PDA

View Full Version : Paleolithic Caucasus=UHG+Basal Eurasian+MA1



Fire Haired14
22-11-15, 03:32
This tree makes the most sense to me.

The most important information i want to give across is.

There's a lot more diversity in West Asia than we thought previously. The idea we had since Laz 2013, that all EEF and modern West Asians derive mostly from the same close-knit "ENF"(UHG+Basal Eurasian) population doesn't make sense anymore.

According to D-stats EEF is slightly closer to WHG than to CHG and modern West Asians. Bedouin are equally close to CHG and WHG according to D-stats. F3-drift stats from Jones 2015 showed EEF only has slightly more drift with CHG than with WHG.

IMO, the reason for this is the admixture between UHG+Basal Eurasian occurred a very long time ago. There's differnt types of Basal Eurasian and UHG. The UHG in EEF in particular is very related to European WHGs. I suspect that there was immigration from European Ice age refugees into Anatolia which can explain such admixture in EEF.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6679&stc=1

Mystery Eurasian contributing to proto-MA1 and proto-Dai is supported by.
(Kostienki WHG/MA1; Dai/Onge Chimp)<0
(Kostienki WHG/MA1; Ust-Ishim Chimp)=0

Kostienki and proto-MA1 in same Western branch is supported by
(Ust-Ishim/East Asian MA1; Kostenki Chimp)<0
(Ust-Ishim/East Asian Kostenki; MA1 Chimp)<0

proto-MA1 and proto-Kostienki admixture in WHG is supported by.
(Kostienki WHG; MA1 Chimp)<0
(MA1 WHG; Kostienki Chimp)<0

Basal Eurasian admixture in CHG and EEF is supported by.
(CHG/EEF MA1; Ust-Ishim Chimp)<0
(CHG/EEF Kostenki; Ust-Ishim Chimp)<0

WHG admixture in CHG and EEF is supported by.
(MA1 WHG; CHG/EEF Chimp)<0
(Kostenki WHG; CHG/EEF Chimp)<0

MA1-related admixture in CHG is supported by.
((EEF WHG; Ust-Ishim Chimp)-(CHG WHG; Ust-Ishim Chimp))+(EEF CHG; MA1 Chimp)<0
(WHG EHG; CHG Chimp)<0
(MA1 WHG; CHG Chimp)<(MA1 WHG; Armenian Chimp)<(MA1 WHG; EEF Chimp)
(EEF CHG; MA1 Chimp)<0

WHG admixture more related to European WHGs(Loschbour, Bichon) in EEF than in CHG is supported by.
F3(Kotais EEF; WHG)=.1+(Very significantly more drift)
(((EEF WHG; Ust-Ishim Chimp)-(CHG WHG; Ust-Ishim Chimp))+(Mbuti CHG; EuroWHG Chimp))-(Mbuti EEF; EuroWHG Chimp)=0.025+(pretty significant).

bicicleur
22-11-15, 12:00
at first sight the genome of a human is defined more or less by his Y and his mtDNA
but we know that neanderthal Y and mtDNA are extinct, but not their autosomal DNA
we could say there is a 'Neanderthal substrate'
at first sight one could identify WHF with haplo I, ANE with P, CHG with J and even EEF with G or a mixture of G and I
all these haplos are subclades of F and they conquered Eurasia somewhere 40.000 years ago
but before that Eurasia was populated by other people, not only Neanderthals or Denisovans but also by haplo A (> 80 ka in SW China) , D and C , all of them forming a substrate before the subclades of F arrived

Angela
22-11-15, 14:38
Until we have ancient genomes from further east and from India I don't think we're going to have any clarity. I'm also waiting to see the Lazaridis paper and the results from the Maykop analysis.

I applaud the dedication and hard work of the people working on these analyses, but we have seen how some conclusions previously reached have been proved to be incorrect once new dna was available.

More generally, as Bicicleur's post indicated, we're talking here about groups once related and then separated in some cases for tens of thousands of years. To totally disentangle the precise degrees of relationship may not be possible.

As to the EEF specifically, Lazaridis et al never, to my knowledge, stated that they were identical, just that they formed a relatively homogenous group. You could see in Gamba et al that they were not identical. Some minor differences were to be expected. As to the ethnogenesis of the West Asians, that was never discussed in Lazaridis et al or in Haak et al. That was done by genome bloggers, as were the calculators which were supposed to be extensions of Lazaridis and Haak, and all of which has largely been proven to be incorrect now that we have more ancient genomes.

In terms of the "UHG" portion of the Anatolian farmers, I'll wait, as I said, for the Lazaridis paper and any even older genomes from the Levant, should they become available, and see what they have to say. The separation between the WHG and the populations in the Near East took place 40,000 years ago, 40,000 years of new mutations, drift etc. A population similar to them may have remained in the western parts of the Near East. We just don't know yet.

As to the EEF being slightly closer to WHG than to CHG, if that is indeed the case, I don't know why that would be a surprise. They picked up 10-11% WHG upon their initial arrival in Europe. Is that enough to affect the stats?

There is also indeed some yDna "I" in Anatolia from the early reports. However, to my knowledge there is no evidence in archaeology for any back migrnation from Europe to the Near East of any WHG like population. Of course it's possible there was a minor one.Their total contribution may have been similarly minor, but when added to the 10% picked up in Europe may be affecting the stats. Autosomally, they are just like the other Anatolian farmers.

Also, are those yDna "I" samples sufficiently resolved that we know how "old" they are? Could they be some remnant of the population that moved to Europe long before?

Anyway, as I said, until we have more data this is all guesswork.

bicicleur
22-11-15, 15:41
people would have survived LGM in the coastal areas of the Aegean See and the coastal areas of Albania and Montenegro
there are sites known in Albania, Greece and it seems also in Ionia, west-Anatolia
furhtermore some coastal areas were dry land during LGM and are now flooded by the sea
2 caves in Greece : Franchthi, occupied since 20 ka, Theopetra occupied since 24 ka
this could mark the arrival of haplo I in that area, maybe from the tundras further north

furthermore when forest started to grow in Europe there were some cultures spreading all over : Azilian, Sauveterrian, Tardenoisian
these tribes seem to have roamed the forests in very small bands till they found some proper place to settle, mostly along water, where they could combine fishing, hunting and gathering
Motala is typical such a place and it strikes me what a diversity of subclades was found there

a 3rd possibility is these people came from north of the Black Sea, but in view of the recently published CHC DNA I suspect these people would rather have been haplo J

first neolithic people arrived in NW Anatolia 8.6 ka, they were more herders than farmers
they had catlle and ovicaprids, no pigs
around the same time these or related people introduced cattle at the Catal Hoyuk area, these people probably crossed Anatolia by land with their cattle
before their arrival there were HG on the NW Anatolian coasts
7.8 ka Cardial Ware people arrived at the NW Anatolian coasts
they introduced pigs

Fire Haired14
23-11-15, 05:03
Bichon the new WHG person is very good evidence WHG were the Magdalenian and Solutrean people, the people who repopulated most of Europe after the Ice age. WHGs from 8,000 years ago have AFIAK as close a relationship to Bichon(13,700yo) as to each other. And this relationship is extremely close. It was closer than to EEFs had with each other.

Bichon belonged to Azilian which is descended from Magdalenian. The close relationship WHGs have is consistent with descending from the same small population who mixed with each other for 1,000s of years. The pre-Ice age people were probably also very WHG-like, but I think a lot of WHG drift came during the Ice age.

bicicleur
23-11-15, 09:09
it looks like both I and J were in Europe during LGM but they never made contact

Greying Wanderer
24-11-15, 05:18
yes. if people like eskimo can survive on an ice sheet as long as they are next to the sea i'd expect the same thing happened during the LGM - but most of the LGM coastal areas are underwater

bicicleur
24-11-15, 08:58
Bichon the new WHG person is very good evidence WHG were the Magdalenian and Solutrean people, the people who repopulated most of Europe after the Ice age. WHGs from 8,000 years ago have AFIAK as close a relationship to Bichon(13,700yo) as to each other. And this relationship is extremely close. It was closer than to EEFs had with each other.

Bichon belonged to Azilian which is descended from Magdalenian. The close relationship WHGs have is consistent with descending from the same small population who mixed with each other for 1,000s of years. The pre-Ice age people were probably also very WHG-like, but I think a lot of WHG drift came during the Ice age.

not Europe, western Europe, we don't have anciant engouh DNA for eastern Europe yet
I expect I in north eastern Europe and J in south eastern Europe

epoch
24-11-15, 10:14
Until we have ancient genomes from further east and from India I don't think we're going to have any clarity. I'm also waiting to see the Lazaridis paper and the results from the Maykop analysis.

I applaud the dedication and hard work of the people working on these analyses, but we have seen how some conclusions previously reached have been proved to be incorrect once new dna was available.

More generally, as Bicicleur's post indicated, we're talking here about groups once related and then separated in some cases for tens of thousands of years. To totally disentangle the precise degrees of relationship may not be possible.

As to the EEF specifically, Lazaridis et al never, to my knowledge, stated that they were identical, just that they formed a relatively homogenous group. You could see in Gamba et al that they were not identical. Some minor differences were to be expected. As to the ethnogenesis of the West Asians, that was never discussed in Lazaridis et al or in Haak et al. That was done by genome bloggers, as were the calculators which were supposed to be extensions of Lazaridis and Haak, and all of which has largely been proven to be incorrect now that we have more ancient genomes.

In terms of the "UHG" portion of the Anatolian farmers, I'll wait, as I said, for the Lazaridis paper and any even older genomes from the Levant, should they become available, and see what they have to say. The separation between the WHG and the populations in the Near East took place 40,000 years ago, 40,000 years of new mutations, drift etc. A population similar to them may have remained in the western parts of the Near East. We just don't know yet.

As to the EEF being slightly closer to WHG than to CHG, if that is indeed the case, I don't know why that would be a surprise. They picked up 10-11% WHG upon their initial arrival in Europe. Is that enough to affect the stats?

There is also indeed some yDna "I" in Anatolia from the early reports. However, to my knowledge there is no evidence in archaeology for any back migrnation from Europe to the Near East of any WHG like population. Of course it's possible there was a minor one.Their total contribution may have been similarly minor, but when added to the 10% picked up in Europe may be affecting the stats. Autosomally, they are just like the other Anatolian farmers.

Also, are those yDna "I" samples sufficiently resolved that we know how "old" they are? Could they be some remnant of the population that moved to Europe long before?

Anyway, as I said, until we have more data this is all guesswork.

Well, they base this on D-stats. That is pretty straightforward, far more relevant than calculators. Even ADMIXTURE, which uses an algorithm to find it's populations rather than use predefined ones, has its limits with ancient genomes. The D-stats however simply compare. Thus simple statements can be made and step by step conclusions can be drawn. I think this looks better than the amateur calculators. Mind you, these tools are the one from the Reich lab.