Early Levantine adventurers

[halfalp]

I see Varna as a likely key catalyst in the development Eurasian DNA. It seems to have been a bit like a prosperous Wild West boom town that attracted a succession of colourful adventurers from various distant locations (we can see significant signs of Eastern Pontic Steppe, the Levant and Iran in even only the five broadly-contemporaneous samples that have been analysed).

I just looked a little bit of the geographic of the place and, it really looks like a perfect place for a portuary wealthy city, like a regional economical center. It could have been an important meeting place for Locals, Anatolians and Steppe peoples. I wonder if... for exemple, Proto-Anatolians and or Early Bell Beakers could have turned into seafarers from this point. Like Varna -> Sinop for Proto-Anatolians.

[Alpenjager]

Varna43/ANI152 is a very Low Coverage sample. So the autosomal results are unreliable. The most steppe-like sample from Varna is at the same time the one with the best coverage.

T-M184 (x T1) is not in anyway a Levantine lineage (this claim is as old as it is the Iberian R1b Paleolithic Refugium).

This lineage is mostly found above the Alpide line, where this lineage has their highest diversity. Since is found from Himalayas to North European Plain nowadays.

So, Varna43 T lineage, looks more local than newcomer.

Also, someone said that Peqi'in cave T lineage is "Levantine", first of all, they are though to be originated North of where they have been found. But They carried the WHG blue/gray eyes alelle. And their lineage belongs to a T branch which most probably originated around the western side of the Black Sea.

I have updated the map with all ancient samples belonging to T here: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map...#4/58.15/29.00

Label Colour = T Lineage (when more different, then more distant from the other samples)
Label symbol = Link samples (sometimes because their subclade is not yet known, like it is the case of "O")

[Pip]

Varna43/ANI152 is a very Low Coverage sample. So the autosomal results are unreliable.

The autosomal results are equally reliable; it's just that there are less of them, and the ones that there are match 50% with the Levantine Neolithic (just as is the case with another nearby contemporary sample with better coverage).

T-M184 (x T1) is not in anyway a Levantine lineage (this claim is as old as it is the Iberian R1b Paleolithic Refugium).

This lineage is mostly found above the Alpide line, where this lineage has their highest diversity. Since is found from Himalayas to North European Plain nowadays.

So, Varna43 T lineage, looks more local than newcomer.

Also, someone said that Peqi'in cave T lineage is "Levantine", first of all, they are though to be originated North of where they have been found. But They carried the WHG blue/gray eyes alelle. And their lineage belongs to a T branch which most probably originated around the western side of the Black Sea.

I have updated the map with all ancient samples belonging to T here: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map...#4/58.15/29.00

It appears that none of the samples on this map are confirmed T-M184 (xT1).
I am only aware of four confirmed T(xT1) samples - the one in Varna and three recently-related modern ones (two of which are south of the Caucasus).
T per se was present in Neolithic Levant, just as it was in Europe. (Indeed, my own calculations suggest that both phylogenic and STR diversities of various branches of T are higher in West Asia than in Europe.) All I am saying is that the T(xT1) reading could provide an explanation for its Levantine autosomal DNA.

[Angela]

The autosomal results are equally reliable; it's just that there are less of them, and the ones that there are match 50% with the Levantine Neolithic (just as is the case with another nearby contemporary sample with better coverage).


It appears that none of the samples on this map are confirmed T-M184 (xT1).
I am only aware of four confirmed T(xT1) samples - the one in Varna and three recently-related modern ones (two of which are south of the Caucasus).
T per se was present in Neolithic Levant, just as it was in Europe. (Indeed, my own calculations suggest that both phylogenic and STR diversities of various branches of T are higher in West Asia than in Europe.) All I am saying is that the T(xT1) reading could provide an explanation for its Levantine autosomal DNA.

These people were basically European farmers, which means they were mostly Anatolian farmer, which means they had a big chunk of Levantine Neolithic.

There is absolutely no evidence, none, that there was a different, later migration specifically from the Levant to this particular area, other than your speculations.

Fwiw, also, you don't seem to have absorbed the fact that the sample upon which you are basing your speculations is low coverage.

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Natufians -> their descendants seem really interested in being merchants/traders etc.

If you're situated between two great powers like those who formed on the Nile and across Mesopotamia it's a natural consequence - with Jews and Phoenicians especially ofc. Also being sedentary for the best period of agricultural history probably plays a role. That's right, I'm saying I'm more civilised than you

[Sile]

It appears that none of the samples on this map are confirmed T-M184 (xT1).
I am only aware of four confirmed T(xT1) samples - the one in Varna and three recently-related modern ones (two of which are south of the Caucasus).
T per se was present in Neolithic Levant, just as it was in Europe. (Indeed, my own calculations suggest that both phylogenic and STR diversities of various branches of T are higher in West Asia than in Europe.) All I am saying is that the T(xT1) reading could provide an explanation for its Levantine autosomal DNA.

It appears you do not understand that every T person must be known as M184 or its equivalent......there are 239 SNPs that represent M184
T ..... L452 * CTS11511/PF5582 * M184/PAGE34/USP9Y+3178/PAGES00034+239 SNPs formed 42600 ybp, TMRCA 26600 ybp
.
.
my M184 group below , even one snp is negative .................all of these SNP = M184
.

[Alpenjager]

The autosomal results are equally reliable; it's just that there are less of them, and the ones that there are match 50% with the Levantine Neolithic (just as is the case with another nearby contemporary sample with better coverage).


It appears that none of the samples on this map are confirmed T-M184 (xT1).
I am only aware of four confirmed T(xT1) samples - the one in Varna and three recently-related modern ones (two of which are south of the Caucasus).
T per se was present in Neolithic Levant, just as it was in Europe. (Indeed, my own calculations suggest that both phylogenic and STR diversities of various branches of T are higher in West Asia than in Europe.) All I am saying is that the T(xT1) reading could provide an explanation for its Levantine autosomal DNA.

The autosomal results are not equally reliable when they are extremely Low Coverage, So, you can find Low coverage individuals belonging to a same settlement showing "dramatic differences".

T(xT1) = T2-PH110 is found in Himalayas, Ngorno Karabakh, Georgia, Germany, Alsace and Palestina. Nagorno Karabakh and Georgia belongs to the same subranch, then the European samples are not closely related between them and the Himalayas sample belongs to a third or fourth group. The exact structure remains unknown because only a Bhutan sample has a deep test.

You have no need to do your own calculations, you can take a look into my T tree work (Im planning to do a major update "soon") here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-M184_tree.png

This T(xT1) can provide an explanation for any autosomal DNA because their origin is unknown but you can be sure, not far from the Black Sea.

[Pip]

These people were basically European farmers, which means they were mostly Anatolian farmer, which means they had a big chunk of Levantine Neolithic.

Plenty of European farmers, and indeed the oldest three samples at Varna, had no identifiable Levantine DNA.

There is absolutely no evidence, none, that there was a different, later migration specifically from the Levant to this particular area, other than your speculations.

Of course, there is no evidence of the specific migration routes that any individuals took 6,500 years ago. What I am saying is that some of samples at Varna best fit with Steppe, some with Tisza, some with the Levant - that the autosomal DNA there was diverse. This is data, not speculation.

Fwiw, also, you don't seem to have absorbed the fact that the sample upon which you are basing your speculations is low coverage.

It is important to absorb the distinction between low coverage and no coverage. Low coverage provides data; of course, people can shut their eyes to this data if they so choose.

[Pip]

It appears you do not understand that every T person must be known as M184 or its equivalent......there are 239 SNPs that represent M184

Of course I understand this. That is why I stated that the sample had positive calls for two T-equivalent SNPs.

[Angela]

Low coverage can provide faulty, misleading data. Does that really need to be said?

We have lots of archaeological proof for all the major migrations we discuss, whether it be the hunter-gatherers, the Anatolian farmers, or the steppe related people. Part of the controversy over the source of the Anatolian languages is that there is NO archaeological trail from the Balkans to Anatolia.

I know what the academics show, which is that Varna is a typical European farmer community, archaeologically and genetically, with some minority ancestry from "neighboring" groups. I have no idea where you get this distinction in terms of "Levantine" ancestry, but since it is based on analyzing a low coverage sample, I am unpersuaded. That's over and above the fact that I have yet to be convinced that most amateurs using these statistical tools know what the heck they're doing.

You want to believe it, believe it. Whatever floats your boat. People believe in alien abductions too to use an extreme example.

[Pip]

The autosomal results are not equally reliable when they are extremely Low Coverage, So, you can find Low coverage individuals belonging to a same settlement showing "dramatic differences".

They are equally reliable, but for a smaller quantity of data. If two samples show "dramatic differences", it is because these differences exist; it is not that we cannot rely on them being different, and they must be the same after all.

T(xT1) = T2-PH110 is found in Himalayas, Ngorno Karabakh, Georgia, Germany, Alsace and Palestina. Nagorno Karabakh and Georgia belongs to the same subranch, then the European samples are not closely related between them and the Himalayas sample belongs to a third or fourth group. The exact structure remains unknown because only a Bhutan sample has a deep test.

Where is the data to demonstrate this? I am aware of three T(xT1) samples, with a recent TMRCA.
As you say there is a PH110 sample in Palestine,how can you be so sure as to state that "T-M184 (x T1) is not in anyway a Levantine lineage"?

You have no need to do your own calculations, you can take a look into my T tree work (Im planning to do a major update "soon") here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-M184_tree.png

Thanks for this - it is very interesting, and well-constructed.

I note that the geographical area connecting both of your basal branches of T is Syria-Eastern Anatolia circa 40,000 BC, although this is not really the point of the thread, which is to assess the likely genetic roots of the immediate ancestors of the Varna king who lived 35,000 years later - his specific yDNA, which does not look typical of the region, is but a small part of this puzzle.

[Pip]

Low coverage can provide faulty, misleading data. Does that really need to be said?

Not to me. Any data can be faulty. Any data can mislead if misinterpreted. Sometimes, it seems that this does need to be said.

I know what the academics show, which is that Varna is a typical European farmer community, archaeologically and genetically, with some minority ancestry from "neighboring" groups.

You speak of academics as if they were a separate superior species. If we cannot hold any opinion unless the academics already hold it, what is the point of us all discussing anything on this forum?

Varna does not appear to have been a typical European farmer community, at least genetically; and unlike other European farmer communities, it's minority ancestry does not seem to have come from 'neighbouring' groups, but from peoples as far away as the Southern Levant and the Caspian Steppe.

I have no idea where you get this distinction in terms of "Levantine" ancestry, but since it is based on analyzing a low coverage sample, I am unpersuaded. That's over and above the fact that I have yet to be convinced that most amateurs using these statistical tools know what the heck they're doing.

Of course there is a distinction between Levantine and other DNA, and I get this distinction by looking at where these typically differ. Are you suggesting that there is no distinction between typical Levantine and typical Anatolian DNA, and that the two are exactly the same? I would not be convinced by this; but then I am not on this forum to be convinced or to convince anyone else, but just to exchange data and ideas.

You want to believe it, believe it. Whatever floats your boat. People believe in alien abductions too to use an extreme example.

I don't believe in anything in particular. I am merely freely exchanging and discussing data that I come across. If you would rather not engage in such a process, and prefer instead to sit waiting in the hope that pearls of wisdom might be passed down to you from the academic gods on high, fine; whatever floats your boat.

[Sile]

They are equally reliable, but for a smaller quantity of data. If two samples show "dramatic differences", it is because these differences exist; it is not that we cannot rely on them being different, and they must be the same after all.
Where is the data to demonstrate this? I am aware of three T(xT1) samples, with a recent TMRCA.
As you say there is a PH110 sample in Palestine,how can you be so sure as to state that "T-M184 (x T1) is not in anyway a Levantine lineage"?
Thanks for this - it is very interesting, and well-constructed.
I note that the geographical area connecting both of your basal branches of T is Syria-Eastern Anatolia circa 40,000 BC, although this is not really the point of the thread, which is to assess the likely genetic roots of the immediate ancestors of the Varna king who lived 35,000 years later - his specific yDNA, which does not look typical of the region, is but a small part of this puzzle.

i only know of 3 x T-PH110 samples...germany, armenia and bhutan

.
the only levantine sample I have seen which is T is T-Pages0011 from T1a1 branch

[Salento]

… You have no need to do your own calculations, you can take a look into my T tree work (Im planning to do a major update "soon") here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-M184_tree.png

Hi Alpenjager, about the y T tree major update:

is the T1a2 line changing to T1a1(x), or is it going to remain the same ? :)

[Angela]

Now I've heard everything: a sample missing a good chunk of the necessary alleles is just as reliable as a very high coverage one.

[Pip]

Now I've heard everything: a sample missing a good chunk of the necessary alleles is just as reliable as a very high coverage one.

Now I've heard everything: some alleles are necessary, and some unnecessary.
Perhaps we could ask Mr Reich to provide a list of which are the necessary alleles, so that we can ignore any data about the unnecessary ones?

[Pip]

i only know of 3 x T-PH110 samples...germany, armenia and bhutan

the only levantine sample I have seen which is T is T-Pages0011 from T1a1 branch

It's veering off the point a bit, but how reliable is PH110 as an indicator of T(xT1)? FTDNA has the Iraqi 534029 as PH110+ and T1-L206+

What data do we have on the Bhutan sample, and how do we know it is not T1+ like 534029?

As far as I can see, we only have 3 T(xT1) confirmed modern samples (in Armenia, Georgia and Germany) that all branch away from each other at a similar 2,000 BC date, setting their MRCA's most likely 2,000 BC origin point in the Western Caucasus. The only other confirmed T(xT1) is the Varna king 4,500 BC with its Natufian autosomals.

Based on the very limited data that we have, T(xT1) looks most likely West Asian to me, as you would expect of a haplogroup whose other basal branch also coalesces to West Asia.

[Sile]

It's veering off the point a bit, but how reliable is PH110 as an indicator of T(xT1)? FTDNA has the Iraqi 534029 as PH110+ and T1-L206+
What data do we have on the Bhutan sample, and how do we know it is not T1+ like 534029?
As far as I can see, we only have 3 T(xT1) confirmed modern samples (in Armenia, Georgia and Germany) that all branch away from each other at a similar 2,000 BC date, setting their MRCA's most likely 2,000 BC origin point in the Western Caucasus. The only other confirmed T(xT1) is the Varna king 4,500 BC with its Natufian autosomals.
Based on the very limited data that we have, T(xT1) looks most likely West Asian to me, as you would expect of a haplogroup whose other basal branch also coalesces to West Asia.

3 x neolithic in karsdorf germany
2 x neolitihc in malek bulgaria
I do not see where you say only 3 ...........when the above are all in the 5000BC period...........there is no T origin south of the zargos mountain range, ...its cousin L is also north
i am afraid to say there are another 10 you missed out which are older than 2000BC
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map...#4/58.15/29.00
all confirmed M184 or one of the 239 SNP which is equivalent to M184
.
.
BTW, what are you trying to prove ....?.......that all ancient samples are missing SNP of "origin"

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I'm almost certain these were Upper Mesopotamians of some sort rather than Levantines, but I'm short on time so I'll come back to it later.

[Pip]

3 x neolithic in karsdorf germany
2 x neolitihc in malek bulgaria
I do not see where you say only 3 ...........when the above are all in the 5000BC period...........there is no T origin south of the zargos mountain range, ...its cousin L is also north
i am afraid to say there are another 10 you missed out which are older than 2000BC
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map...#4/58.15/29.00
all confirmed M184 or one of the 239 SNP which is equivalent to M184
.
.
BTW, what are you trying to prove ....?.......that all ancient samples are missing SNP of "origin"

I'm not trying to prove anything particularly - I don't have an agenda.
The older samples here are all T1, not T(xT1).
When I looked at T a while ago, the greatest phylogenic range and diversity of samples was clearly in West Asia. Bearers of T look to have been amongst the people who moved up into Europe during the Neolithic.

[Angela]

Now I've heard everything: some alleles are necessary, and some unnecessary.
Perhaps we could ask Mr Reich to provide a list of which are the necessary alleles, so that we can ignore any data about the unnecessary ones?

Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.

[Pip]

Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.

There are different degrees of coverage on all ancient samples; none are perfect. That doesn't mean to say we should ignore all of them. The parts of the data that are retrievable can be relied upon. That is why academics publish low coverage data, instead of binning it.

When the police find a partial fingerprint at a crime scene, they don't throw it out. It can be used as evidence. Indeed, most fingerprints found at crime scenes are partial. Perhaps ask someone in forensics and you'll find out how it works.

[Pip]

Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.

If you are concerned about newbies, you might like to consider whether calling posters 'clueless' is really a good way of encouraging newbies to participate in this forum.