PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Egyptian dna-Kraus et al



Angela
14-03-17, 03:30
All we have so far is the abstract, but the paper will be out shortly.

Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods

Krause et al.

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

So, I guess the "ancient mummies are from around 1300 BC to the Common Era.

If the paper proves what is in the abstract, I don't see anything too surprising here. Egypt experience an influx of farmers from the Middle East, and then in this period they're discussing you have a new influx with the Hyksos, and other historically attested movements like the Sea Peoples. To that would be added the large numbers of Greeks who made their home especially in the Delta area around their city of Alexandria.

I think a lot of people have speculated that the the Arab slave trade would have brought more SSA into Egypt, perhaps showing up in a hierarchical order, with more of it in the lower classes. Unlike many people I'm not so sure it was all West African. They also imported a lot of women slaves from East Africa from what I remember.

I hope they rather quickly publish anything they have on Old Dynasty Egypt and we can see what it was like at that time. I have a hunch it was more SSA. We have SSA yDna in Pharoahs, and the Nubian dynasty as well.

I wonder if Copts will be the closest to the first millennium BC Egyptians?

davef
14-03-17, 05:18
OH MAN I am feing euphoric at the moment! I've been WAITING for a study done on Ancient Egyptian dna for who knows how long and now it's here! Thank you for posting this !!!

Also looking forward to Ancient Greek dna samples.

davef
14-03-17, 05:20
Grrrrrr come on people !!! Release the paper!!!! I'm dying to see it!

Cindy90
14-03-17, 07:24
Wow. This is really exciting!

Maciamo
14-03-17, 08:52
Sounds interesting, especially since Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty (1189-1077 BCE) belong to the Sub-Saharan African E1b1a. That would mean that common folk were Near Eastern-like, but the ruling elite at the time were of SSA ancestry. Of course that's juts one dynasty, so it doesn't mean much. We'll see.

bicicleur
14-03-17, 09:42
The Third Intermediate Period of Ancient Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) began with the death of Pharaoh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh) Ramesses XI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_XI) in 1070 BC

that is after the invasion of the Hyksos and the Sea Peoples

Fire Haired14
14-03-17, 11:23
The paper won't be out soon. Usually takes at least a year to be published after it is made public.

ngc598
14-03-17, 14:54
Sounds interesting, especially since Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty (1189-1077 BCE) belong to the Sub-Saharan African E1b1a. That would mean that common folk were Near Eastern-like, but the ruling elite at the time were of SSA ancestry. Of course that's juts one dynasty, so it doesn't mean much. We'll see.
His father Sethnacht likely was a commoner with unclear circumstances of his coming into power. There were some years of lawnessness during Tauseret's reign and he managed somehow to first co-rule and then pretty fast succeeding her after two years. So SSA lineages were not necessarily the elite during that time.

Alan
14-03-17, 20:13
I hope they rather quickly publish anything they have on Old Dynasty Egypt and we can see what it was like at that time. I have a hunch it was more SSA. We have SSA yDna in Pharoahs, and the Nubian dynasty as well.

I wonder if Copts will be the closest to the first millennium BC Egyptians?






There is actually one SSA kinda yDNA in the pharoahs and it is E1b1a. But by now we should know how yDNA can be misleading. Contrary I expect that the Old Dynasty Egyptians will be even less SSA and more like Levant_Neo or Natufians. And with time Nubian admixture should have effected them.

I expect that we will see an increase of SSA admixture during the Nubian period in South Egypt and in late Egypt during the Slave trade and later Islamic expansion.

Alan
14-03-17, 20:14
Sounds interesting, especially since Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty (1189-1077 BCE) belong to the Sub-Saharan African E1b1a. That would mean that common folk were Near Eastern-like, but the ruling elite at the time were of SSA ancestry. Of course that's juts one dynasty, so it doesn't mean much. We'll see.

The sequenced samples in this study are of royal background as far as I remember.
yDNA can always be misleading even in modern Egypt there are like ~10% E1b1a.

What this study basically shows and what most people without an Eurocentric or Afrocentric agenda should have known is.

modern Egypt ~ ancient Egypt.

less SSA doesn't mean there was a lack of it, just that it was less. But I expect some variation from dynasty to dynasty and region to region.

Angela
14-03-17, 20:39
The Third Intermediate Period of Ancient Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) began with the death of Pharaoh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh) Ramesses XI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_XI) in 1070 BC

that is after the invasion of the Hyksos and the Sea Peoples

So the samples are from 1070 BC forward, and after the Hyksos and Sea Peoples, but also after the time of Rameses III and his SSA yDna, yes? Interesting.

As others have said, in either case it's elite people, so the common people could be different.

I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day that some of these questions would be answered.

bicicleur
14-03-17, 22:25
As others have said, in either case it's elite people, so the common people could be different.

I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day that some of these questions would be answered.

wikipedia learns already something about the rulers .. Lybians and Nubians

I guess, originaly in Egypt, the common people were in majority Natufians coming from the Levant, as it was them who introduced agriculture in Northern Africa

holderlin
30-05-17, 20:49
I posted a thread, then was alerted to the initial discussion on the abstract


First Genomes from Ancient Egypt

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Check it out.

Very little SSA compared to modern Egyptians, and very similar to Bronze Age Levant

The three males were two J's and one E1b1b1a1b2

Alan
31-05-17, 12:21
As I thought, Ancient Egyptians look like a Levant_BA or Levant_ late Neolithic population rather than Levant_Neolithic/Natufian. So ancient EGyptians might indeed be a Bronze Age arrival in the region, explains their more modern Middle Eastern like DNA in comparison to other North Africans who look like Levant_Neolithic without much Iran_Neo/CHL ancestry.

Jovialis
02-06-17, 00:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxjXJmMxqBk

Here's an interesting video with an Egyptian man reading his DNA results from Ancestry DNA.

I kind of figured the Egyptians had strong connections to the neolithic farmers, based on the geographic proximity. The fertile Nile valley would have attracted people with those skills, to survive there.

The increase of sub-Saharan African DNA could have happened after the Nubian conquest in 760 BC. Afterwards, there was the establishment of the 25th Dynasty, that lasted until 656 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

ratchet_fan
27-06-20, 01:32
Thought this thread would be interesting to bring up in light of the Egyptian paper coming out soon.

So what was in North Africa before Levantine like populations moved in? I believe Iberomasurians. Were they a three way ix of SSA, West Eurasian and Basal Eurasian like some models show?

What subclasses of E in Egypt are not SSA like? And if E is originally SSA like what ydna did the West Eurasian (iberomasurian?) part of North Africa belong to? Also it makes sense the Nubian dynasties and African slave trade increased SSA trade. I'm curious how much impact Nubians made given that they were deported by Assyrians,

Philjames100
27-06-20, 02:44
the Egyptian paper coming out soon.

Any more details on that?

Ygorcs
27-06-20, 03:08
Thought this thread would be interesting to bring up in light of the Egyptian paper coming out soon.

So what was in North Africa before Levantine like populations moved in? I believe Iberomasurians. Were they a three way ix of SSA, West Eurasian and Basal Eurasian like some models show?

What subclasses of E in Egypt are not SSA like? And if E is originally SSA like what ydna did the West Eurasian (iberomasurian?) part of North Africa belong to? Also it makes sense the Nubian dynasties and African slave trade increased SSA trade. I'm curious how much impact Nubians made given that they were deported by Assyrians,

In my view (of course just a conjecture based on what is known so far), there was a genetic cline between Morocco (Iberomaurusian) and Southwest Asia (Levant/Arabia) from more ANA (Ancestral North African) and less Dzudzuana-related West Eurasian to more of that (in Natufians in the easternmost part of the cline). So some of that heavy Natufian admixture in the 2017 aDNA samples from Abusir el-Meleq might in fact be "indigenous" (at least going back to Late Paleolithic times), but assigned to Natufians because of the lack of a more proximate source, given that the indigenous Egyptian population was already quite similar to the Natufians.

EDIT: Btw, tell me more about this paper coming out soon. I'm not aware of this exciting news! ;-)

ratchet_fan
27-06-20, 03:32
In my view (of course just a conjecture based on what is known so far), there was a genetic cline between Morocco (Iberomaurusian) and Southwest Asia (Levant/Arabia) from more ANA (Ancestral North African) and less Dzudzuana-related West Eurasian to more of that (in Natufians in the easternmost part of the cline). So some of that heavy Natufian admixture in the 2017 aDNA samples from Abusir el-Meleq might in fact be "indigenous" (at least going back to Late Paleolithic times), but assigned to Natufians because of the lack of a more proximate source, given that the indigenous Egyptian population was already quite similar to the Natufians.

EDIT: Btw, tell me more about this paper coming out soon. I'm not aware of this exciting news! ;-)

That makes sense. But what is the ANA component related to? Is it predominantly Basal Eurasian or SSA? Is there any West Eurasian in it too?

kingjohn
27-06-20, 16:13
as far as i know Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty (1189-1077 BCE)
is predicted to be e1b1a
but we need snp test to be sure he was e1b1a .........:thinking:
there were greater Pharoahs than him by expanding the Egyptian empire
but he was great by winning the sea people on his own yard after they attacked egypt:good_job:


p.s
should be interesting paper :smile:
and cool if the ancient Egyptians were closer
to levant neolithic and bronze age levant ....
that would finish the Afrocentric views i see in other forums once and for all :thinking:

real expert
28-06-20, 23:04
......................

............................
p.s
should be interesting paper :smile:
and cool if the ancient Egyptians were closer
to levant neolithic and bronze age levant ....
that would finish the Afrocentric views i see in other forums once and for all :thinking:


Well, not really. Afrocentrists on anthrogenica are already arguing for Natufian being a proper African component that is mislabed as "Western Eurasian" by geneticists. They claim that just because ancient Egyptians appear not to be closely related to modern SSAs that doesn‘t mean that they were not closely related to archaic yet unsampled African people. To them Basal Eurasian is most likely also an African component similar to ANA, etc. In addition to that, they assert that fully black Africans can have Caucasian facial features and straight hair without any Western Eurasian admixture(which is objectively wrong) and that the categories negroid, caucasiod, mongoloid or australoid are not real. Therefore to them ancient Egyptians having overwhelmingly Caucasian hair or being closely related to people from the Levant doesn't refute their conclusion that ancient Egyptians were native Africans.

ratchet_fan
28-06-20, 23:11
Well, not really. Afrocentrists on anthrogenica are already arguing for Natufian being a proper African component that is mislabed as "Western Eurasian" by geneticists. They claim that just because ancient Egyptians appear not to be closely related to modern SSAs that doesn‘t mean that they were not closely related to archaic yet unsampled African people. To them Basal Eurasian is most likely also an African component similar to ANA, etc. In addition to that, they assert that fully black Africans can have Caucasian facial features and straight hair without any Western Eurasian admixture(which is objectively wrong) and that the categories negroid, caucasiod, mongoloid or australoid are not real. Therefore to them ancient Egyptians having overwhelmingly Caucasian hair or being closely related to people from the Levant doesn't refute their conclusion that ancient Egyptians were native Africans.



Africa is just a continent. You don't get to claim everything that every occurred on it or claim everybody on the continent is the same. Eurasia is a continent too but nobody would confuse the English with Japanese.

ANA and Basal Eurasians were probably isolated from SSA for a long time in North Africa and SW Asia respectively. Also their heirs are West Eurasians not Africans.

xiongmao
22-07-20, 17:06
Does it say which haplogroups?

Daniel
12-10-20, 08:39
Id really like to know the demographics when Giza was being built. It seems the oldest mummies test were from about 2000 BC with haplogroups u5b2b5 and m1a1. The closest match for u5b2b5 seems to be a Phoenician in Lebenon while some m1a1 have been found on the upper Tigris at the Cimialo Sirti site.. Before that, I reckon mostly proto-Cushites

Philjames100
13-10-20, 21:38
The closest match for u5b2b5 seems to be a Phoenician in Lebenon

No the closest matches are ancient samples from Spain (c.3500 BC), Switzerland (c.2900 BC), and Sardinia (c.2300 BC) which also have U5b2b5. The Phoenician mentioned in the paper was from Carthage; he had the related European mtDNA lineage U5b2c1.


http://i.imgur.com/5gNqR5V.png (https://imgur.com/5gNqR5V)


“Here, we describe the biological sexing of a ~4000-year-old Egyptian mummy (…) The mtGenome profile independently obtained from the tooth by the FBI and HMS laboratories was identical … The haplotype belongs to mitochondrial DNA lineage U5b2b5. The Djehutynakht mtDNA sequence was compared to available ancient human DNA sequences … related U5b2b sequences have been observed in ancient human remains from Europe, and a haplogroup U5b2c1 haplotype was recently discovered in 2600-year-old remains from Phoenicia [Carthage]. When only the mtDNA sequences recovered from ancient Egyptian human remains are considered, the Djehutynakht sequence most closely resembles a U5a lineage from sample JK2903, a 2000-year-old skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq. … U5 was the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe.”

(Loreille et al. 2018) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867856/


"Loreille’s examination also showed that Djehutynakht’s DNA carried clues to another mystery. For centuries, archaeologists and historians have debated the origins of the ancient Egyptians and how closely related they were to modern people living in North Africa. To the researchers’ surprise, the governor’s mitochondrial DNA indicated his ancestry on his mother’s side, or haplogroup, was Eurasian. “No one will ever believe us,” Loreille recalls telling her colleague Jodi Irwin. “There’s a European haplogroup in an ancient mummy.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/fbi-crack-dna-code-egyptian-ancient-mummy-tomb-a8286291.html?amp


'A European Mitochondrial Haplotype Identified in Ancient Phoenician Remains from Carthage, North Africa' (Matisoo-Smith et al 2016)

“In 1994, a Punic burial crypt was discovered on Byrsa Hill, near the entry to the National Museum of Carthage in Tunisia. Inside this crypt were the remains of a young man along with a range of burial goods, all dating to the late 6th century BCE. Here we describe the complete mitochondrial genome recovered from the Young Man of Byrsa and identify that he carried a rare European haplogroup (U5b2c1) … This result provides the first direct ancient DNA evidence of a Phoenician individual. (…)

Haplogroup U5 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is believed to have arisen there. It is not uncommon in Mesolithic European populations, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe. (…) Haplogroup U5b2c1 has been identified in both La Braña 1 and 2, the 7000 year-old remains recovered from the La Braña-Arintero site in León in Northwestern Spain.

All of the reported U5b2c1 carriers are of presumably (if not specifically stated) European ancestry, from Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, the United States and Germany. Three of the additional non-defining mutations found in our Phoenician, 5351G, 6023A, and 9869T, are shared with one “European” sample and an individual from central Portugal. Interestingly, our Phoenician sample is most closely related to the modern sample from central Portugal. (...)

Achilli, et al. (2015), using full mitochondrial genome sequencing identified a U5b1b1 cluster that grouped Amazigh (North African Berbers) and Saami. This cluster is based on the control region motif (16270–150) which is present at low frequencies in Amazigh, North African and nearly all European populations with the exception of the Scandinavian Saami where it is at about 48%. The divergence time of this cluster is around 8600 years ago (+/- 2400) consistent with an expansion from Franco-Cantabrian refuge which is believed to have been a major refuge for the European hunter-gatherers prior to their post LGM (Late Glacial Maximum) expansion. It is very plausible that descendants of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers carried U5b1b1 and sister lineages across the Straits of Gibraltar into North Africa.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880306/

Daniel
14-10-20, 03:20
No the closest matches are ancient samples from Spain (c.3500 BC), Switzerland (c.2900 BC), and Sardinia (c.2300 BC) which also have U5b2b5. The Phoenician mentioned in the paper was from Carthage; he had the related European mtDNA lineage U5b2c1.

Like I said, I was referring to demographics closer to the supposed time of Giza's construction, which was way before Carthage existed.

Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens. 2018 The haplotype (deposited in GenBank under accession number MG736653) belongs to mitochondrial DNA lineage U5b2b5. The sequence closest to the mummy’s belongs to a contemporary individual from Lebanon.


Interesting stuff you posted though, which makes me wonder if the samples from Spain and Sardinia could have been Phoenician?

Philjames100
14-10-20, 03:57
The sequence closest to the mummy’s belongs to a contemporary individual from Lebanon.

No, that's referring to a modern sample from Lebanon, which had U5b2. The ancient Phoenician sample is from Carthage. And like I said the closest ancient samples are from Europe, which have U5b2b5. All of these except one were published after the Loreille 2018 paper.



makes me wonder if the samples from Spain and Sardinia could have been Phoenician?


No, the samples from Spain date from 3500 BC, this is long before the Phoenicians. U5b2b5 is European in origin not Levantine.

Daniel
14-10-20, 06:23
No, that's referring to a modern sample from Lebanon, which had U5b2. The ancient Phoenician sample is from Carthage. And like I said the closest ancient samples are from Europe, which have U5b2b5. All of these except one were published after the Loreille 2018 paper.


No, the samples from Spain date from 3500 BC, this is long before the Phoenicians. U5b2b5 is European in origin not Levantine.

But actually due to Phoenician continuity: Ancient mitogenomes of Phoenicians from Sardinia and Lebanon: A story of settlement, integration, and female mobility 2018 And from Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens. 2018: " Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83, 84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise. When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86]. In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85 87]. Both trade and immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85, 86]. It is interesting, and perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht comes from a Lebanese individual"

Now Im not sure where these U5b2b5 samples from Portugal and Spain were from but I bet theyre near the coast and of cultures that either originated and/or traded heavily with the Levantine peoples. For instance the Cardial culture, the Phoenicians, and the Iberians. Plus, we all know that the Hunter gatherers originated in the Levant too.

Philjames100
14-10-20, 06:57
U5b2b5 came from Europe not from the Levant. The Lebanon sample is a modern sample, from within the last few years. It's not ancient DNA. (I checked YFull and it is U5b2b5 though https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U5b2b5/)

The Phoenician sample (U5b2c1) is from c.600 BC.


The Spanish sample (U5b2b5) dates from c.3500 BC.

So it's nonsensical to imagine it travelling 5,500 years backwards in time from Lebanon to Spain.

Daniel
14-10-20, 09:10
U5b2b5 came from Europe not from the Levant. The Lebanon sample is a modern sample, from within the last few years. It's not ancient DNA. (I checked YFull and it is U5b2b5 though )
The Phoenician sample (U5b2c1) is from c.600 BC.
The Spanish sample (U5b2b5) dates from c.3500 BC.
So it's nonsensical to imagine it travelling 5,500 years backwards in time from Lebanon to Spain.

The article says: "The [U5b2b5] sequence closest to the mummy’s belongs to a contemporary individual from Lebanon" which along with Sardinia have lots of continuity from the Levantine cultures such as PPNB, Phoenician, etc
And Im not imagining the Cardium Culture / proto-Phoenicians in SE coastal Spain. (Id show the map of the culture and trade route but I need 20 posts prior to sharing any images or links).
What seems backwards are attempts to make all advances come out of Europe including the Neolithic Expansion, early Egypt, and even the Clovis technology and then using radiomagic dating, Levantine haplogroups like X2, etc etc to attempt proving it.

Philjames100
14-10-20, 15:48
Distribution of mtDNA U5:

http://i.imgur.com/YIex6IE.png (https://imgur.com/YIex6IE)

U5 peaks in northern Scandinavia/the Baltic region and in northern Spain/southern France among the Basques.


“The age of U5 is estimated at between 25,000 and 35,000 years old, roughly corresponding to the Gravettian culture (…) U5 was the predominant mtDNA of mesolithic Western Hunter Gatherers (…) Haplogroup U5 and its subclades U5a and U5b today form the highest population concentrations in the far north, among Sami, Finns, and Estonians. However, it is spread widely at lower levels throughout Europe. This distribution, and the age of the haplogroup, indicate individuals belonging to this clade were part of the initial expansion tracking the retreat of ice sheets from Europe around 10,000 years ago (…) The modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U5



“Haplogroup U5 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is believed to have arisen there… It is not uncommon in Mesolithic European populations, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe... the highest frequency of the haplogroup U5b today is in the Iberian peninsula and U5b2c1 was also present there in Mesolithic hunter gatherers… It is very plausible that descendants of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers carried U5b1b1 and sister lineages across the Straits of Gibraltar into North Africa.”

(Matisoo-Smith et al. 2016) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880306/)


“With regards to the mtDNA, the high incidence of H1 and H3 in Northwest Africa, together with some other West European lineages (i.e. V and U5b), reveals a possible link with the postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula, which not only directed north-eastward into the European continent, but also southward, beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, into North Africa. ... the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”

(Ottoni et al. 2010) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958834/)


"modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages. What's more, all the Mesolithic U5 samples from Iberia whose subclade could be identified belonged to U5b.(...) Carriers of haplogroup U5 were part of the Gravettian culture, which experienced the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 26,000 to 19,000 years ago). During this particularly harsh period, Gravettian people would have retreated into refugia in southern Europe, from which they would have re-expanded to colonise the northern half of the continent during the Late Glacial and postglacial periods. (...) founder effects among the populations of each LGM refugium would have amplified the regional division between U5b and U5a. U5b would have been found at a much higher frequency in the Franco-Cantabrian region."


U5b2b: found in Epigravettian Italy, in Epipalaeolithic south-eastern France, in Mesolithic Sicily and Croatia, in Neolithic France, Croatia and Ukraine, in EBA England, and in Bronze Age Poland.

U5b2b1: found in northern and central Europe / found in Mesolithic Sweden (Pitted Ware culture), in Early Neolithic France and Ukraine, in the Globular Amphora culture (LN Poland), in the Corded Ware culture (Chalcolithic Poland) and in Bronze Age Poland

U5b2b1a: found in Mesolithic Sicily

U5b2b2: found in EBA England

U5b2b3: found across western Europe / found in Megalithic Spain, Neolithic Italy and Late Neolithic France

U5b2b4: found in the England, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland

U5b2b5: found in Chalcolithic Sardinia and Spain, and in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom


https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml

ScottPreot
14-10-20, 19:35
Id really like to know the demographics when Giza was being built. It seems the oldest mummies test were from about 2000 BC with haplogroups u5b2b5 and m1a1. The closest match for u5b2b5 seems to be a Phoenician in Lebenon while some m1a1 have been found on the upper Tigris at the Cimialo Sirti site.. Before that, I reckon mostly proto-Cushites
Agree with you bro!

Dorquest
14-10-20, 20:15
Distribution of mtDNA U5:

http://i.imgur.com/YIex6IE.png (https://imgur.com/YIex6IE)

U5 peaks in northern Scandinavia/the Baltic region and in northern Spain/southern France among the Basques.


“The age of U5 is estimated at between 25,000 and 35,000 years old, roughly corresponding to the Gravettian culture (…) U5 was the predominant mtDNA of mesolithic Western Hunter Gatherers (…) Haplogroup U5 and its subclades U5a and U5b today form the highest population concentrations in the far north, among Sami, Finns, and Estonians. However, it is spread widely at lower levels throughout Europe. This distribution, and the age of the haplogroup, indicate individuals belonging to this clade were part of the initial expansion tracking the retreat of ice sheets from Europe around 10,000 years ago (…) The modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U5



“Haplogroup U5 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is believed to have arisen there… It is not uncommon in Mesolithic European populations, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe... the highest frequency of the haplogroup U5b today is in the Iberian peninsula and U5b2c1 was also present there in Mesolithic hunter gatherers… It is very plausible that descendants of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers carried U5b1b1 and sister lineages across the Straits of Gibraltar into North Africa.”

(Matisoo-Smith et al. 2016) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880306/)


“With regards to the mtDNA, the high incidence of H1 and H3 in Northwest Africa, together with some other West European lineages (i.e. V and U5b), reveals a possible link with the postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula, which not only directed north-eastward into the European continent, but also southward, beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, into North Africa. ... the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”

(Ottoni et al. 2010) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958834/)


"modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages. What's more, all the Mesolithic U5 samples from Iberia whose subclade could be identified belonged to U5b.(...) Carriers of haplogroup U5 were part of the Gravettian culture, which experienced the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 26,000 to 19,000 years ago). During this particularly harsh period, Gravettian people would have retreated into refugia in southern Europe, from which they would have re-expanded to colonise the northern half of the continent during the Late Glacial and postglacial periods. (...) founder effects among the populations of each LGM refugium would have amplified the regional division between U5b and U5a. U5b would have been found at a much higher frequency in the Franco-Cantabrian region."


U5b2b: found in Epigravettian Italy, in Epipalaeolithic south-eastern France, in Mesolithic Sicily and Croatia, in Neolithic France, Croatia and Ukraine, in EBA England, and in Bronze Age Poland.

U5b2b1: found in northern and central Europe / found in Mesolithic Sweden (Pitted Ware culture), in Early Neolithic France and Ukraine, in the Globular Amphora culture (LN Poland), in the Corded Ware culture (Chalcolithic Poland) and in Bronze Age Poland

U5b2b1a: found in Mesolithic Sicily

U5b2b2: found in EBA England

U5b2b3: found across western Europe / found in Megalithic Spain, Neolithic Italy and Late Neolithic France

U5b2b4: found in the England, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland

U5b2b5: found in Chalcolithic Sardinia and Spain, and in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom


https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml


Just the facts. Thank you Bro

Daniel
14-10-20, 20:22
Agree with you bro!

Thanks and as Philjames100 pointed out, the closest match was not actually an ancient Phoenician but I think Ive showed and will be showing that the sample shows a Phoenician descendant or at least from the Levant which would jive with the Hyskos invasion of what Im thinking was a Cushitic Egypt.

I hope they start testing more of the Old Kingdom Egyptians.

Daniel
14-10-20, 21:21
Distribution of mtDNA U5:


U5 peaks in northern Scandinavia/the Baltic region and in northern Spain/southern France among the Basques.


“The age of U5 is estimated at between 25,000 and 35,000 years old, roughly corresponding to the Gravettian culture (…) U5 was the predominant mtDNA of mesolithic Western Hunter Gatherers (…) Haplogroup U5 and its subclades U5a and U5b today form the highest population concentrations in the far north, among Sami, Finns, and Estonians. However, it is spread widely at lower levels throughout Europe. This distribution, and the age of the haplogroup, indicate individuals belonging to this clade were part of the initial expansion tracking the retreat of ice sheets from Europe around 10,000 years ago (…) The modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages”




“Haplogroup U5 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is believed to have arisen there… It is not uncommon in Mesolithic European populations, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe... the highest frequency of the haplogroup U5b today is in the Iberian peninsula and U5b2c1 was also present there in Mesolithic hunter gatherers… It is very plausible that descendants of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers carried U5b1b1 and sister lineages across the Straits of Gibraltar into North Africa.”


“With regards to the mtDNA, the high incidence of H1 and H3 in Northwest Africa, together with some other West European lineages (i.e. V and U5b), reveals a possible link with the postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula, which not only directed north-eastward into the European continent, but also southward, beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, into North Africa. ... the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”


"modern Basques and Cantabrians possess almost exclusively U5b lineages. What's more, all the Mesolithic U5 samples from Iberia whose subclade could be identified belonged to U5b.(...) Carriers of haplogroup U5 were part of the Gravettian culture, which experienced the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 26,000 to 19,000 years ago). During this particularly harsh period, Gravettian people would have retreated into refugia in southern Europe, from which they would have re-expanded to colonise the northern half of the continent during the Late Glacial and postglacial periods. (...) founder effects among the populations of each LGM refugium would have amplified the regional division between U5b and U5a. U5b would have been found at a much higher frequency in the Franco-Cantabrian region."


U5b2b: found in Epigravettian Italy, in Epipalaeolithic south-eastern France, in Mesolithic Sicily and Croatia, in Neolithic France, Croatia and Ukraine, in EBA England, and in Bronze Age Poland.

U5b2b1: found in northern and central Europe / found in Mesolithic Sweden (Pitted Ware culture), in Early Neolithic France and Ukraine, in the Globular Amphora culture (LN Poland), in the Corded Ware culture (Chalcolithic Poland) and in Bronze Age Poland

U5b2b1a: found in Mesolithic Sicily

U5b2b2: found in EBA England

U5b2b3: found across western Europe / found in Megalithic Spain, Neolithic Italy and Late Neolithic France

U5b2b4: found in the England, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland

U5b2b5: found in Chalcolithic Sardinia and Spain, and in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom




Haplogroups U and H motifs among both the aboriginal North Africans and Scandinavians furthers my point.

Most would agree that Berbers including their U6 came from the Near East, particularly the Levant.

The Sami Haplogroup V is also believed to have originated in the Near East.

On the other hand, a lot of widespread haplogroup distribution such as H is actually autosomaly Indo-European so we can debate that origin too

The Gravettians are believed have developed from the Levantine Ahmarians

Megalithic people likely originated from the Natufians

Villabruna Cromagnons show close affiliations with Natufians who like the Cro-Magnons, came from the Levant.

I could go on and on.

Sorry I had to remove your links to post again

Philjames100
14-10-20, 23:13
I think Ive showed and will be showing that the sample shows a Phoenician descendant or at least from the Levant.

No you haven't shown that.


which would jive with the Hyskos invasion of what Im thinking was a Cushitic Egypt.

Djehutynakht is from 2000 BC, that's before the Hyksos invasion.

Also, Cushitics are a different population to Egyptians, different language, etc.

Daniel
15-10-20, 06:17
No you haven't shown that.


Djehutynakht is from 2000 BC, that's before the Hyksos invasion.

Also, Cushitics are a different population to Egyptians, different language, etc.

Yes I think its likely and my last post surely addressed all your issues with it

Djehutynakht dates vary from around 2000 BC to 1837 BC. Interestingly, his coffin contained fifty model boats, was made of Cedar of Lebanon with decorations that display regional differences and chronological development dated to between the reigns of Sesostris I and Amenemhat II (ca. 1971-1895 BCE). echoesofegypt.peabody.yale.edu/hieroglyphs/coffin-panel-djehuty-nakht

Maybe you're thinking of the Hyksos takeover. I was referring to the peaceful Hyksos invasion at around 1900 BC and Biblical Archaeologist date the beginning of it quite a bit before this. "Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant" Mumford, G. D. Egypt and the Levant, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE Oxford (2014).

Nubians were reported to be more similar to Egyptians and Ethiopians in their Mitochondrial and Y-DNA lineages but close to Ethiopians in their overall genetic affinities. [101] Other studies have linked the ancient population of Sudan and parts of Egypt to the Horn of Africa, though this is not entirely conclusive and must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. [102][103][104][105][106]

Philjames100
15-10-20, 10:25
Djehutynakht dates vary from around 2000 BC to 1837 BC.

2010 BC to 1961 BC according to the paper:

"(Djehutynakht's) tomb has been firmly dated to within a generation between the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th Dynasties (1961–2010 BC). The head is clearly original to the tomb."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867856/

Jovialis
15-10-20, 12:43
Does anyone know where I can obtain better version of the bam files for JK888, JK911, and JK2134?

I tried running them through WGSExtract, and the files are too small, and don't have enough SNPs to run in the calculator.

Philjames100
15-10-20, 13:52
Most would agree that Berbers including their U6 came from the Near East, particularly the Levant.

"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”

(Ottoni et al. 2010 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958834/))



The Gravettians are believed have developed from the Levantine Ahmarians

The Ahmarian culture dates from 46,000-42,000 BP. Do you think that U5b2b5 originated in the Ahmarian culture, even though its first appearace in the Levant is about 42,000 years later? Maybe you also think that the Ahmarians were Phoenicians?


Megalithic people likely originated from the Natufians

The European megalithic people were EEF + Euro HG. Paternally they had almost exclusively Euro HG lineages (I2a).



Villabruna Cromagnons show close affiliations with Natufians who like the Cro-Magnons, came from the Levant.

Villabruna is significantly different to Natufians. And U5b has not been found in any Natufian remains.



I could go on and on.

You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. There's no point going on and on making unfounded and nonsensical claims.

The fact is, even if U5b2b5 came to Egypt from the Levant, it originally came from Europe. If Phoenicians had U5b2b5 this just means they had European ancestry.

Daniel
15-10-20, 18:00
2010 BC to 1961 BC according to the paper:

"(Djehutynakht's) tomb has been firmly dated to within a generation between the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th Dynasties (1961–2010 BC). The head is clearly original to the tomb."


The Yale paper said younger but again it makes no difference because the Hyksos were already pouring in from the earlier date

Daniel
15-10-20, 18:53
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”



The Ahmarian culture dates from 46,000-42,000 BP. Do you think that U5b2b5 originated in the Ahmarian culture, even though its first appearace in the Levant is about 42,000 years later? Maybe you also think that the Ahmarians were Phoenicians?



The European megalithic people were EEF + Euro HG. Paternally they had almost exclusively Euro HG lineages (I2a).



Villabruna is significantly different to Natufians. And U5b has not been found in any Natufian remains.



You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. There's no point going on and on making unfounded and nonsensical claims.

The fact is, even if U5b2b5 came to Egypt from the Levant, it originally came from Europe. If Phoenicians had U5b2b5 this just means they had European ancestry.

-The related U haplogroup motifs between the Sami and North African Berbers, Canary Islanders and some Egyptian mummies have associations with Near Easterners. Likewise, North African ancestral Iberomaurusians have lots of Natufian

- You're the one that brought up Gravettian U5 so I simply informed you that the Gravettians came from Levantine Ahmarian, NOT U5b2b5 .

-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170

-Natufian comprises basal European ancestry and the Neolithic expansion with megalithic Jericho, Gobekli Tepe, and great tools like bow and arrow and all kinds of agriculture

-"Dzudzuana-like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East ..In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia"

This same paper says they dont know the the direction of gene flow but hypothesis opposite directions especially concerning the Natufian's Out of Africa and basal European components, which to me show they're interpretation is very biased and calibrated on flimsy eurocentric radiomagic racial dating.

-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N

MOESAN
16-10-20, 13:43
Most would agree that Berbers including their U6 came from the Near East, particularly the Levant.


Megalithic people likely originated from the Natufians

Villabruna Cromagnons show close affiliations with Natufians who like the Cro-Magnons, came from the Levant.

I could go on and on.



I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.

Daniel
16-10-20, 19:51
I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.

Sorry I had a post on this but it along with several others and even some edits were somehow deleted. Here is an article quote I mentioned above: "In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia..This Dzudzuana-like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East."

Here is more covering what you seem tp mention: "Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’ were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’ admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe"

What I gather from their conclusion is that a Dzudzuana population from the Caucasus, which had ANE and Villabruna DNA took over the Levant and from there swept over large portions of Europe, Asia and Africa, etc This Dzudzuana population is at least partly known as the Natufians who also had ancient North African ancesty

Daniel
16-10-20, 19:54
This is a very interesting article explaining what Ive been talking about. Wish I would have found it earlier

Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands

MOESAN
17-10-20, 18:47
This is a very interesting article explaining what Ive been talking about. Wish I would have found it earlier

Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands



As the very most of our modern Humans ancestors (we Eurasians, even western) come some time long ago from Africa, and surely through Near-East or a region close to it, we may say Villabruna come "once upon a time" from Near East. The question is: Villabruna cluster people were in Europe long time BEFORE NEOLITHIC! And Villabruna had common ancestor with THE NOT BASAL EURASIAN Dzudzuana ancestor; the fact we found this Dzudzuana in Caucasus doesn't say us where this ancestors were living before. So to say Villabruna come from Natufians who have AND Basal Eurasian AND Ancient North African ancestry is not only a shortcut but distords reality a bit, in my view, concerning time and direction of genes flow. Just my point.
It's not to say this 'dzudzuana' part didn't come from Near East at some point of History but it would have been very sooner, in a very far time I don't know about just now ; but if we rely on trees about Villabruna we see it would have shared a lot of ancestry with the mesolithical Loschbour and more ancient ancestry with Vestonice-16, this last one old of about 30000. The uniparental markers and this shared ancestry point to a long and not straight way from the Near East to Europe !

Dorquest
17-10-20, 21:37
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!

MOESAN
18-10-20, 21:32
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!

You can easily devine that my view is close to yours!
Time passes and people moves, brethren go their ways and separate... If history is only to found our more ancient common ancestors, we could go back until the coelacanthe (fish).

Daniel
26-11-20, 03:54
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!


You can easily devine that my view is close to yours!
Time passes and people moves, brethren go their ways and separate... If history is only to found our more ancient common ancestors, we could go back until the coelacanthe (fish).



It seems you're projecting your own radiometric centrism. You claim these Egyptian mummies must of come from Europe because the Haplogroup U Cro-Magnons were dated in Europe to 30-odd thousand years ago. I simply showed that your own maestros claim these same Cro-magnon had recently migrated from the Levant.

Yes, Otzi is yDNA G2a2b and mtDNA K1f. A genetic study on Palestinians showed that 75% were yDNA G2a and like 32% of Ashknazi Jews are mtDNA K1

And why didn't you guys didn't read the article on on how Phoenicians spread U haplogroups like U5 ?

Philjames100
26-11-20, 14:33
with some people like Daniel, there really is no point. You're not dealing with a rational person.

Daniel
26-11-20, 21:28
with some people like Daniel, there really is no point. You're not dealing with a rational person.

Actually, the logical fallacy is the typical ad hominem attack against anyone having issue with Wallace and Klein's cosmic ray generated giant brained Puncuated Gravettian Equilibrium that replaced everyone then back-migrated to build the Pyramids to sacrifice more so called troglodyte ape-man servants to their cosmic ray god yada yada yada :bored:

MOESAN
27-11-20, 16:48
Here is more covering what you seem tp mention: "Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’ were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’ admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe"

What I gather from their conclusion is that a Dzudzuana population from the Caucasus, which had ANE and Villabruna DNA took over the Levant and from there swept over large portions of Europe, Asia and Africa, etc This Dzudzuana population is at least partly known as the Natufians who also had ancient North African ancesty

My take, a bit different!
Dzudzuana was very closer to Ancient Anatolians than to Ancient Caucasians of Satsurbia, and I don't find mention of ANE in them (Dzudzu); what maked it different to WHG is that WHG had NO 'basal eurasian'; so 'basal eurasian' is old in West Eurasia was NOT IN WHOLE West Eurasia at first. the difference between Dzudzuana and Natufians is the lack of ANA (Ancient North Africa). Dzudzuana was not 'Natufian', only Natudians were partly 'Dzudzuana'! So: Natufians cannot be ancestral to Europeans at first. Only a weak part of the Natufian mix could have been passed into Europe (West Western Eurasia) through the small Levant Farmers part in the ANF pop who colonized Europe. So you confuse things and do "painful" shortcuts. I don't answer other points of you because I suspect the same disorder is found in them. No offense.

Daniel
05-12-20, 11:04
I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.

The Dzudzuana paper wasn't absolutely certain of flow direction

Also "Basal Eurasian ancestry is highest in the Near East, with estimates as high as 66% in Epipaleolithic Natufian individuals from the Levant " a similar proportion is found in Talforalt

MOESAN
05-12-20, 21:32
The Dzudzuana paper wasn't absolutely certain of flow direction

Also "Basal Eurasian ancestry is highest in the Near East, with estimates as high as 66% in Epipaleolithic Natufian individuals from the Levant " a similar proportion is found in Talforalt

It’s hard to be be 100 % sure.
Nevertheless, some affirmations from 2 studies (Dzudzuana HG’s & Anatolian HG’s)
Dzudzuana : 24500/17000 BC // AHG : 13700/13000 BCE // AAF : 8300/8200 BCE // PPNB : 7700/7600 & 7000/6800 BCE -


Dzudzu HG’s: 28/29 % Basal Eurasian BE > < Anatolian HG’s AHG : about 25 % Basal Eurasian -
Dzudzu closer to Anatolian Farmers then to Levant Farmers, than to CHG ! -
Dzudzu closer to WHG (Villabruna cluster) than to Natufians or North-West Africa
after Dzudzu appeared input of ANE in Caucasus and Iran, and of North-West Africa on Natufians
AHG : midway between WHG and a pop close to Natufians (so a bit closer to Natufians than is Dzudzu) – the authors think what they consider as the result of a crossing took place at least 5000 years before the beginning of agriculture (so : ? 15000 BC or sooner?)
Anatolian Aceramic Farmers AAF : ~90 % AHG + ~10 % Neolithic Iran-like
Anatolian Ceramic Farmers ACF : ~75 % AAF + ~25 % others, principally from Levant
ACF had more of Iranlike than AAF but Neolithic Anatolia (West?) as a mean has less than AAF, what could suppose external later inputs -
Levant Farmers PPNB : ~78/82 % Natufians + 18,2 % AHG or 21,3 % AAF -
& :
Iron Gates HG’s (Balkans) : 63 % WHG + 26 % AHG + 11 % Natufian (only 1,6 % Basal Eurasian BE in all) ;


&& : based on BE percentages (poor in Iron Gates), the authors thought WHG’s ancestors gave genes to people of Anatolia, rather than they took from them -


what may we try to resume from that ?
- BE was not among European HG’s, neither WHG nor EHG
- but BE is old enough around Anatolia, Near-East, Caucasus and surely farther towards South-East, and does not seem come recently from Northern Africa
- full defined Natufians cannot be ancestors to European HG’s, by lack of BE and lack of NWA among Euro HG’s, and they cannot be ancestors of Dzudzu by lack of NWA among Dzudzu -
- a possible osmosis (bilateral matings) could have occurred before agriculture between South-East Europe and Western Anatolia, when BE was not already high among Anatolians ; it remains the supposed 11 % of Natufians in Iron gates with a so low % of BE : drift : it needed enough time to reduce BE ?…
supposition of mine : a common metapopulation of HG’s occupied South-Eastern Europe, Anatolia and Caucasus before LGM, without any BE : maybe an « indivision » where Y-haplo’s IJ, I, J were dense before splitting their ways, Y-I replacing for the most previous European HG’s with Y-C ? Then (when ? Possibly soon enough too) came BE rich bearers from South Near-East or Red Sea surroundings, missing to colonize the more northern lands ? Before the coming of NWAfrica or even North Africa (with elements giving way to the Natufian mix and spreading some Y-E subclades ? -
All the way, the diverse European HG’s, whatever the roads they ran, did it long ago and cannot be considered as Natufians descendants – It’s rather Natufians who took from ‘Euro HG’, at a small scale -
other games of « go and return » of less demic importance occurred in Near-East Anatolia Caucasus during Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, but they did not send any important novelty on genetic ground, IMO, only progressive osmosis ; only in Europe Neolithic changed things, and even there, more by proportions than by novelty.
IN SHORT, more than a direction to people moves in past, but not the same ones for all pop’s and not in the same time ! Let4s not confuse everything, OR WE MAY SAY WE ARE ALL OF US ARABS BECAUSE OUR DIVERSES CLOSELY RELATED ANCESTORS CROSSED ARABIA FROM AFRICA AT SOME STAGE OF EURASIAN HISTORY.

Daniel
06-12-20, 13:35
My take, a bit different!
Dzudzuana was very closer to Ancient Anatolians than to Ancient Caucasians of Satsurbia, and I don't find mention of ANE in them (Dzudzu); what maked it different to WHG is that WHG had NO 'basal eurasian'; so 'basal eurasian' is old in West Eurasia was NOT IN WHOLE West Eurasia at first. the difference between Dzudzuana and Natufians is the lack of ANA (Ancient North Africa). Dzudzuana was not 'Natufian', only Natudians were partly 'Dzudzuana'! So: Natufians cannot be ancestral to Europeans at first. Only a weak part of the Natufian mix could have been passed into Europe (West Western Eurasia) through the small Levant Farmers part in the ANF pop who colonized Europe. So you confuse things and do "painful" shortcuts. I don't answer other points of you because I suspect the same disorder is found in them. No offense.

Moesan, I accidentally answered the wrong post so my last post was actually in response to this one, which I hadn't answered yet.

EEF comes from Levantine Basal Eurasian, which are highly represented by Natufians.

As for as the Hunter gatherers ancestry, I already covered that when I mentioned all of their industries spreading into Europe from the many Levant sites. I do find it rather interesting that Lazaridis’ supplemental papers have many Natufians labeled as Y-haplogroup CT, which is quite ancestral

As for Iron Gates, I thought I had read somewhere that they have a lot of ANE but I can’t find it anywhere. On the other hand, I am reading articles that indicate that the Iron Gates burials are a mixture of WHG and farmers from Anatolia and the Levant, which means there was a bidirectional flow for a long time.

So no I dont buy that Natufians or Near Eastern people mentioned are 87% Dzudzuana but after another Dzudzuana sample or hopefully more, we'll find that they like all the other Caucasus people were heavily influenced by the Fertile Crescent people. And with the race replacement survival of the fittest science, I also dont buy this propopaganda that bright-eyed Villabruna cluster whiped out the other West Eurasian HGs, moved to the NearEast and took them and their technology over and then moved back to slaughter his kinfolk. That said, at least Ian Barnes claims that his team believes that Cheddar man came from the Near East.


As for your last post, Ill have to take some time to Decipher it thanks

MOESAN
06-12-20, 16:21
@Daniel

you:
EEF comes from Levantine Basal Eurasian, which are highly represented by Natufians.
me:aside the question of remote origins, EEF is analysed as partly Natufian, partly WHG (roughly said), spite I'm nit sure of the NWA weight in their Natufian elements, joint to BE - No, at the current concept of auDNA, EEF is not only a Natufian heir, the last surveys seem telling us WHG would be a bit heavier in the mix than 50% (I know this can be discussed partly, but only parlty) -

you:
As for as the Hunter gatherers ancestry, I already covered that when I mentioned all of their industries spreading into Europe from the many Levant sites. I do find it rather interesting that Lazaridis’ supplemental papers have many Natufians labeled as Y-haplogroup CT, which is quite ancestral -
me:
I'm not knowledged for archeology here; not sure your assertions are in the mainstream consensus - but technics can be loaned - concerning Y-CT, I don't know if these results for Natufians are because of an incomplete breaking of their haplo's or if they are TRUE Y-CT's...

you:
As for Iron Gates, I thought I had read somewhere that they have a lot of ANE but I can’t find it anywhere. On the other hand, I am reading articles that indicate that the Iron Gates burials are a mixture of WHG and farmers from Anatolia and the Levant, which means there was a bidirectional flow for a long time.
me:
To be checked again - but I suppose the auDNA labelled 'Iron Gates HG's has been taken among pure HG's sites and not in the mixed ones; I hope it, at the least. That said, studies don't exclude a bi-directional flow, as you said, so I don't deny it, with my recent superficial knowledge.



you:
So no I dont buy that Natufians or Near Eastern people mentioned are 87% Dzudzuana but after another Dzudzuana sample or hopefully more, we'll find that they like all the other Caucasus people were heavily influenced by the Fertile Crescent people. And with the race replacement survival of the fittest science, I also dont buy this propopaganda that bright-eyed Villabruna cluster whiped out the other West Eurasian HGs, moved to the NearEast and took them and their technology over and then moved back to slaughter his kinfolk. That said, at least Ian Barnes claims that his team believes that Cheddar man came from the Near East.

me:
Who said Natufians were 87% Dzudzuana? Not me at least. I think the consensus is that Natufians had a majority of BE.
Concerning Cheddar man, I doubt it came from Near East, or at least that his auDNA correspond to the average of this late region, at any time. I have read of a "late mesolithic wave" which began in Southern Europe (proposed origins : Montenegro/Crna Gora, S-W Ukraina and Tunisia! this Mesolithic wave seem having flew off puhed by the first Neolithic wave of advance (since the 6000's BC), passing to southern Italy, then to Iberia, then to Brittany and N-Benelux before fading out. I have to read it again, but it concerns pops without any agriculture at first sight, so it would be strange they would come recently from Near-East where agriculture was already well established.
I leave you your 'Villabruna' saga.
If you have some readings to propose me, I 'm buyer. Good afternoon.

Daniel
07-12-20, 00:25
I got that from the Dzudzuana paper:

"The admixture graph model predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5% Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref.23.Two other populations fit as 2-way mixtures in Table S3.5: Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. This does not disprove that Neolithic Anatolians are approximately a clade with Dzudzuana, since Natufians trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana (Tables S3.2, 5), and thus Neolithic Anatolians trace >98% of their ancestry from Dzudzuana, also in agreement with the 2-way models of Table S3.2. This does not mean that there was gene flow from the Levant into western Anatolia, as the (unsampled) hunter-gatherer precursors of Neolithic Anatolians may not have been identical to Dzudzuana. Finally, PPNB can be modeled as a mixture of ~41% Dzudzuana and ~59% Natufians, consistent with them tracing a large part of their ancestry to pre-farming populations of the Levant12. Again, we should not necessarily interpret these admixture proportions as signifying admixture into the Levant from the north during the formation of early Neolithic populations, as PPNB could be descended from a Levantine population that was not identical to the sampled Natufians. Conclusions We summarize our main conclusions from this section:“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture." biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf

In this case, Dzudzuana and Natufian are basically the same. If I recall, their tools look similar too.

The paper I quoted had EEF at 66% Natufian and I believe the rest from the Caucasus but I find your take on EEF being half Natufian and half WHG interesting, especially since the consensus is that EEF originated with Basal Eurasians in the Near East.

Villabruna clusters is an old saga thats been well exposed by books like Bones and Ochre: The Curious Afterlife of the Red Lady of Paviland by Marianne Sommer

Daniel
08-12-20, 08:06
I got that from the Dzudzuana paper:

"The admixture graph model predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5% Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref.23.Two other populations fit as 2-way mixtures in Table S3.5: Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. This does not disprove that Neolithic Anatolians are approximately a clade with Dzudzuana, since Natufians trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana (Tables S3.2, 5), and thus Neolithic Anatolians trace >98% of their ancestry from Dzudzuana, also in agreement with the 2-way models of Table S3.2. This does not mean that there was gene flow from the Levant into western Anatolia, as the (unsampled) hunter-gatherer precursors of Neolithic Anatolians may not have been identical to Dzudzuana. Finally, PPNB can be modeled as a mixture of ~41% Dzudzuana and ~59% Natufians, consistent with them tracing a large part of their ancestry to pre-farming populations of the Levant12. Again, we should not necessarily interpret these admixture proportions as signifying admixture into the Levant from the north during the formation of early Neolithic populations, as PPNB could be descended from a Levantine population that was not identical to the sampled Natufians. Conclusions We summarize our main conclusions from this section:“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture." biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf


Lasaridis' Dzuduana conclusion doesn't seem to jive with the latest Lasaridis' tree either. For instance how can he have so much Natufian ancestry coming from WHG (Villabruna) when his tree has WHG branching off Western Eurasians and Natufians branching off Basal Eurasians? If the affinity between them shows anything about ancestry, it would more likely place Natufians as ancestral to Villabruna. A likely scenario for the great affinity could also simply be due to the contact at Iron Gates but then academia seems to believe Villabruna was a type that replaced people they came in contact with

MOESAN
09-12-20, 15:09
Lasaridis' Dzuduana conclusion doesn't seem to jive with the latest Lasaridis' tree either. For instance how can he have so much Natufian ancestry coming from WHG (Villabruna) when his tree has WHG branching off Western Eurasians and Natufians branching off Basal Eurasians? If the affinity between them shows anything about ancestry, it would more likely place Natufians as ancestral to Villabruna. A likely scenario for the great affinity could also simply be due to the contact at Iron Gates but then academia seems to believe Villabruna was a type that replaced people they came in contact with

I prefer the other scheme (the Dzudzu's paper one) - but in the one you produce, we see interactions between Villabruna and Levant, and then between Villabruna and Anatolia. In fact, rather a 'villabrunalike' from Dzudzuana?
we have to put apart hypothetical ancestral populations concerning auDNA and true historical populations, well dated;
the BE part of Natufians ancestors branched off the ancestors of Villabruna long ago in this scheme, and only later mixed with descendants of this late one.
the admixture %s calculated (more or less accutely) are not sufficient, we have to see the auDNA distances, and then, spite the late strictly speaking Villabruna people were living roughly at the same time than the Natufians, they were very distant one from another, by different partial new admixtures but also by drift, and drift requires time of separation. So for me, no, Natufian cannot be ancestor to Villanova, even in the sensu stricto Villabruna. I could use the argument of chronology: at least historical true Natufians are not old enough to be ancestors of any kind of 'villabruna'.

MOESAN
09-12-20, 16:55
@Daniel
I'll be long:
You mention:
Two other populations fit as 2-way mixtures in Table S3.5: Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. This does not disprove that Neolithic Anatolians are approximately a clade with Dzudzuana, since Natufians trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana (Tables S3.2, 5), and thus Neolithic Anatolians trace >98% of their ancestry from Dzudzuana, also in agreement with the 2-way models of Table S3.2. This does not mean that there was gene flow from the Levant into western Anatolia, as the (unsampled) hunter-gatherer precursors of Neolithic Anatolians may not have been identical to Dzudzuana.
Me :
I wrote to quickly and confused myself, sorry for my hurrying; I did not remember the « Dzudzuana » was considered so high among Natufians, I believed the BE ‘s part was very higher in these last ones. In the graph the direct Dzudzupart is 73 % but yes the total ‘dzudzulike’ part is about 87/88 %. I was wrong, and Natufians were rather poorer in BE than Dzudzuana, what disproves some of my bets.
Concerning flow between Neolithic Anatolians and Levant, a study about AHG and their successors in Néolithic Anatolia estimates an introgression of AHG or AAF to form Levant Farmers (I suppose = PPNB). It does not speak of a flow in the opposite direction at these dates but mentions this South → North flow into ACF (Anatolian Ceramic Farmers).


You :
The paper I quoted had EEF at 66% Natufian and I believe the rest from the Caucasus but I find your take on EEF being half Natufian and half WHG interesting, especially since the consensus is that EEF originated with Basal Eurasians in the Near East.
Me :
In the same answer of your, it’s «Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. » - some discrepancy here !?: nevertheless EEF is very close to Neolithic Anatolian !
Concerning my « take » : we have to distinguish between « X-like » components and true X origin or introgression. I think the statement would better be « EEF (in some survey, it can vary according to others) is halfway between WHG and a pop akin to Natufian ».


You mention:
Conclusions We summarize our main conclusions from this section:“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry (I add : BE in this ‘deep ancestry’ ?): Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture."
You :In this case, Dzudzuana and Natufian are basically the same. If I recall, their tools look similar too.
Me :
Dzudzuana and Natufians are on the same cline, and their principal component is Dzudzuana or Dzudzuana-like, so something close to Villabruna-like + BE, but Dzudzuana is closer to WHG & Villabruna, and lack the ANA input.
I found in I. Lazaridis paper :
[To better understand the relationship of Dzudzuana to other ancient West Eurasian populations, we performed symmetry testing using f-statistics(Extended Data Fig. 5). These analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations, except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5a). Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of Neolithic Anatolians does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya.]
So, Dzudzuana forms a clade with Anatolian Farmers, not with Natufians, spite it seems the principal component in natufians. The fact the Villabruna-like is old in Anatolia does not mean Villabruna iself came recently from Near-East.


some bits of biblio :
[The Villabruna cluster has been modeled s contributing to both the ~30kya Věstonice and ~20kya El Mirón-cluster populations suggesting that it must have existed somewhere in relatively unmixed form long before the oldest genetic data we have from it at ~14kya. However, it is unlikely that the Villabruna cluster sojourned in mainland Europe, as members of the cluster have been attested there only by ~14kya, marking an increased affinity of these European populations of the time to Near Eastern ones.] BTW « increased affinity » is not « quasi-identity » !


[Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE) (CHG, Natufians, TaforaltIbero-Maurusians from North Africa, and early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, Iran, the Levant and the Maghreb) are strongly differentiated from all European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (ESHG) (FST= 0.078−0.267). By contrast, Dzudzuana is genetically closer to both contemporaneous Gravettians from Europe (0.051±0.012) and also to the much later Neolithic Anatolian farmers (0.039±0.005) who are genetically closest to them according to this measure. Genetic drift inflates FSTover time, so the affinity to the Gravettians may partly be due to the great age of these samples. However, age cannot explain the affinity to much later Neolithic Anatolians of ~8kya, a population closer to Dzudzuana than any other PGNE European hunter-gatherers in our analysis form a cline with Villabruna/WHG samples on one end and ANE on the other. None of the PGNE populations other than the Neolithic Anatolians cluster with the Ice Age Caucasus population from Dzudzuana. As reported previously, present-day West Eurasians are much more homogeneous than ancient ones, reflecting extensive post-Neolithic admixture.]


Rather, ancestry deeply related to the Villabruna cluster was present not only in Gravettian and Magdalenian-era Europeans but also in the populations of the Caucasus, by ~26kya. Neolithic Anatolians, while forming a clade with Dzudzuana with respect to ESHG , share more alleles with all other PGNE suggesting that PGNE share at least partially common descent to the exclusion of the much older samples from Dzudzuana.


Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.]
& : just to say things are not always very simple in anDNA !


I ‘ll try to put order in my head on this matter :
Villabruna and certainly the ‘villabruna-like’ in Dzudzuana are old heritages of Common West Eurasian ;
the BE (and perhaps their ‘deep’ ancestry) present in Near-East, seems absent in ancient European HG’s, even in the Villabruna cluster, and, more interesting, almost absent later in Balkans HG’s ; this seems exclude that the most of Balkans HG’s came from Near-East. Or it would ask for a very strong drift.
Nothing proves us with certainty that this ‘villabruna-like’ ancestry in Near-East came lately from Europe into Near-East, nor the contrary.
As BE and ANA present among Natufians, are absent from European HG’s, I can exclude that some ‘natufian-like’ or even ‘dzudzuana-like’ pop colonised Europe before the Agriculture.
Let alone the supposed percentages of components in the diverse pops, varying according to surveys, we see the big global distances between European HG’s or every time and the Near-East ones, even before the perceptible CHG or Iran inputs and even if the SE Europe HG’s And Villabruna cluster are a bit less far.
To conclude, it’s uneasy to localise the Common West Eurasian part ancestral to Dzudzuana and to others, I see it around Black Sea or Caucasus, or not too far at some very ancient stage of history, a central position between West and Central-East Eurasia, close to possible glacial refuges.

Daniel
10-12-20, 03:22
I prefer the other scheme (the Dzudzu's paper one) - but in the one you produce, we see interactions between Villabruna and Levant, and then between Villabruna and Anatolia. In fact, rather a 'villabrunalike' from Dzudzuana?
we have to put apart hypothetical ancestral populations concerning auDNA and true historical populations, well dated;
the BE part of Natufians ancestors branched off the ancestors of Villabruna long ago in this scheme, and only later mixed with descendants of this late one.
the admixture %s calculated (more or less accutely) are not sufficient, we have to see the auDNA distances, and then, spite the late strictly speaking Villabruna people were living roughly at the same time than the Natufians, they were very distant one from another, by different partial new admixtures but also by drift, and drift requires time of separation. So for me, no, Natufian cannot be ancestor to Villanova, even in the sensu stricto Villabruna. I could use the argument of chronology: at least historical true Natufians are not old enough to be ancestors of any kind of 'villabruna'.

12459Image from Dzudzuana paper and Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Dzudzuana is dated twice as old as Villabruna and as seen in the tree, Lazaridis has Basal Eurasian ancestry that dates much earlier than WHG's West Eurasian ancestry.

In the Dzudzuana paper, Lazardis states: "The earliest ancient DNA data of modern humans from Europe dates to ∼40 thousand years ago1 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1#ref-1)-4 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1#ref-4), but that from the Caucasus and the Near East to only ∼14 thousand years ago5,6, from populations who lived long after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ∼26.5-19 thousand years ago7."

Five years earlier he used the exact same tree but had Near Eastern ancestry as vastly older: “WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R22) individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R23) or Arabia24 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R24),25 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R25) prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R26). Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. His Bar Josef reference 23 states: “In sum, it appears that in spite of the chronological ambiguities, archaic human types related to Modern humans who migrated out of Africa at an unknown age —sometime between 300-100 Ka— formed the early population of the Levant.”

Daniel
10-12-20, 03:49
Im thinking Dzudzuana ancestral to Villabruna is possible?

Wait, where are you seeing that Dzudzuana has more BE than Natufian?

MOESAN
10-12-20, 15:49
12459Image from Dzudzuana paper and Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Dzudzuana is dated twice as old as Villabruna and as seen in the tree, Lazaridis has Basal Eurasian ancestry that dates much earlier than WHG's West Eurasian ancestry.

In the Dzudzuana paper, Lazardis states: "The earliest ancient DNA data of modern humans from Europe dates to ∼40 thousand years ago1 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1#ref-1)-4 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1#ref-4), but that from the Caucasus and the Near East to only ∼14 thousand years ago5,6, from populations who lived long after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ∼26.5-19 thousand years ago7."

Five years earlier he used the exact same tree but had Near Eastern ancestry as vastly older: “WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R22) individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R23) or Arabia24 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R24),25 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R25) prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/#R26). Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. His Bar Josef reference 23 states: “In sum, it appears that in spite of the chronological ambiguities, archaic human types related to Modern humans who migrated out of Africa at an unknown age —sometime between 300-100 Ka— formed the early population of the Levant.”

Please, don't confuse population-like component (kind of plausible ghost) with historical true populations.
'Basal Eurasian' (a component, not an historical pop) splitted long ago from the most of European HG's of any time;
But Dzudzuana, absent here on your old graph, IS NOT 'Basal Eurasian', and Natufian iIS NOT 'Basal Eurasian'; they are apparently mixes of a 'Common Western Eurasian' or here only 'West Eurasian' with 'Basal Eurasian', and in the case of Natufian (absent too on your graph), an addition of 'Ancient or Ancestral North African', itself an old mix with partly some common stuff.
Look at the dates written on your own graph:* specific 'Villabruna' and 'Natufian' are of same period spite their ancestral components are evidently older. But the real 'Natufian' pop CANNOT have given birth either to real 'Villabruna' or (evidently) to older 'Villabruna cluster', because whatever the ‘Natufian’s date of birth, they have components which lack among ‘Villabruna’ of any sort.
I don't see how to tell you differently.


* : do’nt take the vertical position of the pops on the graph for a true value of their respective age. Do read the dates, one time again

MOESAN
10-12-20, 16:22
Im thinking Dzudzuana ancestral to Villabruna is possible?

Wait, where are you seeing that Dzudzuana has more BE than Natufian?

BE : it’s not God’s words, but my understanding, only :
If I understood well the graph in Dzudzuana paper, ‘Dzudzulike’ has ~28 % of ‘BE-like’ and Taforalt has ~28 % * 65 % of ‘BE-like’, it’s to say 18,2 % of it -
Natufian has 73 % of ‘Dzudzulike’ (so 28 % * 73 % = 20,4 % of ‘BE-like’) and 27 % of ‘Taforaltlike’ (so 18,2 % * 27 % = 4,9 % of ‘BE-like’) ; all in all it would be 25,3 % of ‘BE-like’ in Natufian ; it’s rough calculations based on the graph, but it seems showing that Natufians would have been a little less than Dzudzuana people. Maybe I’m wrong ? It's true I believed there was more BE among Natufians...

Daniel
11-12-20, 06:30
Please, don't confuse population-like component (kind of plausible ghost) with historical true populations.
'Basal Eurasian' (a component, not an historical pop) splitted long ago from the most of European HG's of any time;
But Dzudzuana, absent here on your old graph, IS NOT 'Basal Eurasian', and Natufian iIS NOT 'Basal Eurasian'; they are apparently mixes of a 'Common Western Eurasian' or here only 'West Eurasian' with 'Basal Eurasian', and in the case of Natufian (absent too on your graph), an addition of 'Ancient or Ancestral North African', itself an old mix with partly some common stuff.
Look at the dates written on your own graph:* specific 'Villabruna' and 'Natufian' are of same period spite their ancestral components are evidently older. But the real 'Natufian' pop CANNOT have given birth either to real 'Villabruna' or (evidently) to older 'Villabruna cluster', because whatever the ‘Natufian’s date of birth, they have components which lack among ‘Villabruna’ of any sort.
I don't see how to tell you differently.


* : do’nt take the vertical position of the pops on the graph for a true value of their respective age. Do read the dates, one time again

Ghost populations are real and in this case ive been trying to show you who they are. For some reason probably biased, Lazaridis et al. has totally abandoned his earlier recognition that Levantine Cro-magnons are the original Basal Eurasians--first to branch off from the Oceanic-like non-Africans.

Not only that, Lazaridis et al. then rests his whole opening line upon Europe's Oase being 40,000 years old. I guess it could be due with Oase having lots of Neanderthal and Lazaridis' presumption that Basal Eurasians have none but I say that these Oceanics have always had relatively lots of Neanderthal.

You totally ignored my bringing up Lazaridis et al's earlier Levantine Cro-Magnon report but answered with talk of liking the Dzudzuana tree better and that Natufian Basal Eurasian branched off of Villabruna. So now I post the Dzudzuana tree and show you that neither of Lazaridis’ trees show his conclusion of Natufian's Basal Eurasian descending from Western Hunter Gatherers but you keep ignoring that too. Not only that but you now seem to want to totally abandon BE and or pretend that its vertical position on the tree is not like it shows. You also now refer me back to the newer tree because you feel it shows the 14kya dated Natufian being to young to be ancestral to 15kya Villabruna

That said, its likewise negative evidence to insinuate that 27kya Dsudzuana is the earliest line of Basal Eurasian simply because he has some Basal Eurasian. In fact, contrary to your earlier statement, Natufians are estimated to be around 64% Basal Eurasian while Dzudzuana is only 28% Basal Eurasian, which favors my point of their lineage being ancestral to West Eurasians such as WHGs.

I could be missing something because Ive had a really bad cold (hopefully not you know what) but I'm sure I'm on to something here

MOESAN
11-12-20, 12:06
concerning BE I can referr myself to Lazaridis' diverse graphs: they have no big contradiction between them ATW. Personally I have not the scientific skils to discuss seriously Lazaridis; seemingly you have!
Cro-magnon has nothing to do recently with Natufians nor more ancient known Palestine remnants, besides their common human heritage and surely OOA.
for the other points, I think you don't understand anything in diverse works and in my posts.
The end.

Daniel
11-12-20, 20:22
concerning BE I can referr myself to Lazaridis' diverse graphs: they have no big contradiction between them ATW. Personally I have not the scientific skils to discuss seriously Lazaridis; seemingly you have!
Cro-magnon has nothing to do recently with Natufians nor more ancient known Palestine remnants, besides their common human heritage and surely OOA.
for the other points, I think you don't understand anything in diverse works and in my posts.
The end.

Again, you are totally dismissing Lazaridis' et al prior 2015 conclusion of "Levantine Cro-Magnons" representing Basal Eurasians, which later Natufians are estimated to have carried 64%

but then Lazaridis et al seem to ignore their earlier conclusion as well but they do write this with capitals: "Europeans are differentiated by an excess of up to ~20% Villabruna-related ancestry relative to non-European populations AND ALSO BY A RELATIVE **LACK OF **EXTRA ‘DEEP’ ANCESTRY **COMPARED**TO THE NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA , a type of ancestry that may only partially be explained by the Basal Eurasian ancestry of ancient West Eurasian populations and MUST ALSO TRACE TO AFRICA"

Well your right, they should make this stuff easier to read. Im not sure how they come to this conclusion when EFF are estimated to contain 66% Natufian. Unless modern Europeans are closer to Villabruna than they are to EFF and could that actually have to do with the R1b line. Nah, Villabuna's R1b is V88 which is Levantine and African. Maybe his WHG I2a who remained elite among the Yamnaya