# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Basal Eurasian in 25,000 yo site?

## Angela

Well, well, well, :) From the Pinhasi, Skoglund group, no less. 25,000 years old and from the Satsurbia Cave in the Caucasus,. I must say it's a surprise.

See:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...#disqus_thread

"*Genome-scale sequencing and analysis of human, wolf and bison DNA from 25,000 year-old sediment*

Pere Gelabert, Susanna Sawyer, Anders Bergström, Thomas C. Collin, Tengiz Meshveliani, Anna Belfer-Cohen, David Lordkipanidze, Nino Jakeli, Zinovi Matskevich, Guy Bar-Oz, Daniel M. Fernandes, Olivia Cheronet, Kadir T. Özdoğan, Victoria Oberreiter, Robin N. M. Feeney, Mareike C. Stahlschmidt, Pontus Skoglund, Ron Pinhasi

*Summary*

Archaeological sediments have been shown to preserve ancient DNA, but so far have not yielded genome-scale information of the magnitude of skeletal remains. We retrieved and analysed human and mammalian low-coverage nuclear and high-coverage mitochondrial genomes from Upper Palaeolithic sediments from Satsurblia cave, western Georgia, dated to 25,000 years ago. First, a human female genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestry component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe. Second, a wolf genome that is basal to extant Eurasian wolves and dogs and represents a previously unknown, likely extinct, Caucasian lineage that diverged from the ancestors of modern wolves and dogs before these diversified. Third, a bison genome that is basal to present-day populations, suggesting that population structure has been substantially reshaped since the Last Glacial Maximum. Our results provide new insights into the late Pleistocene genetic histories of these three species, and demonstrate that sediment DNA can be used not only for species identification, but also be a source of genome-wide ancestry information and genetic history.
*Highlights*

*We demonstrate for the first time that genome sequencing from sediments is comparable to that of skeletal remains*A single Pleistocene sediment sample from the Caucasus yielded three low-coverage mammalian ancient genomesWe show that sediment ancient DNA can reveal important aspects of the human and faunal past*Evidence of an uncharacterized human lineage from the Caucasus before the Last Glacial Maximum*∼0.01-fold coverage wolf and bison genomes are both basal to present-day diversity, suggesting reshaping of population structure in both species

This one is going to require very close reading of both the paper and the supplement.

----------


## Duarte



----------


## Angela

"We find that the SAT29 sample clusters with the Dzudzuana2 individual and notwith the late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic genomes from the region, or with any ofthe other pre-LGM Eurasian genomes. Unsupervised ADMIXTURE clustering(Alexander and Lange, 2011) further supports a high similarity between SAT29 andDzudzuana2 (Figure 2B, Figure S2). "

"*SAT29 shares more driftwith Villabruna (Italy, 12140±70 bp) (Fu et al., 2016) and Dzudzuana2 than with otherancient individuals (Figure S3A), including the post-LGM individuals from the Caucasus(Satsurblia and Kotias).* Among present-day Eurasian populations, SAT29 shows highergenetic affinity to Northern and Western Europeans rather than Central and SouthernAsians (Figure S3B)"

"we recovered 4,953 humanmitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) reads, providing 15-fold coverage of the mtDNA. Theconsensus sequence has 16 derived positions (Table S3) compared to the rCRSsequence and belongs to haplogroup N like individual Dzudzuana3 from Dzudzuanacave (Figure 2C). We built a maximum parsimony (MP) tree with 68 ancient and 167modern human mt genomes (Table S4, Figure 2C). The SAT29 sequence is positionedon a branch together with BK-CC7-355 (42450 ± 510 ka) and BK-BB7-240 (41850 ±480 ka) from the Bacho-Kiro site in Bulgaria, the most ancient west-Eurasianmitochondrial sequences (Hublin et al., 2020) as well as Dzudzuana3 (Lazaridis et al.,2018)."

"We estimate 1% Neanderthal ancestry in the SAT29 sample, although with largeuncertainty due to the low amount of data (95% confidence intervals: 0-6.6%). Thispoint estimate is similar to that of Dzuzuana2 and likely lower than that of PalaeolithicEuropeans due to dilution from Basal Eurasian ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2018)Our results from the human genomic data from the SAT29 sample are thus consistentwith the study by Lazaridis et al (2018), revealing a a previously undocumentedpre-LGM human ancestry from the Caucasus that contributed to various succeeding Eurasian populations. The low coverage of the SAT29 genome, however, did not allowus to detect any differences in ancestry patterns between Dzuzuana2 and SAT29.

What the hell? Why wasn't Lazaridis allowed to publish his Dzuzuana paper? Some idiot at the journal or his own LAB? Shame on whoever it was.

----------


## Angela

Some of the data in the Supplement is missing.

Anyone have a graphic of the modern PCA which is both labeled and legible?

----------


## Duarte

Yes, in fact many images are missing from the supplementary material referring to the figures. 
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...?download=true

It seems to me that the supplementary material for the tables is complete, I think.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...?download=true

----------


## kingjohn

extremely interesting paper  :Good Job: 
if it is true that in the caucasus 
there was some human remain who carry significant basal eurasian ancestery 
*that it is a big kick in the head to the theory 
of y haplogroup E who might relate to basal ancestery* :Thinking:

----------


## Philjames100

"a human female genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestry component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe."

Why 'parts of Europe'? Don't all Europeans have basal Eurasian ancestry?

----------


## Angela

I think they're talking about ancient peoples.

I really wish they'd fix the figures part of the Supplement. It would answer some of my questions.

----------


## bicicleur 2

> "a human female genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestry component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe."
> 
> Why 'parts of Europe'? Don't all Europeans have basal Eurasian ancestry?


I guess the El Miron cluster didn't.
Maybe neither early EHG.

----------


## Jovialis

ENA: PRJEB41420

I know it is a pre-print, so maybe that is why no results are coming up in the search. I can't wait to see these!

----------


## Riverman

> extremely interesting paper 
> if it is true that in the caucasus 
> there was some human remain who carry significant basal eurasian ancestery 
> *that it is a big kick in the head to the theory 
> of y haplogroup E who might relate to basal ancestery*


Wouldn't say so. Isn't the estimate of higher Basal Eurasian mostly based on the insecure estimatation of Neandertal ancestry? And no yDNA retrieved, not that it could be decisive without larger samples taken.

----------


## kingjohn

don't you think it is more likely that *y haplogroup E* was connected to the *ANA component* 
than to *basal eurasians*  :Thinking: 


p.s
haplogroup E is extremely rare in caucasus ( some e-v13 cases in ossetians though) 
and yes SAT29 is a female remain ( so y haplogroup not relavant as you mention correctly)
but in that earlier date that north with significant basal ancestery pretty cool ....
her neaderthal is 1% acording to the paper 
and they assume the low % compare to other earlier ancient is connected
to dilution by basal ancestery 

i myself score 1% neaderthal in geno2 next lol  :Smile: 
and it is lower than europeans because the avarege acording to them was 1.2%

----------


## Riverman

> don't you think it is more likely that *y haplogroup E* was connected to the *ANA component* 
> than to *basal eurasians* 
> 
> 
> p.s
> haplogroup E is extremely rare in caucasus ( some e-v13 cases in ossetians though) 
> and yes SAT29 is a female remain ( so y haplogroup not relavant as you mention correctly)
> but in that earlier date that north with significant basal ancestery pretty cool ....
> her neaderthal is 1% acording to the paper 
> ...


My Neandertal is, at least according to 23andme, above average. 

Concerning ANA vs. BEA and haplogroup E, nobody really knows, but I'd say that both were at some point predominated by haplogroup E most likely. BEA is best associated with E1b1b in the Near East. But we will see, especially with samples from the Levante, Southern Arabia and North Eastern Africa from the Paleolithic. Single samples prove little in this respect, unless there would be a BEA heavy early individual with E. But the absence is little proof for anything conclusive in this respect, especially since this individual is just, at best, and if at all, proof for BEA presence in the region that early. Nothing else.

----------


## kingjohn

> *My Neandertal is, at least according to 23andme, above average*. 
> 
> Concerning ANA vs. BEA and haplogroup E, nobody really knows, but I'd say that both were at some point predominated by haplogroup E most likely. BEA is best associated with E1b1b in the Near East. But we will see, especially with samples from the Levante, Southern Arabia and North Eastern Africa from the Paleolithic. Single samples prove little in this respect, unless there would be a BEA heavy early individual with E. But the absence is little proof for anything conclusive in this respect, especially since this individual is just, at best, and if at all, proof for BEA presence in the region that early. Nothing else.



afcorse
becuase you are full european i am not 
i am mixture of levantine+ south european with some east european genes ( from my bulgarian granny)  :Laughing: 

the question:
who do you think spread this basal ancestery that far north to the caucasus at that 
early date of the paleolithic 
and what y haplogroups you think this group carry ?

----------


## Angela

I highly doubt it was "E". 

Recent papers have shown that at the LGM people huddled in certain refuges. Drift could of course be part of why certain y lines predominate, and there might have been others around, but didn't the nearest refugia carry "G"?

What was the closest refugia in India, and what y did they carry? Anyone know?

----------


## Riverman

> afcorse
> becuase you are full european i am not 
> i am mixture of levantine+ south european with some east european genes ( from my bulgarian granny)


I score higher Neandertal, on 23andme, than much more Northern people than me though.




> I highly doubt it was "E". 
> 
> Recent papers have shown that at the LGM people huddled in certain refuges. Drift could of course be part of why certain y lines predominate, and there might have been others around, but didn't the nearest refugia carry "G"?
> 
> What was the closest refugia in India, and what y did they carry? Anyone know?


We would like to know, but it isn't for sure yet. For sure is however that most of todays Indian haplogroups came later from West Eurasians and East Asians. 

Concerning Basal Eurasians, I agree on the refuge scenario, the issue however is that I would place BEA between North Eastern Africa (Nile Valley), Sinai, Levante, Southern Arabia originally. And I don't think that the main West Eurasian lineages were living there and dominating the BEA population. Since you mention G, I would suspect they intermixed early on and on a regular base with the main body of the BEA in the region described, so they could have entered the mix early on, which complicates the effort to trace it down. But the original haplogroup, I think there is practically no good alternative to E. Basal Eurasian was originally spread like Arabs are today imho and directly North of them lived the main/crown Eurasians, with which they intermixed fairly early and regularly. Within the BEA sphere I expect massive changes to have taken place and founder effects. 

Like if comparing Natufians and pre-Natufian Near Easterners with ANA, they are at the opposite ends of the evolutionary trends. ANA and later IBM were massive, hypermasculine and hypermorphic, extremely tall and robust people, the Near Easterners, even before the Natufians, were relatively shorter, more gracile, refined and overall just smaller, yet less archaic than ANA. They evolved in the direction of Proto-Mediterranean even before the Neolithic lifestyle kicked in. That's because they were living from small game, grains and were more sedentary, probably in larger groups, better organised, even before and early on admixed with WEA. The ANA and later IBM seem to have been more competitive on the individual level quite obviously, otherwise their specialisation would make little sense. 
That's quite a difference, regardless of potential small scale ANA admixture being real or not, which could have spread E too of course, even though I think its just less likely right now.

----------


## kingjohn

i was wrong the averge is of 1.3% not 1.2%
and it was the averge of users not only europeans 

https://i.imgur.com/z5SUnvn.jpg


p.s
unfortuntely they geno 2 next do not exist since than :Sad 2:

----------


## Angela

Anyone know the date of the oldest "E" ydna found in Eurasia, because we're talking here about the Caucasus 25,000 years ago. Also, wasn't Dzudzuana "C"? As the paper informs us, that sample and this one are pretty similar, so pretty close to 28% Basal Eurasian?

Of course, we're all wildly speculating, but I've always been partial to the idea that the non-African haplogroups split up somewhere around Iran to South Asia. I think ydna "E" came later with the Ancient North Africans. That makes sense to me given the history of Egypt/N.E. Africa, North Africa, and the Natufians. I think they were Johnny come latelies.

We could all be chasing our tails, because given the nature of men, Basal Eurasian may have been passed on by women after all the men were killed.

----------


## kingjohn

> *Anyone know the date of the oldest "E" ydna found in Eurasia*, because we're talking here about the Caucasus 25,000 years ago. Also, wasn't Dzudzuana "C"? As the paper informs us, that sample and this one are pretty similar, so pretty close to 28% Basal Eurasian?
> 
> Of course, we're all wildly speculating, but I've always been partial to the idea that the non-African haplogroups split up somewhere around Iran to South Asia. I think ydna "E" came later with the Ancient North Africans. That makes sense to me given the history of Egypt/N.E. Africa, North Africa, and the Natufians. I think they were Johnny come latelies.
> 
> We could all be chasing our tails, because given the nature of men, Basal Eurasian may have been passed on by women after all the men were killed.





*late mesolithic*  :Smile: 

*e-z830 
*
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016...ent-near-east/

https://i.imgur.com/AYYLYe1.png



i think like you 
that it is more related to *ANA* than basal euroasian
as much as i would like to think that y haplogroup E is related to basal ancestery 
that just don't fit

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

----------


## Riverman

> Anyone know the date of the oldest "E" ydna found in Eurasia, because we're talking here about the Caucasus 25,000 years ago. Also, wasn't Dzudzuana "C"? As the paper informs us, that sample and this one are pretty similar, so pretty close to 28% Basal Eurasian?
> 
> Of course, we're all wildly speculating, but I've always been partial to the idea that the non-African haplogroups split up somewhere around Iran to South Asia. I think ydna "E" came later with the Ancient North Africans. That makes sense to me given the history of Egypt/N.E. Africa, North Africa, and the Natufians. I think they were Johnny come latelies.
> 
> We could all be chasing our tails, because given the nature of men, Basal Eurasian may have been passed on by women after all the men were killed.


The issue I think that the main body of ANA split very early from Basal Eurasian in a back migration or at least expansion into the rest of North and East Africa, either from the Levante-Near East or the Nile Region/North East Africa. I'd suppose that ANA and BEA would thus closer to each other, making E the preferable candidate for both to spread on the paternal side. I pretty much doubt E1b1b was in Africa before the next large scale back migration, which went through the region and created IBM, pushing the others South through the Green Sahara. So even in the case Natufians had an IBM influenced back migration of some sort introducing paternal lineages, it would still bring E1b1b closer to the BEA than to the local earlier E-carriers in Africa.
Natufians just don't look like being heavily influenced by IBM-like people. Rather if, from a common source group for IBM and Natufians alike in North East Africa/Levante/South Arabia, which too was closer to Natufians and pre-Natufians in the Near East. We'll see.

----------


## bicicleur 2

the oldest E in Eurasia is Natufian
in fact all E prior to the bronze age in Eurasia is E-M35
this makes an origin for E-M35 outside of Africa very unlikely

in the Dzudzuana paper Laziridis stated that there is no Yoruba DNA in Natufian or PPNB
it is the other way around, Yoruba has some Dzudzuana, which probably travelled through the Levant

----------


## ThirdTerm

> "a human female genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestry component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe."
> 
> 
> Why 'parts of Europe'? Don't all Europeans have basal Eurasian ancestry?


Most Europeans do not have Basal Eurasian ancestry because this ancestry peaks in indigenous Arabs such as the Bedouin. Near Eastern populations harbor more Basal Eurasian ancestry. Moreover, Basal Eurasians did not undergo much admixture with Neanderthals. Neanderthal ancestry is very low in native inhabitants of Arabia, which was out of the geographical Neanderthal range.




Massive “Basal Eurasian” Back-Migration

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/...ack-migration/

----------


## bicicleur 2

in the Laziridis model Dzudzuana is 72 % Early West Eurasian + 28 % Basal Eurasian
Early West Eurasian evolved into Villabrunan mainly through drift
Early West Eurasian was IJ just before it split in I and J
I crossed the Caucasus prior to the Gravettian. 
J stayed south of the Caucasus all the time, they provided the Early West Eurasian.
IMO the Basal Eurasian was brought by G and H2, coming from the east (India or Indus Valley).

----------


## bicicleur 2

> Most Europeans do not have Basal Eurasian ancestry because this ancestry peaks in indigenous Arabs such as the Bedouin. Near Eastern populations harbor more Basal Eurasian ancestry. Moreover, Basal Eurasians did not undergo much admixture with Neanderthals. Neanderthal ancestry is very low in native inhabitants of Arabia, which was out of the geographical Neanderthal range.
> 
> 
> Massive “Basal Eurasian” Back-Migration”


the Neanderthal admixture happened in SW Asia though, not in Europe
Neanderthals lived next to modern humans in the Zagros Mountains and the Levant for 30.000 years (80-50 ka)
When modern humans arrived in Europe and Central Asia, Neanderthals got extinct soon after

moreover the admixture happened 50-55 ka, modern humans didn't arrive in Europe and Central Asia before 50 ka

halpogroup E did not mix with Neanderthals as Mota didn't have any Neanderthal DNA
E-M35 got Neanderthal DNA when it arrived in the Levant

----------


## Angela

> in the Laziridis model Dzudzuana is 72 % Early West Eurasian + 28 % Basal Eurasian
> Early West Eurasian evolved into Villabrunan mainly through drift
> Early West Eurasian was IJ just before it split in I and J
> I crossed the Caucasus prior to the Gravettian. 
> J stayed south of the Caucasus all the time, they provided the Early West Eurasian.
> IMO the Basal Eurasian was brought by G and H2, coming from the east (India or Indus Valley).


That's exactly how I see it, as I said above, i.e. a bifurcation somewhere near India. That's how they had no Neanderthal. I might bet on H instead of G though.

E is too young in West Eurasia to be responsible for 26,000 year old Basal Eurasian admixture in the Caucasus.

----------


## kingjohn

> The issue I think that the main body of ANA split very early from Basal Eurasian in a back migration or at least expansion into the rest of North and East Africa, either from the Levante-Near East or the Nile Region/North East Africa. I'd suppose that ANA and BEA would thus closer to each other, making E the preferable candidate for both to spread on the paternal side. I pretty much doubt E1b1b was in Africa before the next large scale back migration, which went through the region and created IBM, pushing the others South through the Green Sahara. So even in the case Natufians had an IBM influenced back migration of some sort introducing paternal lineages, it would still bring E1b1b closer to the BEA than to the local earlier E-carriers in Africa.
> Natufians just don't look like being heavily influenced by IBM-like people. Rather if, from a common source group for IBM and Natufians alike in North East Africa/Levante/South Arabia, which too was closer to Natufians and pre-Natufians in the Near East. We'll see.


Maybe this culture 

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

Brought the ANA component to the levant
Did the natufians who were in the same time as them had some ANA component ?


P.s 
I do agree that if a paleolithic remain from south arabia will turn e1b1b and if he had significant basal ancestery than you might have a point though
Time will tell

----------


## bicicleur 2

you should be aware that during LGM the Nile ran completely dry, it didn't reach the Mediterranean any more
my guess is that E-M35 fled the Nile Valley into the Levant and expanded from there after admixing with Dzudzuana DNA coming from the Caucasus area

----------


## kingjohn

> you should be aware that during LGM the Nile ran completely dry, it didn't reach the Mediterranean any more
> my guess *is that E-M35 fled the Nile Valley into the Levant and expanded from there after admixing with Dzudzuana DNA coming from the Caucasus area*


sounds logical  :Cool V: 
were e-m78 fit in the spread 
of e-m35 
we know in 5000 bc neolithic avelander cave catalonia there was e-v13 remain 
we have in 5500 bc dalmatia e-L618 
i believe it entered to europe in early neolithic time it just wasn't common as y haplogroup G 


P.S
i forget there were also cases of e-m78 in middle neolithic alzace france berg culture 
could it be that e-m78 skipped west asia they preffered europe :Thinking:

----------


## etrusco

> in the Laziridis model Dzudzuana is 72 % Early West Eurasian + 28 % Basal Eurasian
> Early West Eurasian evolved into Villabrunan mainly through drift
> Early West Eurasian was IJ just before it split in I and J
> I crossed the Caucasus prior to the Gravettian. 
> J stayed south of the Caucasus all the time, they provided the Early West Eurasian.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the Basal Eurasian was brought by G and H2, coming from the east (India or Indus Valley).


Dzudzuana is modeled as being 72% Villabruna which is Common West Eurasian and not EWE. EWE is the cluster that is mostly ( 75%) ancestral to Yana ( and so to ANE too). besides Villabruna is not from the Caucasus because accordingly to this paper about the origin of the Gravettians it was already present on a* West to east* cline in Europe already 36000 years ago so basically 10000 years before Dzudzuana. I guess both CWE and EWE are just two sub ranch of the aurignacian technocomplex. 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2.full

----------


## bicicleur 2

> Dzudzuana is modeled as being 72% Villabruna which is Common West Eurasian and not EWE. EWE is the cluster that is mostly ( 75%) ancestral to Yana ( and so to ANE too). besides Villabruna is not from the Caucasus because accordingly to this paper about the origin of the Gravettians it was already present on a* West to east* cline in Europe already 36000 years ago so basically 10000 years before Dzudzuana. I guess both CWE and EWE are just two sub ranch of the aurignacian technocomplex.


you're right the proper term used by the authors on the ice age Europe paper is Common West Eurasian
the Vestonice cluster is not just Common West Eurasian, it is admixed with Kostenki DNA, and similar to the Sunghir DNA
but the later Villabruna cluster was mostly unadmixed, Common West Eurasian with some drift
as I see it, Vestonice and Villabruna are 2 different types of Gravettian DNA

----------


## bicicleur 2

> sounds logical 
> were e-m78 fit in the spread 
> of e-m35 
> we know in 5000 bc neolithic avelander cave catalonia there was e-v13 remain 
> we have in 5500 bc dalmatia e-L618 
> i believe it entered to europe in early neolithic time it just wasn't common as y haplogroup G 
> 
> 
> P.S
> ...


TMRCA for E-M78 is 13,3 ka, that is Natufian era
so their ofspring moved in all directions, including Africa (E-V32)

E-L618>E-V13 spread with Cardium Ware, it appeared in Croatia
it's subclade E-Z1057 expanded very fast 4,7-4,2 ka

----------


## Riverman

> the oldest E in Eurasia is Natufian
> in fact all E prior to the bronze age in Eurasia is E-M35
> this makes an origin for E-M35 outside of Africa very unlikely
> 
> in the Dzudzuana paper Laziridis stated that there is no Yoruba DNA in Natufian or PPNB
> it is the other way around, Yoruba has some Dzudzuana, which probably travelled through the Levant


There is also no older E in Africa other than from the IBM's which were a proven back migration. We have no knowledge of where they were sitting before, we can only limit the options with North East Africa, Levante, South Arabia, East Africa being the most likely places imho. 




> Most Europeans do not have Basal Eurasian ancestry because this ancestry peaks in indigenous Arabs such as the Bedouin.


All West Eurasians have Basal Eurasian ancestry, because both early farmers and CHG-Iranian had it. Via CHG and farmers Proto-Indoeuropeans had it too. Its just somewhat lower in some places than in others, but present everywhere and its one of the signals which make West Eurasians distinct from East Eurasians and other Out of Africa derived populations. 




> IMO the Basal Eurasian was brought by G and H2, coming from the east (India or Indus Valley).


Absolutely not. G and H are Neolithic lineages which spread to India (and Europe) with farmers. They probably lived in the Anatolia-Iran region through the ages, coming into contact with Basal Eurasians to the South, which in turn formed the bridgehead into Africa and mixed into the ANA population. 




> That's exactly how I see it, as I said above, i.e. a bifurcation somewhere near India. That's how they had no Neanderthal. I might bet on H instead of G though.
> 
> E is too young in West Eurasia to be responsible for 26,000 year old Basal Eurasian admixture in the Caucasus.


Its for sure not too young for that, but E1b1b is too young for the first back migration which created the base for ANA. This should have happened minimum 70.000-40.000 years ago. I think even that can be reconciled with the tree of haplogroup E. 

H was close to I and G, it made it into South Asia fairly recently. Most of the native haplogroups there being replaced by now and the big problem of South Asia is the presence of an actually quite strong archaic admixture, both Neandertal and Denisovan in AASI-related populations. That's a contraindication for the birthplace of BEA.

----------


## MOESAN

> in the Laziridis model Dzudzuana is 72 % Early West Eurasian + 28 % Basal Eurasian
> Early West Eurasian evolved into Villabrunan mainly through drift
> Early West Eurasian was IJ just before it split in I and J
> I crossed the Caucasus prior to the Gravettian. 
> J stayed south of the Caucasus all the time, they provided the Early West Eurasian.
> IMO the Basal Eurasian was brought by G and H2, coming from the east (India or Indus Valley).


It was one of my scenarii (Y-G and Y-H) but I avow I based it on nothing factual, unless te fact that Y-E and Y-J din't seem to me the BE bearers! BTW I don't know the %'s of BE among South Asians, and as said Angela, this componant could be transmitted rather by women... Concerning the almost necessary refugium I have no precise idea.

----------


## Riverman

> It was one of my scenarii (Y-G and Y-H) but I avow I based it on nothing factual, unless te fact that Y-E and Y-J din't seem to me the BE bearers! BTW I don't know the %'s of BE among South Asians, and as said Angela, this componant could be transmitted rather by women... Concerning the almost necessary refugium I have no precise idea.


We can't say where the original centre was, but we can say where they had to be about 30.000 years ago. They had to be in the Levante and especially Southern Arabia. Now I'd say they were there all the time. Concerning haplogroups, original Afro-Asiatics were with more than 90 percent probability E1b1b, yet some Semitic groups now have very little of that haplogroup and in some regions the percentages changed very recently. And now look where E1b1b was probably dominant for a pretty long time again, it seems to me Southern Arabia again. 
So whereever the ultimate origin was, the Southern Levante and Southern Arabia was very early heavily Basal Eurasian, it must have been, there is no logical way around that. Now some studies placed it there, originally, others looked for the Sinai or Egypt, but that's the direction, that is where we have to search for it. South Asia was no source, it was for the most time a sink. Its like searching for the origin of East Asians (Mongoloid) in South East Asia. No, won't work out. 

To me already the pre-Natufian Near Easterners show the same trend, going in a Proto-Mediterranean direction and they lived South of the zone which demanded a stronger climatic adaptation in the LGM. Those above grew larger and more robust, that was the core West Eurasian population and I guess we will find within later pre-Dzudzuana-like populations all the GHIJ-haplogroups of the core, which was further altered and polished by QR-ANE and E-Basal Eurasian and together, after the fusion, modern Western Eurasian were formed. Today all West Eurasians (Caucasoid) have both ANE and BEA ancestral components because of that. 

South Asians on the other hand go in a completely different directions, yet they are the Southern link to the East, but not much closer than East Asians, rather the link to Australo-Melanesia. That was always the most likely scenario, and modern genetics just proved it. There is no way you can place AASI in a tree with BEA, its impossible. AASI was core Eurasian, with increased Neandertal admixture, and they even picked up additional Denisovan. Actually its even possible they had admixture from a third unknown archaic population, but that's more kind of a definition, because whats "Denisovan" to begin with, how do you define it, if it was very old and widespread over most of Asia? So let's say they had Denisovan, probably a specific regional variant of it, not shared by East Asians probably and unknown whether it was shared with more Eastern Negritos or Australo-Melanesians. 




> These statistics test the hypothesis of an equal rate of derived allele sharing of East Asians and X with Africans. Mondal _et al._ also report statistics with a European population in place of East Asians, but it is already known that Asian populations have a greater amount of Neandertal ancestry than Europeans


Why is that so? Also because of Basal Eurasian. *Because the main if not only important distinction of BEA and main Eurasian is actually the reduced amount of archaic introgression.* There is no other important one, certainly no phenotypical beside that, considering *the timing of the original split. 


*In the study they quote Mondial's findings: 



> Mondal _et al_.s new claim of more archaic ancestry in South Asian populations than in East Asians. In Mondal _et al._s computation, these statistics are negative when _X_ is any Indian group or Andamanese, a result they interpret as evidence of more archaic ancestry than in East Asians. As they find no evidence of excess allele sharing with Neanderthals or Denisovans, they argue that the contribution is from an unsampled archaic lineage.


They didn't replicate that in the study I'm quoting from: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433599/

But if anything, South Asians have more archaic introgression than Europeans, not less! *South Asia is both by uniparentals, as well as autosomally, archaeologically and biogeographically completely out of question as the BEA homeland.* One can't look at the data and claim that seriously, its impossible. 

However, there is no way the bridge between the Caucasus and North Africa was not Basal Eurasian, that on the other is not completely but almost impossible too. The Levante-Arabia-Sinai-Egypt must be in the focus therefore. And like I said, there is a great deal of physical and cultural continuity in the Near East and Levante, with occasional contacts, but no replacement towards Eurasia, to the Sinai-Egypt. And how quickly haplogroups could spread and replace pre-existing variation in quick sweeps, by founder effects, economical advantages, natural catastrophies and genocidal activities, should be obvious by now. Usually in some of the core source regions from which explansions started the diversity actually decreased, because one founder population replaced them all. 
I don't think that places like Yemen had the same haplogroup frequencies 40.000, 25.000, 10.000 or even 4.000 years ago. Not at all. This needs to be investigated and will be quite illuminating. Because Basal Eurasians needs to have been very close to main Eurasian, but still with a natural barrier at a distance. The ideal scenario is indeed Southern Levante-Arabia or Sinai-Egypt for that. I would be extremely surprised if its any other place. And I would be similarly suprised if it wasn't haplogroup E, because if it would have been one of the main core West Eurasian lineages out of the GHIJ group, how's that supposed to have happened? 
What was the core West Eurasian group then? The splits and timings are even worse than otherwise. But that's more open to debate, I know.

----------


## bicicleur 2

> It was one of my scenarii (Y-G and Y-H) but I avow I based it on nothing factual, unless te fact that Y-E and Y-J din't seem to me the BE bearers! BTW I don't know the %'s of BE among South Asians, and as said Angela, this componant could be transmitted rather by women... Concerning the almost necessary refugium I have no precise idea.


Indeed, we know nothing about Basal Eurasian, nor about G and H2.
All of a sudden Basal Eurasian was there south of the Caucasus in heavy doses.
Unlike in Europe or Siberia.
And neither in Africa, it seems to have been imported along with Dzudzuana there.
The fact that H1 and H3 are older than H2 and that their origin seems to be Indian gives us a clue for the origin of H2.
We only have some circumstancial clues.

----------


## Ygorcs

Wait, I'm confused. So is a largely Basal Eurasian individual part of the same cluster as Dzuduzana2 and sharing more drift with WHG/Villabruna cluster than with any other Paleolithic DNA sample? So weren't Basal Eurasians as divergent and drifted apart from the Common West Eurasian derived branches than was previously thought? Or are we instead seeing just a BE-admixed but still mostly CWE-derived individual? Increasingly, from the later genetic history of the region, it seems likely to me that Basal Eurasians will be found somewhere between the Levant, Arabia and southern Iran, but as Riverman I'm also willing to imagine a scenario in which BE straddled the Red Sea region, inhabiting both the African and the Southwest Asian portions of land around it.

Didn't a recent paper find evidences of a much earlier, more basal Eurasian back-migration to Africa with signals of that gene flow spanning even most of Sub-Saharan Africa? What if those weren't really Eurasians (not mostly anyway), but just a consequence of the fact that the specific Proto-non-African population that colonized all the other continents didn't disappear from Africa as early as was thought, and some of it stayed behind in their original "homeland" in Northeast Asia and the nearest Asian neighborhood (i.e. Arabia and Southern Levant)? Just some thoughts...


I tended to believe before this that even a moderate increase in the proportion of BE ancestry would bring an individual much further from another with lower BE admixture, roughly as it happens when there is admixture between two very divergent population clusters, like West African vs. European. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so weren't Basal Eurasians very different from other West Eurasians to begin with? Or is it just that the "significant" BE admixture in this new sample is actually not much higher than in Dzudzuana, therefore even lower than what you could find in later populations like Iran_N, CHG, Anatolia_N and Natufian (correct me if I'm wrong, but Anatolia_N was basically modelled by Lazaridis as Dzudzuana + extra BE)? 


****


On a related note, I wonder if between the early LGM and the Mesolithic there was a consistent east-to-west trend: Iran_Meso/CHG-like people, a mix of ANE, Dzudzuana-like and maybe a bit more BE, migrated from Iran to the Caucasus and nearby areas; the former Dzudzuana-like people that lived there migrated westward towards Anatolia; and the WHG-like people that lived in Western Anatolia and Southeasternmost Europe migrated (north)westward into the rest of Europe. We'll see if that scenario holds true when more Paleolithic DNA from Eurasia appear.

----------


## Angela

I think perhaps it's time to go back to the paper, and to the Lazaridis one. 

The authors here specifically state that this new SAT sample is very similar to Dzudzuana, which was 28% Basal Eurasian, yes?

Other questions are answered as well.

----------


## Riverman

> Wait, I'm confused. So is a largely Basal Eurasian individual part of the same cluster as Dzuduzana2 and sharing more drift with WHG/Villabruna cluster than with any other Paleolithic DNA sample? So weren't Basal Eurasians as divergent and drifted apart from the Common West Eurasian derived branches than was previously thought? Or are we instead seeing just a BE-admixed but still mostly CWE-derived individual?


Its the latter. There is no exact percentage, so what "substantial" means is up to every reader I guess. They won't come up with a too exact estimation anyway, because the resolution seems to be to bad and unreliable, which is why they have troubles making an exact estimate of Neandertal ancestry either. 




> Didn't a recent paper find evidences of a much earlier, more basal Eurasian back-migration to Africa with signals of that gene flow spanning even most of Sub-Saharan Africa? What if those weren't really Eurasians (not mostly anyway), but just a consequence of the fact that the specific Proto-non-African population that colonized all the other continents didn't disappear from Africa as early as was thought, and some of it stayed behind in their original "homeland" in Northeast Asia and the nearest Asian neighborhood (i.e. Arabia and Southern Levant)? Just some thoughts...


Actually the geography is not as important as the position on the tree. Like North Africans are closer to Europeans even though "they live in Africa" than anything East of the Altai. So its not about where they were or are sitting, but what characteristics they had. ANA is likely either a back migration, or a more recent expansion from the North East of Africa. Either way, its a close branch to all Eurasians. Basal Eurasian is simply the next branching event, surely geographically even closer, but whether that means Sinai-Egypt, Sinai-Southern Levante, Southern Levante-Arabia or everything together, nobody really knows. Unless they already have better samples which being not published yet, then the scientists involved might know, but the rest of us not, nobody else. 




> I tended to believe before this that even a moderate increase in the proportion of BE ancestry would bring an individual much further from another with lower BE admixture, roughly as it happens when there is admixture between two very divergent population clusters, like West African vs. European. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so weren't Basal Eurasians very different from other West Eurasians to begin with?


No, they were not. The biggest and probably only difference is that they main Eurasians had (more) archaic admixture, mainly Neandertal, in the East and South East also Denisovan, while Basal Eurasian had not (as much). So Basal Eurasians are more like the pure modern Homo sapiens branch. There is nothing else. Like the ancestors of Australo-Melanesians moved on, after leaving Africa, to the South East. So there was not even a common evolutionary path for the rest of the main Eurasians. The only thing which made them different from Basal Eurasian is, that Basal Eurasian was restricted to the Near East, possibly North East Africa, and had no(t as much) archaic admixture. That's it, period. 




> Or is it just that the "significant" BE admixture in this new sample is actually not much higher than in Dzudzuana, therefore even lower than what you could find in later populations like Iran_N, CHG, Anatolia_N and Natufian (correct me if I'm wrong, but Anatolia_N was basically modelled by Lazaridis as Dzudzuana + extra BE)?


The resolution and quality of the sample might be questionable and there is no other information than "substantial". I would say 25 percent is substantial. So whatever the exact percentage, what this proves is the early, widespread presence of BEA, nothing else. 




> On a related note, I wonder if between the early LGM and the Mesolithic there was a consistent east-to-west trend: Iran_Meso/CHG-like people, a mix of ANE, Dzudzuana-like and maybe a bit more BE, migrated from Iran to the Caucasus and nearby areas; the former Dzudzuana-like people that lived there migrated westward towards Anatolia; and the WHG-like people that lived in Western Anatolia and Southeasternmost Europe migrated (north)westward into the rest of Europe. We'll see if that scenario holds true when more Paleolithic DNA from Eurasia appear.


Like I wrote before, ANE were the large bodied steppe mammoth hunters, either because the climate became to hostile and cold, or the megafauna was depleted, or they had a demographic growth, whatever was the reason, probably all of this together, they began to push South and West, on a grand scale. And they chased away whoever was in their way or mixed with those. So at the LGM you had one big chain migration event, caused by the climate and the migration of ANE, in West Eurasia Africa. Even Iberomaurusians fit into this, because one group had to push the next. And that is where modern Subsaharan ancestry (and the Negroid phenotype) began to emerge, because ANE pushed Dzudzuana, those pushed their Basal Eurasian neighbours and created a mix, this mixed Levantine group pushed into Africa and spread IBM. The ANA lake dwellers too began to move South, and began to mix with Basal H.s. and archaic groups (Iwo Eleru) in Africa. 

The same pattern repeated itself numerous times, it did so with Natufian like expansions into Africa, with the developed Neolithic, and the beginning metal Ages. And with every push from the North the movement of culturally more developed people penetrated more of Africa. In the end this created the Bantu expansion as well. Its right, Basal Eurasian mixed in from the South and when ANE entered the scene, they pushed the whole range of the variation from the Near East down to Africa, so that a lot of the lineages ended up much more South than they orginally were. 
Now where they were originally, like E or E1b, we don't know, we can't know. Because if the result of the push was that whole communities were on the move, the present distribution won't prove the past one. Only ancient DNA can.

----------


## Gnarl

I think we should remember that the geography was quite different during the LGM. Vast ice sheets prssing down the land in the north, massive meltwater rivers going that way in the summer, but no egress to the ocean that way. Sea levels far lower.

My personal guess for the Basal Eurasians is the Ur-Schatt valley.

----------


## Diictodon

> extremely interesting paper 
> if it is true that in the caucasus 
> there was some human remain who carry significant basal eurasian ancestery 
> *that it is a big kick in the head to the theory 
> of y haplogroup E who might relate to basal ancestery*


I thinks its clear that E is from the mostly ANA releated component in Taforalt and E in Eurasians mostly have come via Natufians/Levant PPNB and later Cardial Ware culture in Europe. Yoruba has 13% IBM mixture which explains E1b1a in West African/Bantu associated peoples

----------


## Diictodon

Clear as in clear from the 2018 Dzudzuana paper

----------


## kingjohn

> *I thinks its clear that E is from the mostly ANA releated component in Taforalt and E in Eurasians mostly have come via Natufians/Levant PPNB and later Cardial Ware culture in Europe*. Yoruba has 13% IBM mixture which explains E1b1a in West African/Bantu associated peoples



very likely agree  :Cool V:

----------


## Riverman

> I thinks its clear that E is from the mostly ANA releated component in Taforalt


That is unknown. It might be more or less probable, but its not decided yet. 




> and E in Eurasians mostly have come via Natufians/Levant PPNB and later Cardial Ware culture in Europe. Yoruba has 13% IBM mixture which explains E1b1a in West African/Bantu associated peoples


That is clear. 

Two different things. People sometimes forget how old E and its main clades actually are and the main problem is just that Basal Eurasian is still not found, the Southern Arabian peninsula and the Nile region/Egypt not researched yet. Two big, unresolved issues for that debate.

----------


## kingjohn

Our cousin D is asian and maybe even paleo-mongolid  :Thinking: 
I know about the nigerian /saudian D branch
But most of haplogroup D branches look asian
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/

----------


## Riverman

> Our cousin D is asian and maybe even paleo-mongolid 
> I know about the nigerian /saudian D branch
> But most of haplogroup D branches look asian
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/


I do look at the distribution of modern samples and these are, from my point of view, inconclusive to in favour of back migration from Asia for haplogroup E as a whole. However, it might be even more complicated with numerous forth and back migrations being possible, we don't know without actual, conclusive evidence. Its like it is with E-V13 too. Without having tested ancient DNA, all kinds of theories might have been viable options back in the days. With ancient DNA being tested, the number of viable theories decreased drastically and is still going down with every new tested ancient individual from the candidate regions, where E-V13 could have "wintered" before the MBA-LBA, to expand in the LBA-EIA. 
Its pretty much the same with E probably, they might or might not have "wintered" in Southern Arabia among Basal Eurasians before expanding into Africa. How can we know without having anything from there at all? There really is no way to be sure going by the currently available data.

----------


## kingjohn

E-v13 might be the most complicated
Haplogroup in europe the 5000bc avellander cave is mind blowing .... 
That live the door open that it might originated
In southwest europe and not in the balkan after presumed migration from anatolia


P.s 
Might there be also a big mess as to where E generally speaking was at first and to which ancient population it belonged 
As you said nothing is set in stone yet....

----------


## Drifter1

Interesting.

----------


## Jovialis

> *That is unknown. It might be more or less probable, but its not decided yet. 
> *
> 
> 
> That is clear. 
> 
> Two different things. People sometimes forget how old E and its main clades actually are and the main problem is just that Basal Eurasian is still not found, the Southern Arabian peninsula and the Nile region/Egypt not researched yet. Two big, unresolved issues for that debate.


I agree, perhaps E was brought there with Basal Eurasians, before the arrival of ANA, that led to the ethnogenesis of Natufians. Nevertheless, I recall all Natufians were a form of E.

----------


## Northener

> I agree, perhaps E was brought there with Basal Eurasians, before the arrival of ANA, that led to the ethnogenesis of Natufians. Nevertheless, I recall all Natufians were a form of E.


I thought that Cruciani (2007) located the 'birth' of E in Libya/Egypt. My subbranche E-V22 was born about the twilight of the Egyptian civilization....The desert was developing and the people concentrated in the Nile strip. What would be a reason to revise that?

----------


## Jovialis

> I thought that Cruciani (2007) located the 'birth' of E in Libya/Egypt. My subbranche E-V22 was born about the twilight of the Egyptian civilization....The desert was developing and the people concentrated in the Nile strip. What would be a reason to revise that?


I have to dig around for it, but I recall a paper that was shared by Bicicleur a couple years ago, that suggested that it could have come with Basal Eurasians. I could be wrong.

----------


## Riverman

> I agree, perhaps E was brought there with Basal Eurasians, before the arrival of ANA, that led to the ethnogenesis of Natufians. Nevertheless, I recall all Natufians were a form of E.


I think Natufians brought it up to the Northern Levante, where in the mix with local foragers the ancestors of ANF came up, with the Natufian paternal and autosomal contribution as a minority element, which was brought over to Europe by Cardial Ware in particular. Seems to be the most parsimonious route. 




> I thought that Cruciani (2007) located the 'birth' of E in Libya/Egypt. My subbranche E-V22 was born about the twilight of the Egyptian civilization....The desert was developing and the people concentrated in the Nile strip. What would be a reason to revise that?


If you read up on the theories at that time (2007), you will find out that many being outdated by now. However, Libya and especially Egypt is still a good bet, its just not known yet. At that time we didn't know about Basal Eurasians, we had no Natufians and Early Neolithics, the sampling of the living populations was much worse, with much less E from Arabia in particular and not as much known about the migration paths in general. So while I wouldn't say its wrong, we just don't know for sure and there are plausible alternatives.

----------


## Jovialis

There is also the back-to-africa migration from the Near East that further proliferated E in Africa.

----------


## kingjohn

> I thought that Cruciani (2007) located the 'birth' of E in Libya/Egypt. My subbranche E-V22 was born about the twilight of the Egyptian civilization....The desert was developing and the people concentrated in the Nile strip. What would be a reason to revise that?



out of all the e-m78 branches 
_e-v22 is the closest to e-v13 because he share 
a common ancestor with e-L618 ( e-v13 ancestor) named e-z1919_ :Thinking: 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/
i wish one day that an ancient remain will be found who carry that marker 
might be in any place in north east africa up to the levant

----------


## Northener

> I think Natufians brought it up to the Northern Levante, where in the mix with local foragers the ancestors of ANF came up, with the Natufian paternal and autosomal contribution as a minority element, which was brought over to Europe by Cardial Ware in particular. Seems to be the most parsimonious route. 
> 
> If you read up on the theories at that time (2007), you will find out that many being outdated by now. However, Libya and especially Egypt is still a good bet, its just not known yet. At that time we didn't know about Basal Eurasians, we had no Natufians and Early Neolithics, the sampling of the living populations was much worse, with much less E from Arabia in particular and not as much known about the migration paths in general. So while I wouldn't say its wrong, we just don't know for sure and there are plausible alternatives.


*E-M78 in the Western Desert
*
E-V22 as 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 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.

*T-zone*

The spread of E-V22 descendants reaches a wide span. It’s like a T zone.
Vertical: Egypt and the Southern Levant in the centre and Southwards to Horn of Africa. This is the oldest spread with the highest percentages up to 88% of the Saho in Eritrea.
Horizontal: From Portugal in the west till Pakistan in the East, modest or low percentages around 5% (but mostly beneath).


*Spread to the Levant*

E-V22 spread from the Western Desert heartland (nowadays 30% ) to the Nile Delta (nowadays 14% ) and into the Southern Levant (nowadays 6,9%). The Levant corridor is one of the oldest “hubs” of human kind. From early on it’s an important bridge, with bidirectional movements, between Northeastern Africa and Southwest Asia.
The migration of E-V22 into the Nile Delta and the Southern Levant is associated with the different Neolithic cultures of the Nubian/Egypt area and in the Southern Levant. The Nile functioned as an ancient highway also for migrating people.


*Argonauts of the Gulf and Mediterranean*

In the Levant E-V22 split up. Some took the way to the right into the Arabic Peninsula. Others took the way to the left and went into the Mediterraenen. It’s quite striking that the spread to the Mediterranean and to the Gulf was by seafaring people (Greek: Argonauts). The spread in both regions is especially in areas around the sea and islands.
The Neolithic of the Levant was close linked tot he Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia. Alicia M Cadenas (2008): “Recent archaeological finds supports a trading relationship between Mesopotamia and the Arabian Gulf region dating back to the Al Ubaid Period (~7000 ybp) as evidenced by the excavation of Ubai pottery from Mesopotamia in UAE. Ancient maritime trade routes linking Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley included Dilmun (the island of Bahrain) and Magan (in the southeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula). It is possible hat the close ties between Mesopotamia with both the Nile River Valley and the ancient Persian Gulf region during the Neolithic helped disseminate these haplogroups.”

*Fertile crescent*

“The majority of the UAE M78 representatives belong to the E3b1a3-V22 clade (6.7%)…ts dispersal may have occurred early, the first to spread the E3b1a-M78 chromosomes to North Africa and then the Near East.” E-V22 in the Arabic Peninsula is mostly characterized by the subbranche E-L674.
For the Mediterranean area I see a similar development. Paschou (2014) stated that a“maritime coastal route was mainly used for the migration of Neolithic farmers to Europe”. In other words, there was a certain kind of island and coastal hopping of Neolithic colonist.
Followed by Voskarides (2016): “E-V22 and E-M34 are common in the Southern Levant, Sicily, Algeria, and in Egypt and rare in Europe. These lineages, like J2b-M205, could mirror a Pottery Neolithic movement to Cyprus from the Southern Levant (Pearson R 2 coefficient of correlation of E- M34 to longitude: 0.164, p = 0.003)” On of the earliest spread to the Mediterranean is the the so called Impressed (or Cordial) Ware (7000-5500 ybp). The spread to the Mediterranean could be in several waves up until the so called Phoenicians (3500-2500 ybp).

----------


## kingjohn



----------


## kingjohn

this would be interesting maybe they carried a lot of basal euroasian ancestery 
*20 samples from Qatar- from neolithic to late pre-islamic period 

*

PB2800 -* Human populations and demographics in Qatar from the Neolithic to the Late Iron Age.

*Author Block: A. D'Aurelio1, M. Baldoni2,3, F. R. Vempalli1, F. De Angelis2, F. Sakal4, F. Al-Naimi4, M. Al-Hashmi1, K. Wang1, L. Wang1, G. Wang1, O. Soloviov1, F. Castorina5, C. Martínez-Labarga2, S. Tomei1; 1Integrated Genomics Services, Res. Dept., Sidra Med., Doha, Qatar, 2Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, 3PhD Program in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, 4Dept. of Archaeology, Qatar Museums, Doha, Qatar, 5Dept. of Earth Sci., Univ. of Rome Sapienza, Rome, Qatar

Motivation: Despite the production of genetic data related to the Middle East and Qatar specifically is increasing dramatically, a critical unmet research and public need relies on the study of the prehistorical societies living in this region of the World. Recent archaeological studies have discovered thousands of prehistoric burials that represent a great opportunity to investigate the population dynamics and sociocultural changes in prehistorical Qatari societies. The archaeological record has been the only way by which the Qatari prehistoric populations have been researched. Here we have applied the study of ancient DNA (aDNA) to understand the origin, migration patterns, genetic relationships, admixtures, kinship, and changes in prehistorical Qatari societies.

Material and methods: We performed aDNA analyses on 20 samples selected by taking into account preservation status and availability of either tooth or petrous bone. The same samples were also submitted for radiocarbon dating and isotopic and morphological analysis.
DNA was extracted in a dedicated clean lab facility starting from 50-135 mg of bone powder, following a silica-based protocol tailored to aDNA, modified by adding a further digestion step. Illumina double-stranded libraries were prepared and treated with partial uracil-DNA-glycosylase (UDG) to prevent nucleotide misincorporation.
Final NGS libraries were sequenced through NovaSeq 6000 System on an S4 Flow Cell.
Using a combination of bioinformatics tools, we performed quality control analysis on the sequenced reads, selecting endogenous reads with map and base PRHED score quality above 30.

Results: According to the radiocarbon dating, our samples cover a transect of time going from the Neolithic to the Late Pre-Islamic period (7.4-1.4 kya). We report quality control scores on the sequencing data and their correlation with sample type, burial location and burial time frame. Even though the DNA preservation was mined by detrimental environmental factors, we tried estimating ancestries from both multi-locus genotype data and model-based approaches.

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, our study represents the first attempt to analyze aDNA in the Arabian Peninsula. We successfully retrieved aDNA sequences from human samples older than 1500 years excavated in Qatar. We believe that our results have the potential to pave the way for further paleogenetic studies in the region.
This work was supported by a grant from the Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP10-0208-170411). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Qatar National Research Fund.

----------


## Riverman

For the Basal Eurasian and haplogroup E debate we need samples from the Neolithic and Pre-Neolithic, because it is absolutely clear that by the Bronze Age J1 dominated Semitic groups settled the region.

----------


## kingjohn

> For the Basal Eurasian and haplogroup E debate we need samples from the Neolithic and Pre-Neolithic, because it is absolutely clear that by the Bronze Age J1 dominated Semitic groups settled the region.


there is also a leak in anthrogenica we should have soon *ancient dna from arabia (bronze iron age periods)* :Great: 
( you probably saw it as a member there
i am sharing it here for people who are not members in anthrogenica)

here are the supposed results in the leak in anthrogenica:
*Unofficial results from the Arabian Peninsula in the Bronze and Iron Ages*

According to the news published on Twitter
Based on a study that will be released in the future (probably from Max Planck).
*A ancient sample from the Bronze Age in Khaybar (saudi arabia) >> Y haplogroup T*
And* a ancient sample from Yemen from the Iron Age has >>Y haplogroup J1*
And *two ancient samples from Socotra Island in Yemen >> Y haplogroup J1 and J2*

----------

