Basal Eurasian Question

Twilight

Regular Member
Messages
956
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Location
Clinton, Washington
Ethnic group
15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
mtDNA haplogroup
J1c7a
So apparently according to the new Mtdna X Page, Mtdna N1,N2,X and W were considered Basal Eurasian Haplogroups. Yet it appears that Mtdna N1,N2,X and W were dominate in early farmers/Natufians. Is Maciamo saying that the Natufians culture was 100% Basal Eurasian?
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/8000BCE-haplogroups.png
 
I wonder if Basal Eurasians left only their mtDNA as proof of their existence ... maybe they were a female dominated culture, it doesn't seem that the Basal in Iran Neolithic and Natufians were that much differentiated and they existed in similar frequenceis, that suggests a recent admixture imo.

I really hope they find the population that corresponds to them soon, that will be the greatest discovery in population genetics ever.
 
A nice map

MtDNA_haplogroup_tree_and_distribution_map.gif
 
I wonder if Basal Eurasians left only their mtDNA as proof of their existence ... maybe they were a female dominated culture, it doesn't seem that the Basal in Iran Neolithic and Natufians were that much differentiated and they existed in similar frequenceis, that suggests a recent admixture imo.
I really hope they find the population that corresponds to them soon, that will be the greatest discovery in population genetics ever.

the Basal Eurasians are older than any Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup, but some of them must have gotten admixed with Basal Eurasian and others not
 
what haplos are found in the light blue Central Asia?

None were exclusively labeled to central Asia, I think its light blue to indicate commonality between East,South, and West Eurasia. The blue ones are West Eurasians
 
We know Natufians were only partly Basal Eurasian. Hotu is the sample with the most Basal Eurasian. Natufians and Iran Neo were similar in terms of percentages.

It was in the Lazaridis paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310

This is an open access version:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/pdf/nihms-804247.pdf

We discussed it in the thread here about the Melinda Yang paper, where we came to the conclusion that they just have a typo in there about which group has the most.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...sing-Ancient-Genomes?highlight=Basal+Eurasian
 
Last edited:
what haplos are found in the light blue Central Asia?

Really, is the Mt-DNA of East Siberians mostly West Eurasian? Or are they considering "Russians" as the entire country from the Baltic to the Pacific?
 
We know Natufians were only partly Basal Eurasian. If my memory serves, Hotu is the sample with the most Basal Eurasian. Natufians and Iran Neo were similar in terms of percentages.

Yes thats right, half of their ancestry is Basal and the other two is something related to WHG in the case of Natufians, and something descended from Ancient North Eurasians in the case of Iran Neo.

An important question to ask is who colonized the Near East first ? BEu or the other two groups ? we demand ancient dna from the paleolithic Near East !!!
 
Alright this is a daring hypothesis: N1,N2 and X are Basal Eurasian in origin, while H,V,J,T,U are WHG, UHG, and EHG in origin.

bicicleur is going to kill me :) sorry man but I can't accept that they left no mtDNA and Y-DNA but we only inherited their autosomal, I find that very unlikely.
 
Alright this is a daring hypothesis: N1,N2 and X are Basal Eurasian in origin, while H,V,J,T,U are WHG, UHG, and EHG in origin.

bicicleur is going to kill me :) sorry man but I can't accept that they left no mtDNA and Y-DNA but we only inherited their autosomal, I find that very unlikely.

Basal Eurasians split from non-Africans earlier than 45 ka Usht-Ishim.
There are not so many options left.
 
Yes thats right, half of their ancestry is Basal and the other two is something related to WHG in the case of Natufians, and something descended from Ancient North Eurasians in the case of Iran Neo.

that seems to be correct, but can you provide me the source where you got that info?
 
that seems to be correct, but can you provide me the source where you got that info?

See post N. 7.

Jovialis posted this in the Melinda Yang thread:

Here's an excerpt from the original source:

ickCdsG.png
 
Some more from Lazaridis:

"West Eurasians harbour significantly less Neanderthal ancestry than East Asians19-21, whichcould be explained if West Eurasians (but not East Asians) have partial ancestry from asource diluting their Neanderthal inheritance22. Supporting this theory, we observe anegative correlation between Basal Eurasian ancestry and the rate of shared alleles withNeanderthals19 (Supplementary Information, section 5; Fig. 2). By extrapolation, we inferthat the Basal Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasianpopulations and possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of0-60%; Fig. 2; Methods). The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasianscould be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans 50,000-60,000 yearsago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.It is striking that the highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East,given the hypothesis that it was there that most admixture between Neanderthals and modernhumans occurred19,23. This could be explained if Basal Eurasians thoroughly admixed intothe Near East before the time of the samples we analyzed but after the Neanderthaladmixture. Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the NearEast, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthaladmixture"

"A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausiblylived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians andpopulations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Ychromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithicpopulations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not beendetected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genomewideanalysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufiansthan with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link topresent-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration fromEurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestryinto the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in theNatufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in theNeolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations(Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of theNatufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancientDNA from north Africa. "

This is why I started to consider perhaps a movement from India into Mesopotamia and then a spread from there.
 
that seems to be correct, but can you provide me the source where you got that info?
From Lazaridis et al (2016) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
Supplementary information page 34:

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:
XYf4(Iran_N,Natufian;X,Y)Z
EHGMbuti0.002043.4
WHGMbuti-0.00241-4.3
WHGEHG-0.00441-8.9
The statistic f4(Iran_N, Iran_HotuIIIb; EHG, Mbuti) = -0.00199 (Z=-2.4) 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.

14avas9.jpg
 
Some more from Lazaridis:

"West Eurasians harbour significantly less Neanderthal ancestry than East Asians19-21, whichcould be explained if West Eurasians (but not East Asians) have partial ancestry from asource diluting their Neanderthal inheritance22. Supporting this theory, we observe anegative correlation between Basal Eurasian ancestry and the rate of shared alleles withNeanderthals19 (Supplementary Information, section 5; Fig. 2). By extrapolation, we inferthat the Basal Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasianpopulations and possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of0-60%; Fig. 2; Methods). The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasianscould be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans 50,000-60,000 yearsago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.It is striking that the highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East,given the hypothesis that it was there that most admixture between Neanderthals and modernhumans occurred19,23. This could be explained if Basal Eurasians thoroughly admixed intothe Near East before the time of the samples we analyzed but after the Neanderthaladmixture. Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the NearEast, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthaladmixture"

"A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausiblylived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians andpopulations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Ychromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithicpopulations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not beendetected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genomewideanalysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufiansthan with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link topresent-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration fromEurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestryinto the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in theNatufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in theNeolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations(Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of theNatufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancientDNA from north Africa. "

This is why I started to consider perhaps a movement from India into Mesopotamia and then a spread from there.

I think there is discontinuity between pre-LGM and post-LGM SW Asia.
During LGM populations from the Nile delta (E), the Indusdelta/India (H2, G + Basal Eurasian admixture) and Transcaucasia (J) mixed there.
It would explain a lot, but not the observed ancestry between Iran neo and EHG at one hand and between Natufian and WHG on the other hand.
 
I think there is discontinuity between pre-LGM and post-LGM SW Asia.
During LGM populations from the Nile delta (E), the Indusdelta/India (H2, G + Basal Eurasian admixture) and Transcaucasia (J) mixed there.
It would explain a lot, but not the observed ancestry between Iran neo and EHG at one hand and between Natufian and WHG on the other hand.

Couldn't movement back and forth across the Caucasus, or perhaps further east explain the admixture in the Northern Near East?

We now have two J1 in the far northeast who don't seem to have any Basal Eurasian, yes?
 
I dont understand how between Vindija, Mezmeskaya and Altai, the third have given none ancestry to modern humans, how East Asian can be more Neanderthal than West Eurasians. Are they put Homo Denisova in the same level as Neanderthal, or are Oase related people, really some ancestors of East Asians ? It's all very weird, apparently the neanderthal input in sapiens is near Vindija and Mezmeskaya, a little more from the latter, so are we talking about a ghost neanderthal population for heritage in sapiens ? Maybe some unidentified Siberian Neanderthals, dont know...
 
Couldn't movement back and forth across the Caucasus, or perhaps further east explain the admixture in the Northern Near East?

We now have two J1 in the far northeast who don't seem to have any Basal Eurasian, yes?

Haplogroups J and R appeared both in Neolithic Iran and Caucasus, and north in the Steppe and Baltic, and EHG is the shared ancestry between them, J1 didn't seem to have Basal, so is it blasphemous to say that haplogroup J is actually EHG that moved south ?
 
Haplogroups J and R appeared both in Neolithic Iran and Caucasus, and north in the Steppe and Baltic, and EHG is the shared ancestry between them, J1 didn't seem to have Basal, so is it blasphemous to say that haplogroup J is actually EHG that moved south ?

I've been thinking about that too, whether IJ might have split north of the Caucasus somewhere. That, or those "I" lines went north before Basal Eurasian showed up, or the BE just got diluted to nothing through successive mating.

I haven't checked dates of those clades or anything like that; just idle musing.

Bicicleur might have a better handle on it.
 

This thread has been viewed 14525 times.

Back
Top