The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers

r
no G2a2 found, none
is G2a2 exclusive to Anatolian & European neolithic?

Yes, where was G2a2? Perhaps slightly further north at the intersection of the northern Levant and southeastern Anatolia? Is that the origin though or further east closer to the Iranian Neolithic given the "G" found there? (G2a1 is in the Iranian Neolithic and G1a in the Iranian Chalcolithic.)

I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.

I agree. I'm sure you've seen this by now:
", no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).
The idea of 194 Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also 195 not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations."

The latter is the point we made in our own speculations. Then you add in that they find no affinity in the Natufians to SSA populations. So, maybe those speculations of Dienekes' to the effect that there was an early back migration of "E" to Africa were correct?

So, as we also speculated, there was a refugia closer to the Persian Gulf? That or in North Africa?

While there was continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, there was no continuity from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. By that period at the latest, all these populations were mushed together, as we might have predicted from the archaeology.

"During subsequent millennia, the early farmer populations of the Near East expanded in all 253 directions and mixed, as we can only model populations of the Chalcolithic and subsequent 254 Bronze Age as having ancestry from two or more sources. The Chalcolithic people of western 255 Iran can be modelled as a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and 256 Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG), consistent with their position in the PCA (Fig. 1b).
Admixture from populations related to the Chalcolithic people of western Iran had a wide 258 impact, consistent with contributing ~44% of the ancestry of Levantine Bronze Age 259 populations in the south and ~33% of the ancestry of the Chalcolithic northwest Anatolians in 260 the west. Our analysis show that the ancient populations of the Chalcolithic Iran, Chalcolithic 261 Armenia, Bronze Age Armenia and Chalcolithic Anatolia were all composed of the same 262 ancestral components, albeit in slightly different proportions."

So, the Levant Neolithic people moved around, but at a certain point, there seems to have been a specific movement southwest from the northeast, so much so that this contributes 44% of the Levantine Bronze Age.

I wonder how close this population was to the ancient Hebrews?
 
As to the "Womb of Nations" idea, here is what they have to say:

"We computed squared allele frequency differentiation between all pairs of ancient West Eurasians29 216 (Methods; Fig. 3; Extended Data Fig. 3), and found that the populations at the 217 four corners of the quadrangle had differentiation of FST=0.08-0.15, comparable to the value 218 of 0.09-0.13 seen between present-day West Eurasians and East Asians (Han) 219 (Supplementary Data Table 3). In contrast, by the Bronze Age, genetic differentiation 220 between pairs of West Eurasian populations had reached its present-day low levels (Fig. 3): 221 today, FST is ≤0.025 for 95% of the pairs of West Eurasian populations and ≤0.046 for all 222 pairs. These results point to a demographic process that established high differentiation 223 across West Eurasia and then reduced this differentiation over time."

"
During subsequent millennia, the early farmer populations of the Near East expanded in all 253 directions and mixed, as we can only model populations of the Chalcolithic and subsequent 254 Bronze Age as having ancestry from two or more sources. "

"Admixture did not only occur within the Near East but extended towards Europe. To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe. The spread of Near Eastern ancestry into the Eurasian steppe was previously inferred7 268 without access to ancient samples, by hypothesizing a population related to present-day Armenians as a source7,8 269 . To the west, the 270 early farmers of mainland Europe were descended from a population related to Neolithic northwestern Anatolians."
 
The first issue I have: EHG is modeled as 25% WHG and 75% ANE (Being Afontova Gora2, they didn't use the far better genome of contemporary AG3). However in the admixture image you pasted above EHG is an element as well as WHG. Similar thing with SI table S7.25: Levant_N modeled as 1/3 Natufian and 2/3 Anatolia_N. Anatolia_N modeled as 0.4 Iran_N, 0.3 Levant_N, 1/4 WHG.

EDIT: Life isn't fair ;)

I know, Epoch, trust me. :)

That's what I was getting at partly...how "distinct" is distinct? It's going in a circle.

The "glue" or "tie" that binds is Basal Eurasian, yes?

O.K. I have to cook dinner, then dive into the Supplement, then I'll be back, by which time you guys will be asleep. A demain, then.
 
I guess I'll call my friend and postpone that walk. :)

Where is Alan? He had it right about there being three farmer populations in the Near East, and without benefit of a leak from an about to be published paper.

I'll be back when I've read it carefully too, Bicicleur.
thanks for mentioning me. :)

I remember Maciamo giving me a thumps up back than which means he agreed with this already back than.

I wrote allot of things in the other thread.

Here are my posts I wrote in the other thread.

HA I knew it I said it, but some people just jumped on wrong conclusions merely out of the fact that they don't like the idea of Yamna possibly being from Iranian Plateau.

Even the sentence "no direct geneflow" should have made anyone suspecious that they don't exclude indirect geneflow.


It makes archeological 100% sense. Maykop culture is descend of the Layla Tepe culture which according to archeologists derives from the Iranian Plateau.

I always said it

Iranian Plateau => Caucasus=> Steppes.

OR Eastern Iranian Plateau => Central Asia => Steppes.

From the paper Iran_N(Neolithic)
Iran_N

I1945: P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a)


So it seems there was R Haplogroup in Neolithic Iran. Take that all you haters ^^

Edit: I see the guys at Eurogenes are still in denial X)

The paper also perfectly proves my hypothesis that THREE distinct groups were living in the Near East at least by Neolithic.

A Southwestern farmer, A Anatolian farmer and a Iranian Plateau farmer/Herder group.

The Natufians were quite similar to Anatolian_Farmers but had some differences. And it seems that the Caucasian DNA in East Africa came via the Natufians rather than Anatolian_Farmers.

The Natufians were full of E1b1b and CT Haplogroups. Seems like we have found the source of the Egyptian culture in Levant_Neo. The whole Afro_asiatic family seems to be descend from the Levantine Neolithic.

Natufians and Anatolian farmers are very similar but still distinct, while Zagros farmers are significantly different from the former both.

Mesolithic Zagros H&G were more Basal Eurasian than Natufians which indicates that Basal Eurasian in fact derives from further East than South. Possibly Iranian coastle region.

And there seems to be EHG like ancestry in mesolithic Iran.

Mal'ta is modeled as ~28% Iranian Neolithic like, 15% CHG and ~35% WHG like

EHG is modeled as 80% WHG, 7% Iranian Neolithic and 10% CHG like.
 
Last edited:
Very nice new paper up. Dynamite: Natufians were only half Basal Eurasian and Basal Eurasian appears to have had no Neanderthal! Furthermore, the CHG part of Steppe appears to be made of Caucasian HG and part Iranian Chalcolithic. Fitted mixture proportions are 52.7% EHG, 18.1% CHG, 29.2% Iran_Ch.

Preprint: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
Supp Info: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

The Neanderthal is very interesting as well. O, and Basal is not African. It is buried somewhere in the supp info tables.

EDIT: Y-DNA of Natufians were E1b and some J1. Iran G1a G2a and some J.


This could mean Basal Eurasian are the proto Eurasian who did not mix yet with Neanderthals. Natufians had E1b and CT as far as I remember. No known J1 among them.
 
Mota Cave HG E1b1a didn't have Neanderthal, probably Natufian E-Z830 didn't have either before coming to Asia.
It hints at arrival of E-Z830 from Africa.

I'm not sure Basal Eurasian originated in Africa though.
The reduced Neandertahl may be related to admixture with E-Z830 and unrelated to the Basal Eurasian.

The authros don't think Basal Eurasian came from Africa, because Basal Eurasian peaks in Neolithic Iranians.
 
@Maleth,
It appears that the Natufians carry the precursor to E-M34. Thought you'd want to know. :)

This is really exciting. And I thought we would never get any results from these regions....but here they are. :)
 
An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a
population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics:



MA1, EHG, SHG, Switzerland_HG are consistent with having no Basal Eurasian ancestry, while at least some such ancestry is inferred for the remaining populations.Neolithic Iran and Natufians could be derived from the same Basal Eurasian population but are genetically closer to EHG and WHG respectively We take the model of Fig. S4.9 and attempt to fit Natufians as a mixture of the same Basal Eurasian population that contributes to Iran_N and any other population of the tree. Several solutions are feasible, and we show the best one (lowest ADMIXTUREGRAPH score) in Fig. S4.10.
We can add both EHG and MA1 as simple branches to the model structure of Fig. S4.10 and show the results in Fig. S4.11. An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture. The fact that these two
populations are differentially related to European hunter-gatherers can be directly seen from the following statistics: suggests
that the singleton individual from Hotu (Iran_HotuIIIb) was shifted towards EHG along the Iran_N/EHG cline, albeit it does not reach |Z|>3. There is uncertainty about the date of Iran_HotuIIIb, as it is not certain that it is of Mesolithic age and thus predates the Neolithic of Iran from Ganj Dareh.
The fact that the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (who are definitely pre-Neolithic) have extra EHG-related ancestry is also supportive of a substantial antiquity of this element in the Caucasus-Iran region. It is not clear whether the hunter-gatherers preceding the Neolithic in Ganj Dareh were similar to Iran_HotuIIIb or the CHG and their EHG affinity was diluted during Neolithization, or whether they are descended from an unsampled hunter-gatherer population that already had this reduced affinity to the EHG....


Thus it is rather the Mesolithic of Iran that shares more alleles with these eastern European groups than the Neolithic. Tentatively, this might suggest that the pre-Neolithic population of Iran had an affinity to the EHG/Ancient North Eurasians that was diluted during the Neolithic, although the lack of negative f4-statistics does not allow us to discern what is the source of this dilution. Alternatively, there was no dilution, but the Neolithic of Iran was descended
from an unsampled Mesolithic population.

Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.
 
SGA6Dsk.gif
 
Just finished the Supplement and then took a look at other sites to see the comments. Some were insightful, some very disappointing. Every person whose pet agenda is at all negatively impacted has pulled out the knives. Without being able to point to anything wrong with the analysis, and without having even looked at the actual samples, one blogger stated outright that he's out to disprove the conclusions of the paper. Very sad. Not, of course, that any group of researchers is necessarily correct 100% of the time, but this particular group has a very good track record, and some of them created the very statistical programs being used. So, we shall see.

Some of the things creating the most controversy are, of course, the blasted "Indo-Europeans". I wonder if there's a genetic predisposition to it? :)

So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

That Iran Chalcolithic is:
13,4 EHG
62,3 Iran_N
20,0 Levant_N
4,3 WHG

How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.

The controversy over the movement south into south central Asia and India is even worse.

This is the statement which caused all the furor...
"While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
(Steppe_MLBA) is not."

The latter is Andronovo and Sintashta apparently. Given all those stats that were produced showing how much genetic impact they had on India, I guess that was upsetting, although I thought there was some retreat from that position. If the paper is correct, those more "European" cultures, including any movement from Srubnaya are a dead end, yes?

However, the complete statement is the following:

"While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good genetic
match (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population
(Steppe_MLBA) is not. Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have beenproposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians9,19, as well as the Srubnaya from easternEurope which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a1b2-Z935. A useful direction of future research is a more comprehensive sampling of ancient DNA from steppe populations, as well as populations of central Asia (east of Iran and south of the steppe), which may reveal more proximate sources of the ANI than the ones considered here, and of South Asia to determine the trajectory of population change in the area directly.

So, this hardly seems cut and dried on their part. Perhaps people should chill out a little.

Rather than accept this formulation, it was stated that the intrusive population to the steppe might be a combination of EHG, CHG and CT or "Old Europe" presumably, and that Lazaridis et al never bother to test that possibility. Well, uh, they did test it, and show the results in the Supplement for a possible admixture of EHG, CHG and Anatolia Neolithic explaining the non-EHG part of Yamnaya, with the latter coming, presumably, from CT. This group is well aware that admixtures can be modeled in different ways, and usually present all of them; it's just that what's put in the body of the paper is their estimate of the better alternative. In order to really pin it down, they need even older samples from the Near East and Central Asia. Again, though, I don't get why admixture from CT would be more acceptable. Maybe it has to do with having so vehemently denied in the past than any Near Eastern farmers went over the Caucasus into the steppe?

I find the argument that the steppe numbers for South Asian populations may be inflated more persuasive. The percentages seem very high for far South Indian groups. Perhaps the numbers are indeed inflated by "EHG like" populations in Central Asia that were absorbed on the move into India? Again, though, they seem very aware that there are more "proximate" populations which need to be sampled.

In that regard, this is the group that has had Caucasus and, I think, perhaps some Central Asian samples for quite a while, yes? So, presumably, they might already have a good idea about that?

Just parenthetically, this need to get more than one paper out of the data they have is totally understandable, but it puts the authors of the papers at something of a disadvantage it seems to me, since they may know much more than they can say. This was part of the problem with the Mathiesen et al paper.

Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)

It looks as if the yDna "J" got to the southern Levant rather late, not until the Bronze Age.

I don't understand the following:
"Northwest Anatolians—with ancestry from a population related to 322 European hunter-gatherers (Supplementary Information, section 7)—are better modelled if 323 this ancestry is taken as more extreme than Bichon (Supplementary Information, section 10)."
 
Interesting to find L1a in the Armenian Chalcolithic. I know of a Tuscan yDna "L" who's been waiting forever to get a clue as to how it got into Italy.

Also interesting to see all that "T" in the ancient Neolithic. Remember all those speculations that Thomas Jefferson was Jewish because he carried this signature? :)

Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.
 
Seems like the paper does "confirm" another of my theories, namely that before Neolithic (possibly even a little earlier) the Iranian Plateau was populated by a very ANE like population, than this ANE like population mixed with an "incoming" population (Basal Eurasian?) that brought farming to them and is the reason why Iranian Farmers are more Basal Eurasian than CHG which seems to be the "only" difference between both groups.

This same "Basal Eurasian" population seems also to be the one who brought farming to Natufians. Because Natufians are basically Basal Eurasian and something WHG like.

With other words EHG seem to have Iranian mesolithic ancestry minus the Basal Eurasian.

This paper includes lots of Middle Eastern hunter gatherers. They all had Basal Eurasian. In Iran and Levant, the later farming population's were the decendants of previous hunter gatherers in Iran and Levant. Basal Eurasian has nothing to do with farming. pre-farming Iranians were had ANE but weren't ANE-rich, at least compared to EHG and Native Americans.
 
I haven't been able to read the study properly, will do so in a few days. But ..
So, "To the 266 north, a population related to people of the Iran Chalcolithic contributed ~43% of the 267 ancestry of early Bronze Age populations of the steppe."

That's not CHG, as has been proposed by some people, or Iran Neolithic, but Iran Chalcolithic.

That Iran Chalcolithic is:
13,4 EHG
62,3 Iran_N
20,0 Levant_N
4,3 WHG

How did they get that EHG percentage? Well, CHG already had some EHG, so as some one on another site has already proposed, perhaps hunter-gatherers more similar to the Iran Neolithic sample moved north and mixed with EHG/WHG people to create CHG. There might have been movement back and forth, but at some point a now less EHG/WHG, but more Levant Neolithic group moved north onto the steppe. Apparently, the fact that it's proposed by the authors that the group had some Levant Neolithic and the movement happened later when the incoming group were already farmer/herders changes everything and makes it unacceptable? Or is it because the authors don't endorse the fact that the group were ancient "Georgian" like? I don't get it.

could that 43 % be the Maykop component?

if I recall well EHG were R1a while I1945 Iran neolithic is P1xQ which is R
 
Well, Thomas Jefferson belong to T1a1 (T1a1a1a1b1) which is closest to the T1a1-CTS880 found in the 7100ybp sample from the Karsdorf settlement. This sample from Ain Ghazal is negative for T1a1 so isn't related to them, at least, in the last 20.000 years. The T group from Ain Ghazal can't be the source for the T1a1 tribe found in the ancient Germania.

I1707 = T
age = 7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP, Poz-81097)
found = 'Ain Ghazal Jordan
SNP's = 152234
MtDNA = R0a

I1707
: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB )
This individual was derived for mutations PF7466, CTS7263, CTS10416
defining haplogroup T. It was ancestral for FGC3945.2 (T1a1) and
P322 (T1a2a). Thus, it could be designated
T(xT1a1, T1a2a). It has been suggested that haplogroup T first began to diversify in the Near
East9
and our results document that it was present there in some of the earliest Neolithic
communities of the Near East, providing a plausible source for its appearance in the Early
Neolithic of central Europe6.


While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early
Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and
Northwestern Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of
autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.

The Ydna found in and around Karsdorf ....where all G2a, H2 and T .............as per the note above, it means they have been travelling together for many many centuries

T-P322 is mostly found in the Levant , Armenia and Germany
 
The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic. Can someone "in know" look at these clades and explain their relation to Asia and Europe and Bronze Age? I'm not surprised we can find some R1 haplogroups there, but that they were farmers. Next surprise is right after, in LN and beyond they were gone! Why these clades didn't emigrate with Iranian farmers to Anatolia?
I was one of proponents of North-South movement of HG tribes or trans Caucasus movement. But R1 farmers in Iran, that's a surprise.

Can someone explain "Figure 1" from the paper, the PCA distances and chart with colored admixtures. How come Anatolian and European Neolithic is represented by mixture of Natufians and WHGs only? On PCA European Neolithic is exactly between Natufian N and WHGs, while Iranian N is the furthest group away?
Isn't it a contradiction with Figure 4b?

Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.

Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.

Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.

So where G2a EEF came from? Communities in Central/Eastern Turkey or wherever? Looking at always fluent dominant Y haplogroup in Neolithic farmers, it points to the story of many collapses of population, bottleneck, founder effect and natural selection, that favoured one haplogroup over others followed by strong expansion of the "lucky" one. Amazing.
 
@bicileur

Villabruna was R1b with no sign of any contact with this area: Be it basal admixture of mtDNA. We do have a EHG with J, but we do also have some mtDNA H there.
 
Looks like Maciamo was right about haplogroup T originating with cereal farmers in the Fertile Crescent. The haplogroup page mentions specifically early farmers from the Levant and shows Middle Eastern farmers in the top banner pictures.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
The biggest surprise for me is only R1b and R1a were found in Iranian Neolithic, or is it Early Neolithic.

I didn't read that. The paper states:

This individual belonged to haplogroup P1 on the basis of mutation P282. It was ancestral for downstream haplogroups Q (F1237.1, FGC4603), R1b1a2 (CTS12478), R1a1a1b1a1b 52 (CTS11962), R1a1a1b1a3a (L448), and R1a1a1b2a2a (Z2123). Thus, it could be designated P1(xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b , R1a1a1b1a3a , R1a1a1b2a2a).



Seem that CHG and Iranian farmer came from same HG pre Neolithic stock. Just that Iranian cousins developed farming but CHG didn't.

CHG was paleolithic and mesolithic.

Iranian farmers were not just herders as some claimed, they were farmers who domesticated animals.

A very short look at archaeology could have told you that as well.

Yamnaya, and steppe Neolithic guys, had more farmer genes than previous papers claimed. I was vocal that 10% EEF in Yamnaya wasn't telling the full farming story.

No, the 50/50 basis for Yamnaya hasn't changed.
 
What I find surprising is that we can't seem to find a trace of Cucuteni-Tripolye until Middle Bronze age on the steppe. It was supposed to be of great influence to Sredny Stog. We should see if D-stats have Corded Ware prefer Anatolia over Chalcolithic Iran. If so, Western Yamnaya has different ME admixture than Eastern Yamnaya.
 
The absence of Neanderthal admixture in these populations is logical; the paper statistics don't say 0% but the authors prefer to assume none as it's near the stat error. If the area was more fertile and peopled than cold glaciar Europe, of course the relation Sapiens / Neanderthal will be more leveled in Europe, above all if the Sapiens were better adapted to Near Eastern ecosystems. Also the high Y-DNA diversity in the area points to a high population (more people, more mutations). The Gulf oase would be even "overpopulated" with its big rivers and side rivers coming from the Zagros.

Natufians / PPNB displaying E-Z830 in the right epoch for Afroasiatic language matches quite well with the dispersal of such language family in Africa, above all among Berbers and their E-M81 linage (nephew to Z830 and formed in the time of the Natufians). The back-to-Africa migration related to herders and farmers might have carried there the R1b-V88 and the Chadic subfamily: being R Eurasian, some R1b might live among the Levantines (an European origin is not conceivable if Chadic branches from AA). The stricking case is to see J in Levant_BA, the time of Semithics arriving in the Levant and Mesopotamia... from the south?
 

This thread has been viewed 217650 times.

Back
Top