Early Levantine adventurers

The "separate" farming groups of the Near East didn't stay separate for long. The first Anatolian farmers who came to Europe already had "Natufian" like ancestry, and the beginnings of Zagros ancestry too.

Succeeding waves carried more Caucasus like ancestry.

There's also the fact that the Greek Neolithic was a bit different.

In the Near East, everyone mixed. Caucasus like ancestry moved south and west, and Anatolian like ancestry moved north and east. Yes, there's a cline, with Caucasus like ancestry increasing as you go north, but Anatolian like ancestry made it all the way to the Armenians.

As for places like Iraq, there were large tribal movements into it in the Muslim period, and into Jordan, so things changed again.

If you're getting this stronger "Levantine" signal based on amateur analysis I would be very wary. The academics have analyzed them, and personally I would stick with that.

There is either no or very little Natufian content in the vast majority of early European samples.

What have the academics said about the Levantine signals attached to these particular samples? Have they analysed the Levantine content and come up with a different answer? If they have, I would be interested to see it. If they have not, then I see no good reason to dispute it, particularly as one of the samples has a Middle Eastern yDNA lineage.
 
Levantine Neolithic people appear to have left isolated traces of offspring in various parts of Europe, whilst having little overall genetic impact on early European populations. However, their DNA appears in some of the most striking archaeological samples, so might their impact have outweighed their genetic contributions?
As an example, the Varna chief ANI152 buried c. 4,500 BC with the largest horde of gold ever found in an ancient grave. His DNA looks 50:50 Levantine:East European; his yDNA T(xT1) Levantine; his mtDNA U2 steppic. Given his phylogeny, his autosomal mix and the cross-datings between Varna samples, I would best-estimate his genetic ancestry as something along these lines -
Great great grandparents (father's side) - all Levantine (including yDNA source).
Great great grandparents (mother's side) - Romanian Tisza x 6, and Ukrainian Neolithic x 1 mixed with SC Steppe Khvalynsk (including mtDNA source, R1b-derived) x 1.
How and why might ANI152's paternal ancestor/s have migrated to Bulgaria all the way from the Levant?
How might such an outsider of diverse ethnicity as him have achieved such high status and acquired such wealth in Varna?
(Additional features of note:
1. ANI152's maternal ancestral best-fit sources help trace a possible SW movement of Khvalynsk/Suvorovo through Ukraine and Romania
2. It shows Khvalynsk/Suvorovo as likely admixing, rather than exclusively raiding and conflicting
3. It suggests that westwards-migrating steppic lineages were not exclusively males mating with local females, but also females mating with local males.
4. It identfies Varna as a likely ethnic melting pot.)
this place is not far from Varna .....2 x T ydna there also
https://www.academia.edu/2701415/Ma...ric_Studies_1_Budapest_L_Harmattan_2013_29-34
.
that place connects with the iron gates
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites...iles/inline-files/nature25778_Mathieson_2.pdf
 
There is either no or very little Natufian content in the vast majority of early European samples.

What have the academics said about the Levantine signals attached to these particular samples? Have they analysed the Levantine content and come up with a different answer? If they have, I would be interested to see it. If they have not, then I see no good reason to dispute it, particularly as one of the samples has a Middle Eastern yDNA lineage.

Mathiesen et al analyzed those samples.

This is an excerpt from the Admixture analysis.
aut3png_aaqnqsx.png


You can find the whole thing on page 18 here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/19/135616.full.pdf

This is the latest list of y calls of which I'm aware. The complete list is in the paper.
TGHOSEE6p_aaqnsqn.png


Even if the Varna chief carried a "T" ydna that is not a "Near Eastern" y dna, or at least not any more so than all the G2a.

No academic has ever proposed that there was a specific "Levantine" migration to Europe during these periods. The Anatolian farmers who came to Europe had some "Levantine" admixture, whether they came from sources closer to modern day Syria or northwestern Anatolia, but that's it.

ADMIXTURE.png
 
Mathiesen et al analyzed those samples.

This is an excerpt from the Admixture analysis.
aut3png_aaqnqsx.png


You can find the whole thing on page 18 here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/19/135616.full.pdf

This is the latest list of y calls of which I'm aware. The complete list is in the paper.
TGHOSEE6p_aaqnsqn.png


Even if the Varna chief carried a "T" ydna that is not a "Near Eastern" y dna, or at least not any more so than all the G2a.

No academic has ever proposed that there was a specific "Levantine" migration to Europe during these periods. The Anatolian farmers who came to Europe had some "Levantine" admixture, whether they came from sources closer to modern day Syria or northwestern Anatolia, but that's it.

ADMIXTURE.png

Quite typically for academic studies, these analyses look pretty limited:

1. There is no separate identification of Natufian DNA; consequently, we cannot ascertain the extent to which the Levant N DNA in Neolithic Europe is simply Anatolian DNA, rather than indigenous Levant proper. When you separate out Natufian, you see there is little or no trace of it in most early European samples, with some notable exceptions (ANI152 being a prime example).

2. There is only the vague identification of ANI152's yDNA as CT, when he has also been found positive for F and two T-equivalent SNPs (Y3804 and Z7767). His specific identification as T(xT1) does not look European, nor present in G2a Neolithic populations, and could explain his Levantine/Natufian components.

3. There is no identification of his mtDNA (U2), which could explain his Steppe component.

When academics carry out insufficient analysis of a significant sample like ANI152 to determine the extent of its Levantine ancestry, it is unsurprising that none have proposed an early Levantine migration to Europe.

(By the way, from what I have seen, there seems to have been relatively little diffusion of Neolithic Levantine DNA into Anatolia; the autosomal drift between these two populations looks to have been mainly in the opposite direction.)
 
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 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.
 
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/haplogroup-t-m184-ancient-samples-adna_300741#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")
 
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/haplogroup-t-m184-ancient-samples-adna_300741#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.
 
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.
 
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 :LOL:
 
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
.
 
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/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Phylogenetic_T-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Phylogenetic_T-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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.:rolleyes:
 

This thread has been viewed 22168 times.

Back
Top