D0 in some Nigerians) around in the area it supposedly emerged in?

2. E by itself is just intrusive to Africa, and over time came supplant the native African A and B lineages, through chance, drift, etc, and that mostly due to one lineage which seems mostly to be a product of a Neolithic expansion?


3. To double-down on my distinction between E, D0 relative to C, D1, and F, check the TMRCAs:
C: c. 48800 ybp
D1: c. 46500 ybp
F: c. 48800 ybp

While E has no splits chains starting at this range and continuing on like we see in C, D1, and F. It's pretty clear to me that these Y-chromosomes were present in the Crown Eurasian group and that no parts of E seem to fit the pattern that exists between them.
.

E literally starts rapidly breaking down into E1, E2 and sub-branches therein, right between 40,000-50k, same as the deepest splits in the C and F derived lineages....

Megalophias
10-25-2021, 01:12 AM
1. CT and/or DE emerge in Africa, and E manages to completely, selectively wipe out all other CT/D derived lineages, but somehow leaves enough A and B (these are not comparable to a handful of ultra rare D0 in some Nigerians) around in the area it supposedly emerged in?
What's the area E supposedly emerged in (Egypt? Eritrea?) and what are the deep surviving lineages of A and B there? If C, D, and F came from within Africa wouldn't we expect them to be somewhere near the margins of the continent, and why would it be remarkable if they were replaced there - what would have to be selective about it? Heck, climate alone could have depopulated the source region.

TuaMan
10-25-2021, 01:33 AM
What's the area E supposedly emerged in (Egypt? Eritrea?) and what are the deep surviving lineages of A and B there?

Are you pretending like you don't know that most geneticists and anthropologists claim that East Africa (Ethiopia, the Horn, the northern Rift Valley, Sudan, that region?) is supposed to be the well-spring of humanity, and that the "conventional" model (which I don't agree with, btw) is a coastal migration across the Bab-el-Mandeb? And A and B are in and of themselves are the deep surviving lineages, they represent 90-100k+ divergences from the CT root.



If C, D, and F came from within Africa wouldn't we expect them to be somewhere near the margins of the continent, and why would it be remarkable if they were replaced there - what would have to be selective about it? Heck, climate alone could have depopulated the source region.

Or what if they just didn't come from Africa? Modern diversity is supposed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that E as a whole is African, but the same doesn't apply to C,D,F? Why do you assume they come from Africa?

Megalophias
10-25-2021, 02:03 AM
Are you pretending like you don't know that most geneticists and anthropologists claim that East Africa (Ethiopia, the Horn, the northern Rift Valley, Sudan, that region?) is supposed to be the well-spring of humanity, and that the "conventional" model (which I don't agree with, btw) is a coastal migration across the Bab-el-Mandeb? And A and B are in and of themselves are the deep surviving lineages, they represent 90-100k+ divergences from the CT root.
Who cares about some fake "conventional wisdom" you don't even believe in? We discuss lots of different scenarios here. CDEF population would be expected to be near the edge of Africa, since obviously they were placed to reach Asia (whether as pre-CDEF, or pre-C, D, and F, or already diversifying branches).

A and B have lots of deep ancient lineages, yeah, and were spread across Africa before E was even born. If C, D, F-related lineages were replaced in the origin area, there would still be lots of A and B elsewhere, which could spread back later. So what would be the hypothetical A or B that weren't replaced while CDF were 'selectively' replaced in that area? A-M28?

TuaMan
10-25-2021, 02:37 AM
Who cares about some fake "conventional wisdom" you don't even believe in? We discuss lots of different scenarios here. CDEF population would be expected to be near the edge of Africa, since obviously they were placed to reach Asia (whether as pre-CDEF, or pre-C, D, and F, or already diversifying branches).

A and B have lots of deep ancient lineages, yeah, and were spread across Africa before E was even born. If C, D, F-related lineages were replaced in the origin area, there would still be lots of A and B elsewhere, which could spread back later. So what would be the hypothetical A or B that weren't replaced while CDF were 'selectively' replaced in that area? A-M28?

You sure seem to care a lot about "conventional wisdom" given how bizarrely emotive you seem to be when someone challenges the allegedly African origin of CT or E. You can believe whatever you want, I couldn't care less, and you can do your own homework on parsing out the distributions and phylogeny of A and B in East Africa. If you want to imagine some scenario where CDEF evolves on the fringe of Africa and gets pruned down and replaced, as opposed to that lineage just flat out being born in Eurasia with one branch of it migrating back to Africa, then fine, but that's just a thought experiment without any more hard evidence behind it then the other way, and some compelling circumstantial evidence against it which I've elaborated on not too long ago in other threads on the forum. Take it or leave it, time will tell one way or the other.

Megalophias
10-25-2021, 03:54 AM
You sure seem to care a lot about "conventional wisdom" given how bizarrely emotive you seem to be when someone challenges the allegedly African origin of CT or E.
Are you mistaking me for someone else? :confused: I thought that one argument I addressed was bad. I don't have a problem with E back-migrating (though I think it back-migrating a bunch of separate times is not too likely).

Riverman
10-25-2021, 10:56 AM
Are you mistaking me for someone else? :confused: I thought that one argument I addressed was bad. I don't have a problem with E back-migrating (though I think it back-migrating a bunch of separate times is not too likely).

We already know it did spread in Africa numerous times, the question is just from where exactly and the best candidates are Egypt-Sinai, Levante, Southern Arabia. We know E spread from these areas, more than once, to other parts of Africa and from those regions, in the relevant time, we have nothing. So chances are equally distributed. There is just a lack of hard evidence either way.

leorcooper19
10-25-2021, 02:34 PM
E is not 10,000 years older than C, D1, and F. On YFull C, D, E, F all have essentially the same formation date, it's the tmrca of E that's only about 3,500 older than C+F, and keep in mind that confidence intervals overlap anyway. You are either confused or willfully distorting the picture by comparing the top end of the CI for tmrca of E against the low ends of the tmrca of C and F.

You're confusing formation age with TMRCA. Formation age is the age of a clade's parent, which in this case for DE and CF is CT. So, obviously they all have the same formation age because they all descend from the same clade. Their TMRCAs are what's different. E's top level splits occur at c. 52,300 ybp (56,300 ybp - 48,400 ybp at 95% confidence). The overlap with C, D1, and F's ages- while present- is not that great.


CF and DE both broke down around 65k, and at some point between then and 50k, E got separated from the rest of them. I think at 65k pre-D hitched up with pre-C and pre-F, and I would bet pre-E tagged along with the other three as well for a while. It's just that some point between 65,000 and 50,000, E branched off from the rest, and understanding where and how that happened is what interests me.

This is what you should have said at the beginning. I actually don't disagree with this being a real possibility, especially with how little we know about Stone-Age movements across/over the Arabian Peninsula. In general though, it seems you've already made up your mind, rather than being truly open to other alternatives.


Step back for a second and ask yourself what sounds most parsimonious:

1. CT and/or DE emerge in Africa, and E manages to completely, selectively wipe out all other CT/D derived lineages, but somehow leaves enough A and B (these are not comparable to a handful of ultra rare D0 in some Nigerians) around in the area it supposedly emerged in?

2. E by itself is just intrusive to Africa, and over time came supplant the native African A and B lineages, through chance, drift, etc, and that mostly due to one lineage which seems mostly to be a product of a Neolithic expansion?

I don't believe you're thinking about it right. Imaging E as a unit wiping out other lineages shows that you're applying the modern/end result onto the past, rather than trying to conceive of what it would have been like. It is my opinion that E and D's basal clades, pre-C, and pre-F all would have been present somewhere in Northern and/or Eastern Africa, and that it was the Crown Eurasian explosion that secured C, D1, and F's survival. Other cousin clades, for example D0 and basal E clades like E-M41, would not be as lucky. I imagine too that for every surviving lineage, there are hundreds that died off. So I imagine that E too would have had so many descendant lineages that died off, just like you're imagining that the African variaties of C, D1, and F would have. In other words, getting into Eurasia was probably a better deal for continuation of a Y-chromosome than staying in Africa.

Your dismissal of D0 as a meaningful phylogenetic node is also unproductive. We are lucky enough to find a surviving, previously pre-D splitter lineage in Nigeria and you're reducing them into unimportance? Do you know the TMRCA between those Nigerians and Eurasian D1? It's only about 1000-2000 years younger than the TMRCA of DE. It's an incredibly basal split, and is evidence of an origin in Africa, even if D0 is tiny and doesn't massively tip the scales.

I also believe- perhaps wrongly- that CT was a human lineage living somewhere between modern day Egypt and modern day Kenya. I doubt it was as south as Tanzania or as west as Uganda/Burundi/Rwanda. So in this sense I believe more in northeast African rather than eastern African, if that helps you see why I don't believe A and B's current spreads in that region are very relevant.

Riverman
10-25-2021, 02:46 PM
Your dismissal of D0 as a meaningful phylogenetic node is also unproductive. We are lucky enough to find a surviving, previously pre-D splitter lineage in Nigeria and you're reducing them into unimportance? Do you know the TMRCA between those Nigerians and Eurasian D1? It's only about 1000-2000 years younger than the TMRCA of DE. It's an incredibly basal split, and is evidence of an origin in Africa, even if D0 is tiny and doesn't massively tip the scales.


That's premature. If various more downstream haplogroups could expand into Africa, some minority basal ones could move in too. It's no evidence for an African origin, only a possible hint. Evidence is ancient DNA or an old, diversified regional branch, which can be dated every step back. A splitter lineage without a phylogenetic context is no proof for anything, but that this splinter made it into the region, at some point in time, probably even piggybacking a bigger group and event. Its a possible hint in favour of an African origin, which needs to be backed up by more evidence, but no decisive evidence. Imagine we got R-V88 only from Africa - and no other related samples, ancient or modern, from outside of the continent. How wrong any conclusion drawn from it would be!

TuaMan
10-26-2021, 03:47 AM
You're confusing formation age with TMRCA. Formation age is the age of a clade's parent, which in this case for DE and CF is CT. So, obviously they all have the same formation age because they all descend from the same clade. Their TMRCAs are what's different. E's top level splits occur at c. 52,300 ybp (56,300 ybp - 48,400 ybp at 95% confidence). The overlap with C, D1, and F's ages- while present- is not that great.

Yeah, I guess I'm confused, because the difference between the 52,300 tmrca of E is only about 3,500 years older than the 48,800 tmrca's of C and F, so I have no idea where you got your original "10,000 year older" claim.



I imagine too that for every surviving lineage, there are hundreds that died off. So I imagine that E too would have had so many descendant lineages that died off, just like you're imagining that the African variaties of C, D1, and F would have. In other words, getting into Eurasia was probably a better deal for continuation of a Y-chromosome than staying in Africa.

You do understand that that OoA bottleneck caused a massive crash in the effective population size of ancestral Eurasians, to just a couple thousand individuals or so, much less than the projected effective pop size of Africans at the time? And you think somehow this massively drifted and reduced population is going to be better for the continuation of a more diverse Y-chrom portfolio in this ultra-drifted group than in the contemporary, much less bottlenecked Africans?


Your dismissal of D0 as a meaningful phylogenetic node is also unproductive. We are lucky enough to find a surviving, previously pre-D splitter lineage in Nigeria and you're reducing them into unimportance? Do you know the TMRCA between those Nigerians and Eurasian D1? It's only about 1000-2000 years younger than the TMRCA of DE. It's an incredibly basal split, and is evidence of an origin in Africa, even if D0 is tiny and doesn't massively tip the scales.

Again, this train of thought is what led to people assuming K2b, P and even F itself came out of Southeast Asia because ultra rare basal splits are found in contemporary Malaysians, Filipinos, Andamanese, and southern Chinese minority groups. But as we get more new aDNA and even just reviewing basic archaeology we can see that this is nonsense, population movements in Asia went north to south, and these rare lineages only survive in SE Asia because it's a peripheral refuge region of the wider Asian landmass which experienced more population turnover and growth which wiped out the older diversity.

vasil
10-26-2021, 05:13 AM
That's premature. If various more downstream haplogroups could expand into Africa, some minority basal ones could move in too. It's no evidence for an African origin, only a possible hint. Evidence is ancient DNA or an old, diversified regional branch, which can be dated every step back. A splitter lineage without a phylogenetic context is no proof for anything, but that this splinter made it into the region, at some point in time, probably even piggybacking a bigger group and event. Its a possible hint in favour of an African origin, which needs to be backed up by more evidence, but no decisive evidence. Imagine we got R-V88 only from Africa - and no other related samples, ancient or modern, from outside of the continent. How wrong any conclusion drawn from it would be!

There is a sample from the Levant that is basal to the Africans so D is not confirmed to be African in origin. The question of whether Basal Eurasian/DE/M1 originated in the Levant or Northeastern Africa can only be answered with Ancient DNA this constant bickering is not solving anything.

thejkhan
10-26-2021, 05:16 AM
There is a sample from the Levant that is basal to the Africans so D is not confirmed to be African in origin. The question of whether Basal Eurasian/DE/M1 originated in the Levant or Northeastern Africa can only be answered with Ancient DNA this constant bickering is not solving anything.

The 3 Nigerian D0 have a tmrca of only 2.6k years so D0's African branch is not very old.

vasil
10-26-2021, 06:02 AM
The 3 Nigerian D0 have a tmrca of only 2.6k years so D0's African branch is not very old.

Yes the African branch is shallow and there is the Basal Levantine guy so it could have originated in the Levant or Arabia and spread to Africa or it could have originated in Northeastern Africa and spread in both directions. My point is this bickering is leading nowhere because we simply need more data.

Mnemonics
10-26-2021, 06:59 AM
The 3 Nigerian D0 have a tmrca of only 2.6k years so D0's African branch is not very old.

An African American with a very divergent D0 branch was discovered relatively recently. The Syrian and this African American have the most divergent branches so far.

Sranançao
10-26-2021, 10:01 AM
I just want to add something to the conversation. The assumption that the early pastoralists in Africa were predominantly Natufian like is a bit misguided. We have interdisciplinary evidence showing some of the earliest adopters of cattle were probably related to present day Nilo Saharans. This is shown when we look at the biological affinities of pastoralists ranging from those in the Malian lakes region to the Wadi Howar associated with the Leiterband culture in Sudan. Both of these groups were biologicaly related and show the most similarities to present day southern Sudanese. The leiterband culture was first said to be related to Afro Asiatic purely because of the presence of cattle. They probably descent from a second populations expansion of the Saharo-Nilotic complex from the Sahara associated with the adoption of cattle. In northern Sudan and the Western desert we mostly see populations that show both Non African and Sub Saharan affinities. https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/2112

From the rock art it is also evident that the Sahara and Nile Valley were populated by biologically North African populations, Natufian like, Sudanic and mixed between these groups. There is even some evidence in the central Sahara showing the adoption of domesticated goats by the Saharan Hunter gatherers. In the Acacus mountains we again see a mix of biologically sub saharan and Non African traits and even basal N lineages in two pastoral women. Others in the same rockshelter were predominantly sub saharan. The spread of pastoralism in Africa was a very complex period of migration and adoption. It's wrong to assume all pastoralists in Africa were like those of the Savanna Pastoral complex in Southeast Africa. And it's even worse to pretend all pastoral cultures in Africa were transplants from the Levant.

CopperAxe
10-26-2021, 11:12 AM
I just want to add something to the conversation. The assumption that the early pastoralists in Africa were predominantly Natufian like is a bit misguided. We have interdisciplinary evidence showing some of the earliest adopters of cattle were probably related to present day Nilo Saharans. This is shown when we look at the biological affinities of pastoralists ranging from those in the Malian lakes region to the Wadi Howar associated with the Leiterband culture in Sudan. Both of these groups were biologicaly related and show the most similarities to present day southern Sudanese. The leiterband culture was first said to be related to Afro Asiatic purely because of the presence of cattle. They probably descent from a second populations expansion of the Saharo-Nilotic complex from the Sahara associated with the adoption of cattle. In northern Sudan and the Western desert we mostly see populations that show both Non African and Sub Saharan affinities. https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/2112

From the rock art it is also evident that the Sahara and Nile Valley were populated by biologically North African populations, Natufian like, Sudanic and mixed between these groups. There is even some evidence in the central Sahara showing the adoption of domesticated goats by the Saharan Hunter gatherers. In the Acacus mountains we again see a mix of biologically sub saharan and Non African traits and even basal N lineages in two pastoral women. Others in the same rockshelter were predominantly sub saharan. The spread of pastoralism in Africa was a very complex period of migration and adoption. It's wrong to assume all pastoralists in Africa were like those of the Savanna Pastoral complex in Southeast Africa. And it's even worse to pretend all pastoral cultures in Africa were transplants from the Levant.

P.s there are quite a bunch of linguists which do not support a Nilo-Saharan language family. On glottolog they even say that there is no solid case to be made for Nilotic to be part of the Eastern Sudanic languages let alone Nilo-Saharan as a whole.


No conclusive, methodologically sound basis for assigning Nilotic to Eastern Sudanic*Bender, M. Lionel 2005*or to an alleged full or partial Nilo-Saharan has been presented*Blench, Roger 2000*,*Bender, Lionel M. 2000*,*Pascal Boyeldieu 2011*Tom Güldemann 2018: 294-309 . The parallels adduced by*Gerrit J. Dimmendaal 2018*have been selected from various modern languages and have an alternative explanation as chance resemblances until shown to be reconstructable in the various microgroups.

I'm no linguist myself so I'm not in a position to judge here but given the sheer amount of diversity in 'Nilo-Saharan' speakers in terms of languages, cultures and genetics this could make sense.

Sranançao
10-26-2021, 03:56 PM
I don't want to derail the thread so I'll probably make a post about the peopling of the Sahara during the early and middle pastoral periods. But personally I accept the position of some of the most prominent African linguists like Ehret and Blench that Nilo Saharan is a valid family. If we look at the distribution of Nilo Saharan languages and the markers of the Saharo-Nilotic complex I mentioned earlier. There is a pretty strong connection. The great differences between Nilo Saharan groups is probably because of it's age, the large area, language switching and interactions with surrounding groups. You have to remember we find Nilotic like people as far as Southern Algeria and Senegal.

Keneki20
10-27-2021, 01:58 PM
Step back for a second and ask yourself what sounds most parsimonious:

1. CT and/or DE emerge in Africa, and E manages to completely, selectively wipe out all other CT/D derived lineages, but somehow leaves enough A and B (these are not comparable to a handful of ultra rare D0 in some Nigerians) around in the area it supposedly emerged in?

2. E by itself is just intrusive to Africa, and over time came supplant the native African A and B lineages, through chance, drift, etc, and that mostly due to one lineage which seems mostly to be a product of a Neolithic expansion?

E literally starts rapidly breaking down into E1, E2 and sub-branches therein, right between 40,000-50k, same as the deepest splits in the C and F derived lineages....


While I see that entertaining a Eurasian origin of E and D isn’t unreasonable, I don’t think an older migration from Eurasia contributing lineages like D, E, and DE to Africa is necessary (i.e., an enormous migration into Africa from pre-existing Eurasian populations around, say, 55,000-65,000 thousand years ago). A 55,000-65,000-year-old main exit from Africa without E, and with some remnants of D and DE*, strikes me as more likely, most especially when taking extra-human biological factors into account.

For instance, the harmful human gut bacterium Helicobacter pylori has been with humans for likely at least about 200,000 years, has much greater diversity within Africa relative to Eurasia, and also shows a relevant divergence time between African and Eurasian varieties. To be exact, Eurasian varieties of the bacterium diverged from African varieties ~ 58,000 years ago. Of course, varyingly large Eurasian back migrations to Africa have been happening for upwards of 30,000 years anyway, but the proposal for the aforementioned haplogroups entering Africa is usually predicated on a supposed into-Africa migration around or upwards of 60,000 years ago from pre-existing Eurasians that migrated out of Africa considerably earlier. However, all these haplogroups either have TMRCAs and formation dates that precede this 58,000 year time or come close to it, so the early back-migration hypothesis doesn’t strike me as all that reliable.

taharqa
10-27-2021, 04:01 PM
An African American with a very divergent D0 branch was discovered relatively recently. The Syrian and this African American have the most divergent branches so far.

Yeah, well but this African-American might have come from NE/North Africa or even the Levant. We really cannot tell until we get the actual ancient DNA of the ancestors of this African-American to be sure.

"Puns" actually intended!!!!

Dehlisandwich
10-27-2021, 04:59 PM
Well if mtDNA is anything to go by, theres seems to be a strong association between CT derived yDNA and L3 derived mtDNA. To begin, L3(and several of its sub lineages) seems firmly rooted in Africa i.e. never left the continent. Whereas mtDNA M and N are the founding mtDNA of modern non Africans. I think most of us are in agreement with everything up until this point.

Now in a scenario where CT left Africa with mtDNA M & N, and where CF,DE and D,E split in Eurasia and NOT Africa. What would have been the male counterparts to the L3 lineages that remained in Africa prior to a supposed backmigration of Haplogroup E? After all these African L3 maternal lineages had to have had male companions, what yDNA would they have carried? These L3 branches couldn't have just persisted on their own. Are we to start arguing that L3 is non African as well?
Would it not make more sense for CT to have split into CF & DE within Africa, with CF and D1 leaving Africa with M & N, and yDNA E and D2 representing the male counterparts to the L3 lineages that remained in Africa? Or maybe I'm missing something here

Megalophias
10-27-2021, 05:04 PM
Yeah, well but this African-American might have come from NE/North Africa or even the Levant. We really cannot tell until we get the actual ancient DNA of the ancestors of this African-American to be sure.
And of course likewise the distant paternal ancestor of our Syrian D0 might have come from Africa.

CPL05
10-29-2021, 06:53 PM
There are 2 Egyptians who have just integrated Yfull below E-V22 :
From Asyūt => https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT187320*/
From Luxor => https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY182571/

Kale
10-31-2021, 06:35 PM
So if not just DE, but even CT as a whole are "African," how is it that there are no other CT lineages in SSA aside from E (not including the handful of D0), but yet A and B somehow still have a respectable presence, particularly in East Africa, where CT and L3 are often hypothesized to have formed? So E left A and B in tact, but replaced all its CT brethren? And if E is so obviously "African," why is 90%+ of all E in SSA only a 15k E1b1a, and why are E2, E1a, etc., so much more marginal, with shallow time depths, and so geographically restricted to certain populations?

Most of these arguments based on modern diversity of E in Africa remind me a lot about the supposed "Southeast Asia" origin of K2 and even P, which was entirely based on finding rare, deeply divergent branches of those haplogroups in contemporary SE Asians. But we know more and more from aDNA that is is nonsense, SE Asia wasn't a source for K2 but a sink, they received these lineages from incoming groups from the north over time, the relative isolation of SE Asia from the rest of landmass is what preserved these rare lineages, not the area itself being some primordial well-spring for them. I think there's a good possibility the same thing is at play with Africa in regards to E.

Is there a compelling reason why A and B should have been in East Africa before E? Why not L3 and CT originate in East Africa, various L3 and E stay behind during OOA, A and B come later from elsewhere?

Whale
11-03-2021, 12:36 AM
...


E is African, especially East African. E1b1b originate in Eastern Saharan among the original Cushitic/Afro-Asiaitic speakers, their descended live in what is now NE/Horn Africa. A and B are hunter population genetics.

Riverman
11-03-2021, 12:47 AM
E is African, especially East African. E1b1b originate in Eastern Saharan among the original Cushitic/Afro-Asiaitic speakers, their descended live in what is now NE/Horn Africa. A and B are hunter population genetics.

That's all speculative and unproven. The Afro-Asiatic connection is the most likely of this, but even from where exactly Afro-Asiatics spread is unknown and disputed.

Tz85
11-03-2021, 01:57 AM
Duplicate post.

Tz85
11-03-2021, 01:59 AM
E is African, especially East African. E1b1b originate in Eastern Saharan among the original Cushitic/Afro-Asiaitic speakers, their descended live in what is now NE/Horn Africa. A and B are hunter population genetics.

Absolute BS. E1b1b1 is West Asia/East Med shifted.

Riccardo
11-03-2021, 02:05 AM
I noticed it. They are below the FTDNA subclade E-BY7402, which I also belong.
E-BY7402 is also found in other europeans but interesting to see two Egyptians below it.



There are 2 Egyptians who have just integrated Yfull below E-V22 :
From Asyūt => https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT187320*/
From Luxor => https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY182571/

Whale
11-03-2021, 02:11 AM
Absolute BS. E1b1b1 is West Asia/East Med shifted.


Nope it's Afroasiatic/Horn/Eastern Saharan. it originate among Basal rich and NEA rich populations. West Asians were all G and J.

thejkhan
11-03-2021, 04:42 AM
E1b1b originate in Eastern Saharan among the original Cushitic/Afro-Asiaitic speakers,

Any aDNA evidence supporting this?

Whale
11-03-2021, 05:13 AM
Any aDNA evidence supporting this?


Maybe not Afro-Asiatic speakers, because it's more ancient. but definitely from Eastern Sahara or the peripheral area.

Riverman
11-03-2021, 10:04 AM
Maybe not Afro-Asiatic speakers, because it's more ancient. but definitely from Eastern Sahara or the peripheral area.

That's an hypothesis and an unproven one. There are no samples older than IBM/Natufian from anywhere in Egypt, Sinai, Levante, Southern Arabia, Mesopotamia. Once these trickle in, we might know more.

Sranançao
11-03-2021, 11:19 AM
Genuine question because I see this line of thinking a lot in these types of threads. Where because there is some scientific debate we just can't know and both sides are equally valid. But what evidence is there actually for the West Asian origin of Afro Asiatic? To my knowledge the proto Afro Asiatic speakers were not farmers or pastoralists. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Afroasiatic/Omotic/Omotic%20livestock%20paper.pdf

And even one of the biggest supporters of an West Asian homeland Alexander Militarev. Recognized Proto Afro Asiatic has words for African animals like Hippo, Elephant, several African Antelopes and Rhinos. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/proto-afrasian-names-of-ungulates-in-light-of-the-proto-afrasian-homeland-issue/viewer

The only other evidence I've heard is related to the Nostratic theory. Or contact with North Caucasian and Sumerian.

It seems more like people want the homeland to be in West Asia to support their own hypothesis. Instead of just going over the available evidence. Because at this point an African origin is more likely.

CPL05
11-03-2021, 02:04 PM
I noticed it. They are below the FTDNA subclade E-BY7402, which I also belong.
E-BY7402 is also found in other europeans but interesting to see two Egyptians below it.

Isn't Sicily mixed of Phoenicians, Greeks, Berbers ... ?

Tz85
11-03-2021, 10:09 PM
Nope it's Afroasiatic/Horn/Eastern Saharan. it originate among Basal rich and NEA rich populations. West Asians were all G and J.

Sorry they were Caucasianoid, not Negroid. E1b1b origins are West Asian.

Whale
11-04-2021, 12:10 AM
Sorry they were Caucasianoid, not Negroid. E1b1b origins are West Asian.


Sorry but facts and reality disagree. They were Punt/Cushitic-like, not Caucasoids. E1b1b is NE African Cushitic genetics. All Eurasians from the west were all G and J, even R is not native to Western Eurasia, it's Central Asian.

There is no such thing as West Asian haplogroups, you either African or not African, and E is evidently African (of NE African origin)

Tz85
11-04-2021, 12:30 AM
Sorry but facts and reality disagree. They were Punt/Cushitic-like, not Caucasoids. E1b1b is NE African Cushitic genetics. All Eurasians from the west were all G and J, even R is not native to Western Eurasia, it's Central Asian.

There is no such thing as West Asian haplogroups, you either African or not African, and E is evidently African (of NE African origin)

E1b1b is a result of back migration. West Asian in origin, settled in NE Africa.

Whale
11-04-2021, 12:34 AM
E1b1b is a result of back migration. West Asian in origin, settled in NE Africa.


Yet, no aDNA evidence, and if you want to bring up Natufians, they have have admixture from Iberomaurusian, which is not normal for original E carriers. The closest to the original E1b carriers were from the redsea Cushitic speakers.

Mnemonics
11-04-2021, 12:53 AM
Sorry but facts and reality disagree. They were Punt/Cushitic-like, not Caucasoids. E1b1b is NE African Cushitic genetics. All Eurasians from the west were all G and J, even R is not native to Western Eurasia, it's Central Asian.

There is no such thing as West Asian haplogroups, you either African or not African, and E is evidently African (of NE African origin)

It is incredibly unlikely that E1b1b originated in an East African/ Cushitic-like population. The branches of E1b1b found in the Horn are relatively young and are nested under E-Z830 or E-V12.

Similarly it is is pretty unlikely that the E1b1b is West Asian in origin due to the lack of divergent branches in Anatolia_N rich populations which you would expect to see if it was from the West Eurasian population that contributed to the Eurasians.

E1B1B is very likely a North African/ANA related haplogroup. E as a whole is probably ANA related (if ANA is an actual thing and not an admixed component itself)

TuaMan
11-04-2021, 01:28 AM
It is incredibly unlikely that E1b1b originated in an East African/ Cushitic-like population. The branches of E1b1b found in the Horn are relatively young and are nested under E-Z830 or E-V12.

Similarly it is is pretty unlikely that the E1b1b is West Asian in origin due to the lack of divergent branches in Anatolia_N rich populations which you would expect to see if it was from the West Eurasian population that contributed to the Eurasians.

E1B1B is very likely a North African/ANA related haplogroup. E as a whole is probably ANA related (if ANA is an actual thing and not an admixed component itself)

Have you ever worked out why IBM has more Neanderthal than you would expect from a population that's supposed to be a 50-50 ANA/Eurasian blend?

Scythoslav
11-04-2021, 01:56 AM
Sorry but facts and reality disagree. They were Punt/Cushitic-like, not Caucasoids. E1b1b is NE African Cushitic genetics. All Eurasians from the west were all G and J, even R is not native to Western Eurasia, it's Central Asian.

There is no such thing as West Asian haplogroups, you either African or not African, and E is evidently African (of NE African origin)

They were not Punt/Cushitic like. These are relatively modern phenotypes. If anything they resembled Iberomaurusians which is the closest group to the origin of E in my opinion. And Iberomaurusians looked nothing like any modern phenotype.

Mnemonics
11-04-2021, 02:11 AM
Have you ever worked out why IBM has more Neanderthal than you would expect from a population that's supposed to be a 50-50 ANA/Eurasian blend?

IBM is probably more like 53-58% Eurasian. They seem to have an older less specific form of Eurasian in addition to something West Eurasian.




They were not Punt/Cushitic like. These are relatively modern phenotypes. If anything they resembled Iberomaurusians which is the closest group to the origin of E in my opinion. And Iberomaurusians looked nothing like any modern phenotype.


The Iberomaurusians are way too young a population to be the origin of E but they are a likely source for E-M78

Whale
11-04-2021, 04:24 AM
They were not Punt/Cushitic like. These are relatively modern phenotypes. If anything they resembled Iberomaurusians which is the closest group to the origin of E in my opinion. And Iberomaurusians looked nothing like any modern phenotype.




E1B1B is very likely a North African/ANA related haplogroup. E as a whole is probably ANA related (if ANA is an actual thing and not an admixed component itself)


Those people Iberomaurusians are literally half west African-like aka ANA which shares more affinity with West African component. I am not saying they were literally Cushitics or NE Africans, I am saying they were the ancestors or proto, or similar to these populations and from Eastern Sahara.

Keneki20
11-04-2021, 03:01 PM
IBM is probably more like 53-58% Eurasian. They seem to have an older less specific form of Eurasian in addition to something West Eurasian.




The Iberomaurusians are way too young a population to be the origin of E but they are a likely source for E-M78

I’ve been wondering. For the undifferentiated Eurasian ancestry that they have, since it contains some Neanderthal ancestry, that would seem to rule out Basal Eurasian input. Then, if I remember well, you detected a similar signal throughout Africa, including in Mota, which should indicate some very, very ancient back-migration. So, then, where could the undifferentiated Eurasian ancestry in Iberomaurusians have come from?

Mnemonics
11-04-2021, 08:54 PM
I’ve been wondering. For the undifferentiated Eurasian ancestry that they have, since it contains some Neanderthal ancestry, that would seem to rule out Basal Eurasian input. Then, if I remember well, you detected a similar signal throughout Africa, including in Mota, which should indicate some very, very ancient back-migration. So, then, where could the undifferentiated Eurasian ancestry in Iberomaurusians have come from?

I would assume it came from somewhere in Europe (IUP populations? Goyet-related?) but we could be looking at a very early back-migration from the Levant.

It'll be hard to tell until we get some ancient samples with more ANA than the Iberomaurusians to better distinguish between it and Eurasian.

Even the Neanderthal admixture may be skewed by Neanderthals being admixed with something from a clade that split off before South_Africa_2000BP and something more Denisovan related (if qpgraph can be trusted)

Riccardo
11-05-2021, 05:20 PM
You are from Egypt. What is your subclade of E-V22?


Yes it spread downwards, the East African Based Subclade is E-V3262, I would bet the Sudanese Fulani belong to it too. Still I meet Some Sudanese who were E-V22 belonging to Ja'alin tribe under different E-L1250 branch. But those were however sure they aren't originals in the tribe but rather immigrants from Egypt.

The Saite
11-13-2021, 07:16 AM
You are from Egypt. What is your subclade of E-V22?

It's E-Y72713 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y72713/), I formed the new E-FT106542 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT106542/) there. Together with me exists a couple of Saudis and a fellow Egyptian. And I don't exist in FT-DNA to join your project tho my matches does.

TuaMan
11-13-2021, 02:49 PM
While I see that entertaining a Eurasian origin of E and D isn’t unreasonable, I don’t think an older migration from Eurasia contributing lineages like D, E, and DE to Africa is necessary (i.e., an enormous migration into Africa from pre-existing Eurasian populations around, say, 55,000-65,000 thousand years ago). A 55,000-65,000-year-old main exit from Africa without E, and with some remnants of D and DE*, strikes me as more likely, most especially when taking extra-human biological factors into account.

For instance, the harmful human gut bacterium Helicobacter pylori has been with humans for likely at least about 200,000 years, has much greater diversity within Africa relative to Eurasia, and also shows a relevant divergence time between African and Eurasian varieties. To be exact, Eurasian varieties of the bacterium diverged from African varieties ~ 58,000 years ago. Of course, varyingly large Eurasian back migrations to Africa have been happening for upwards of 30,000 years anyway, but the proposal for the aforementioned haplogroups entering Africa is usually predicated on a supposed into-Africa migration around or upwards of 60,000 years ago from pre-existing Eurasians that migrated out of Africa considerably earlier. However, all these haplogroups either have TMRCAs and formation dates that precede this 58,000 year time or come close to it, so the early back-migration hypothesis doesn’t strike me as all that reliable.

I never denied that the Eurasian bottleneck didn't happen or that it wasn't important, I am saying that Eurasians didn't emerge ex nihilo from the bottleneck, they were already well diverged from any extant African population for tens of thousands of years before "OoA" 60,000 years ago. The implication being that Eurasians can't just be reduced to CF and M/N, if their structured population started forming 90-100k (which happens to exactly coincide with the formation of CT and L3, coincidentally).

https://imgur.com/a/rziiiR0

Now one work-around that I saw previously was someone trying to claim that these divergence estimates are inflated due to various levels (but still a minority of total autosomal ancestry) of supposedly "basal human" ancestry in Africans that get spit out by qpGraph or whatever. I don't think this is a good explanation.

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008552.g007

The top violin plot basically shows that 50% of the total distinctiveness of Eurasians vis-a-vis non-HG Africans (Yoruba, Mende and Dinka) was already established between 60-70k. In the paper, they date the 50% mid-point between West and East Eurasians at 34k, so these estimates might honestly run a little on the younger side if anything, given that we have bona fide East and West Eurasians established by 37-40k (Tianyuan, Kostenki) and possibly earlier (45k Bacho Kiro, assuming he really was an early East Eurasian). And the bottom bar graph doesn't seem to show that non-HG Africans share radically different levels of archaic ancestry with Eurasians relative to one another.

Riccardo
11-14-2021, 10:00 AM
It's E-Y72713 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y72713/), I formed the new E-FT106542 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT106542/) there. Together with me exists a couple of Saudis and a fellow Egyptian. And I don't exist in FT-DNA to join your project tho my matches does.

Several samples from Egypt belong to PH2818 but it's also sparse in Europe. I belong to the subclade E-BY7402 (FTDNA) which also have some samples from Saudi and Levant, two from Egypt (YFULL) (several from Europe).

CPL05
11-14-2021, 11:06 AM
Several samples from Egypt belong to PH2818 but it's also sparse in Europe. I belong to the subclade E-BY7402 (FTDNA) which also have some samples from Saudi and Levant, two from Egypt (YFULL) (several from Europe).

Are you part of one of the Samples integrated on Yfull ?

CPL05
11-14-2021, 11:09 AM
Several samples from Egypt belong to PH2818 but it's also sparse in Europe. I belong to the subclade E-BY7402 (FTDNA) which also have some samples from Saudi and Levant, two from Egypt (YFULL) (several from Europe).

What would have been good is to have more samples From Egypt.

Riverman
11-14-2021, 01:08 PM
This thread and paper is important for the debate:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?25191-Projecting-Ancient-Ancestry-in-Modern-Day-Arabians-and-Iranians

Riccardo
11-14-2021, 04:04 PM
Are you part of one of the Samples integrated on Yfull ?

Yes I have my sample in Yfull below E-Y181733. The good of having more sample from Egypt is simply that E-V22 from Egypt are undertested. We have nearly no samples from there and since it might be the place of origin of many E-V22 subclades, it's important to have more E-V22 samples from there.

CPL05
11-22-2021, 04:16 PM
It’s hard to say, with the upstream Lebanese it looks like this could be an old Canaanite line, only distantly derived from NE Africa. Of course, Egyptians are extremely undersampled, so we have no idea how they might (or might not) fit into the clade. But on the basis of modern spread alone, a MBA/LBA Egypt > Canaan route seems relatively unlikely.

Hello,

New information about E-FGC62855 :
The Druze Lebanese is from the Al Tali3 (آلطليع) Arab Tribe and the Jordanian from the Al Rawashida (الرواشدة) Arab Tribe.
E-FT161981 was integrated recently on Yfull with a TMRCA of 2600 ypb connecting the Jordanian with the Samaritan from Nablus.
But there's still no one from the Arabian Peninsula countries who appears there until now while their number is consistent in Yfull.
Do you have an explanation for this ?

Finn
11-24-2021, 03:21 PM
Do my dear fellow members have a guess about E-V22>E-PH2818 and specific the E-L1401 branche (with a Palestine, a Frisian :wave:and Iraq line!)?

:noidea:

https://i.postimg.cc/RFvWjRf7/Schermafbeelding-2021-11-24-om-16-17-49.png (https://postimg.cc/t1mR6FBJ)

Riverman
11-24-2021, 03:39 PM
Do my dear fellow member have a guess about E-V22>E-PH2818 and specific the E-L1401 branche (with a Palestine, a Frisian :wave:and Iraq line!)?

:noidea:

https://i.postimg.cc/RFvWjRf7/Schermafbeelding-2021-11-24-om-16-17-49.png (https://postimg.cc/t1mR6FBJ)

On FTDNA its E-BY7250, isn't it? Its clearly from the Near East in the Neolithic, but when exactly it spread and with which people, that's hard to tell. The TMRCA of you and your 3 fellow branch members is as old/older than that of all surviving E-V13 found so far, if I'm not mistaken. That's pretty old, your private SNPs tell the story. Seems to have been pretty rare anywhere. So far we have besides yourself: Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. So that's pretty consistently within the Levantine-Mesopotamian zone.

Finn
11-24-2021, 06:04 PM
On FTDNA its E-BY7250, isn't it? Its clearly from the Near East in the Neolithic, but when exactly it spread and with which people, that's hard to tell. The TMRCA of you and your 3 fellow branch members is as old/older than that of all surviving E-V13 found so far, if I'm not mistaken. That's pretty old, your private SNPs tell the story. Seems to have been pretty rare anywhere. So far we have besides yourself: Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. So that's pretty consistently within the Levantine-Mesopotamian zone.

E-BY7250 is correct....and indeed it's a looooong time between TMRCA 5000 YBP and now. From neolithic spread till the Roman Empire....#toomuchsuspects

youssef
02-10-2022, 08:07 PM
I think we can conclude of E-V22 origin using available results in the following fields :
* Climatic history
* Archeological history
* Ancient DNA / DNA

First lets recall iberaumarisian culture started 24.000 ybp in north estern day Algerie, and spreaded a log the coast to the west. Recall also that 24.000 ybp correspond nearly to the glaciation maximum, in that time the sahara was at it maximum .. The iberaumaritien inhabited an isolated area (like an island) ..
Lets recall the samples of TAF (15.000 ybp, E-M78) and IAM (7.000 E-L19). Lets precise also that IAM is Iberomaurisians ( mechtouids ) not capsian (proto-mideterranian).
The formation of E-L19 and E-M78 was as per yfull estimate 23.500 ybp and 19.100 ybp.

So with these ingredients we can conclude with a lot of confidence that E-M78 is iberomaurisian.
Now regarding E-V22, formed as per yfull 11.800 ybp ( recall that capsian apeared only 9500 ybp ) .. and the archeology told us nothing else no trace of mouvement of iberomaurisians .. mouvement started later for iberomaurisian (with arrival and spread of capsian) and the main mouvement to the south was from the Altantique coast.

For me E-V22 is still iberomaurisian with its descendants until the arrival of capsian, the question that need to be clarified is which road? For me the most probable is the atlantic road to today Mauritania than crossing east to Niger/Tchad ..

CPL05
03-22-2022, 01:14 PM
Hello Everyone,

A new ID Profil has been added on Yfull for E-FGC62855 and he's from Damascus :
48864

According to the FTDNA Y-DNA Phylotree, he belongs to E-FT161981 :
48865

But according to the Yfull Service, he's under E-Y87533 as it's represented on their platform :
48867