Printable View
Maybe this cultureQuote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushabian_culture
Brought the ANA component to the levant
Did the natufians who were in the same time as them had some ANA component ?
P.s
I do agree that if a paleolithic remain from south arabia will turn e1b1b and if he had significant basal ancestery than you might have a point though
Time will tell
you should be aware that during LGM the Nile ran completely dry, it didn't reach the Mediterranean any more
my guess is that E-M35 fled the Nile Valley into the Levant and expanded from there after admixing with Dzudzuana DNA coming from the Caucasus area
sounds logical :cool-v:Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
were e-m78 fit in the spread
of e-m35
we know in 5000 bc neolithic avelander cave catalonia there was e-v13 remain
we have in 5500 bc dalmatia e-L618
i believe it entered to europe in early neolithic time it just wasn't common as y haplogroup G
P.S
i forget there were also cases of e-m78 in middle neolithic alzace france berg culture
could it be that e-m78 skipped west asia they preffered europe:thinking:
Dzudzuana is modeled as being 72% Villabruna which is Common West Eurasian and not EWE. EWE is the cluster that is mostly ( 75%) ancestral to Yana ( and so to ANE too). besides Villabruna is not from the Caucasus because accordingly to this paper about the origin of the Gravettians it was already present on a West to east cline in Europe already 36000 years ago so basically 10000 years before Dzudzuana. I guess both CWE and EWE are just two sub ranch of the aurignacian technocomplex.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2.full
you're right the proper term used by the authors on the ice age Europe paper is Common West EurasianQuote:
Originally Posted by etrusco
the Vestonice cluster is not just Common West Eurasian, it is admixed with Kostenki DNA, and similar to the Sunghir DNA
but the later Villabruna cluster was mostly unadmixed, Common West Eurasian with some drift
as I see it, Vestonice and Villabruna are 2 different types of Gravettian DNA
TMRCA for E-M78 is 13,3 ka, that is Natufian eraQuote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
so their ofspring moved in all directions, including Africa (E-V32)
E-L618>E-V13 spread with Cardium Ware, it appeared in Croatia
it's subclade E-Z1057 expanded very fast 4,7-4,2 ka
There is also no older E in Africa other than from the IBM's which were a proven back migration. We have no knowledge of where they were sitting before, we can only limit the options with North East Africa, Levante, South Arabia, East Africa being the most likely places imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
All West Eurasians have Basal Eurasian ancestry, because both early farmers and CHG-Iranian had it. Via CHG and farmers Proto-Indoeuropeans had it too. Its just somewhat lower in some places than in others, but present everywhere and its one of the signals which make West Eurasians distinct from East Eurasians and other Out of Africa derived populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdTerm
Absolutely not. G and H are Neolithic lineages which spread to India (and Europe) with farmers. They probably lived in the Anatolia-Iran region through the ages, coming into contact with Basal Eurasians to the South, which in turn formed the bridgehead into Africa and mixed into the ANA population.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
Its for sure not too young for that, but E1b1b is too young for the first back migration which created the base for ANA. This should have happened minimum 70.000-40.000 years ago. I think even that can be reconciled with the tree of haplogroup E.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
H was close to I and G, it made it into South Asia fairly recently. Most of the native haplogroups there being replaced by now and the big problem of South Asia is the presence of an actually quite strong archaic admixture, both Neandertal and Denisovan in AASI-related populations. That's a contraindication for the birthplace of BEA.
It was one of my scenarii (Y-G and Y-H) but I avow I based it on nothing factual, unless te fact that Y-E and Y-J din't seem to me the BE bearers! BTW I don't know the %'s of BE among South Asians, and as said Angela, this componant could be transmitted rather by women... Concerning the almost necessary refugium I have no precise idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
We can't say where the original centre was, but we can say where they had to be about 30.000 years ago. They had to be in the Levante and especially Southern Arabia. Now I'd say they were there all the time. Concerning haplogroups, original Afro-Asiatics were with more than 90 percent probability E1b1b, yet some Semitic groups now have very little of that haplogroup and in some regions the percentages changed very recently. And now look where E1b1b was probably dominant for a pretty long time again, it seems to me Southern Arabia again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOESAN
So whereever the ultimate origin was, the Southern Levante and Southern Arabia was very early heavily Basal Eurasian, it must have been, there is no logical way around that. Now some studies placed it there, originally, others looked for the Sinai or Egypt, but that's the direction, that is where we have to search for it. South Asia was no source, it was for the most time a sink. Its like searching for the origin of East Asians (Mongoloid) in South East Asia. No, won't work out.
To me already the pre-Natufian Near Easterners show the same trend, going in a Proto-Mediterranean direction and they lived South of the zone which demanded a stronger climatic adaptation in the LGM. Those above grew larger and more robust, that was the core West Eurasian population and I guess we will find within later pre-Dzudzuana-like populations all the GHIJ-haplogroups of the core, which was further altered and polished by QR-ANE and E-Basal Eurasian and together, after the fusion, modern Western Eurasian were formed. Today all West Eurasians (Caucasoid) have both ANE and BEA ancestral components because of that.
South Asians on the other hand go in a completely different directions, yet they are the Southern link to the East, but not much closer than East Asians, rather the link to Australo-Melanesia. That was always the most likely scenario, and modern genetics just proved it. There is no way you can place AASI in a tree with BEA, its impossible. AASI was core Eurasian, with increased Neandertal admixture, and they even picked up additional Denisovan. Actually its even possible they had admixture from a third unknown archaic population, but that's more kind of a definition, because whats "Denisovan" to begin with, how do you define it, if it was very old and widespread over most of Asia? So let's say they had Denisovan, probably a specific regional variant of it, not shared by East Asians probably and unknown whether it was shared with more Eastern Negritos or Australo-Melanesians.
Why is that so? Also because of Basal Eurasian. Because the main if not only important distinction of BEA and main Eurasian is actually the reduced amount of archaic introgression. There is no other important one, certainly no phenotypical beside that, considering the timing of the original split.Quote:
These statistics test the hypothesis of an equal rate of derived allele sharing of East Asians and X with Africans. Mondal et al. also report statistics with a European population in place of East Asians, but it is already known that Asian populations have a greater amount of Neandertal ancestry than Europeans
In the study they quote Mondial's findings:
They didn't replicate that in the study I'm quoting from:Quote:
Mondal et al.’s new claim of more archaic ancestry in South Asian populations than in East Asians. In Mondal et al.’s computation, these statistics are negative when X is any Indian group or Andamanese, a result they interpret as evidence of more archaic ancestry than in East Asians. As they find no evidence of excess allele sharing with Neanderthals or Denisovans, they argue that the contribution is from an unsampled archaic lineage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433599/
But if anything, South Asians have more archaic introgression than Europeans, not less! South Asia is both by uniparentals, as well as autosomally, archaeologically and biogeographically completely out of question as the BEA homeland. One can't look at the data and claim that seriously, its impossible.
However, there is no way the bridge between the Caucasus and North Africa was not Basal Eurasian, that on the other is not completely but almost impossible too. The Levante-Arabia-Sinai-Egypt must be in the focus therefore. And like I said, there is a great deal of physical and cultural continuity in the Near East and Levante, with occasional contacts, but no replacement towards Eurasia, to the Sinai-Egypt. And how quickly haplogroups could spread and replace pre-existing variation in quick sweeps, by founder effects, economical advantages, natural catastrophies and genocidal activities, should be obvious by now. Usually in some of the core source regions from which explansions started the diversity actually decreased, because one founder population replaced them all.
I don't think that places like Yemen had the same haplogroup frequencies 40.000, 25.000, 10.000 or even 4.000 years ago. Not at all. This needs to be investigated and will be quite illuminating. Because Basal Eurasians needs to have been very close to main Eurasian, but still with a natural barrier at a distance. The ideal scenario is indeed Southern Levante-Arabia or Sinai-Egypt for that. I would be extremely surprised if its any other place. And I would be similarly suprised if it wasn't haplogroup E, because if it would have been one of the main core West Eurasian lineages out of the GHIJ group, how's that supposed to have happened?
What was the core West Eurasian group then? The splits and timings are even worse than otherwise. But that's more open to debate, I know.
Indeed, we know nothing about Basal Eurasian, nor about G and H2.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOESAN
All of a sudden Basal Eurasian was there south of the Caucasus in heavy doses.
Unlike in Europe or Siberia.
And neither in Africa, it seems to have been imported along with Dzudzuana there.
The fact that H1 and H3 are older than H2 and that their origin seems to be Indian gives us a clue for the origin of H2.
We only have some circumstancial clues.
Wait, I'm confused. So is a largely Basal Eurasian individual part of the same cluster as Dzuduzana2 and sharing more drift with WHG/Villabruna cluster than with any other Paleolithic DNA sample? So weren't Basal Eurasians as divergent and drifted apart from the Common West Eurasian derived branches than was previously thought? Or are we instead seeing just a BE-admixed but still mostly CWE-derived individual? Increasingly, from the later genetic history of the region, it seems likely to me that Basal Eurasians will be found somewhere between the Levant, Arabia and southern Iran, but as Riverman I'm also willing to imagine a scenario in which BE straddled the Red Sea region, inhabiting both the African and the Southwest Asian portions of land around it.
Didn't a recent paper find evidences of a much earlier, more basal Eurasian back-migration to Africa with signals of that gene flow spanning even most of Sub-Saharan Africa? What if those weren't really Eurasians (not mostly anyway), but just a consequence of the fact that the specific Proto-non-African population that colonized all the other continents didn't disappear from Africa as early as was thought, and some of it stayed behind in their original "homeland" in Northeast Asia and the nearest Asian neighborhood (i.e. Arabia and Southern Levant)? Just some thoughts...
I tended to believe before this that even a moderate increase in the proportion of BE ancestry would bring an individual much further from another with lower BE admixture, roughly as it happens when there is admixture between two very divergent population clusters, like West African vs. European. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so weren't Basal Eurasians very different from other West Eurasians to begin with? Or is it just that the "significant" BE admixture in this new sample is actually not much higher than in Dzudzuana, therefore even lower than what you could find in later populations like Iran_N, CHG, Anatolia_N and Natufian (correct me if I'm wrong, but Anatolia_N was basically modelled by Lazaridis as Dzudzuana + extra BE)?
****
On a related note, I wonder if between the early LGM and the Mesolithic there was a consistent east-to-west trend: Iran_Meso/CHG-like people, a mix of ANE, Dzudzuana-like and maybe a bit more BE, migrated from Iran to the Caucasus and nearby areas; the former Dzudzuana-like people that lived there migrated westward towards Anatolia; and the WHG-like people that lived in Western Anatolia and Southeasternmost Europe migrated (north)westward into the rest of Europe. We'll see if that scenario holds true when more Paleolithic DNA from Eurasia appear.
I think perhaps it's time to go back to the paper, and to the Lazaridis one.
The authors here specifically state that this new SAT sample is very similar to Dzudzuana, which was 28% Basal Eurasian, yes?
Other questions are answered as well.
Its the latter. There is no exact percentage, so what "substantial" means is up to every reader I guess. They won't come up with a too exact estimation anyway, because the resolution seems to be to bad and unreliable, which is why they have troubles making an exact estimate of Neandertal ancestry either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
Actually the geography is not as important as the position on the tree. Like North Africans are closer to Europeans even though "they live in Africa" than anything East of the Altai. So its not about where they were or are sitting, but what characteristics they had. ANA is likely either a back migration, or a more recent expansion from the North East of Africa. Either way, its a close branch to all Eurasians. Basal Eurasian is simply the next branching event, surely geographically even closer, but whether that means Sinai-Egypt, Sinai-Southern Levante, Southern Levante-Arabia or everything together, nobody really knows. Unless they already have better samples which being not published yet, then the scientists involved might know, but the rest of us not, nobody else.Quote:
Didn't a recent paper find evidences of a much earlier, more basal Eurasian back-migration to Africa with signals of that gene flow spanning even most of Sub-Saharan Africa? What if those weren't really Eurasians (not mostly anyway), but just a consequence of the fact that the specific Proto-non-African population that colonized all the other continents didn't disappear from Africa as early as was thought, and some of it stayed behind in their original "homeland" in Northeast Asia and the nearest Asian neighborhood (i.e. Arabia and Southern Levant)? Just some thoughts...
No, they were not. The biggest and probably only difference is that they main Eurasians had (more) archaic admixture, mainly Neandertal, in the East and South East also Denisovan, while Basal Eurasian had not (as much). So Basal Eurasians are more like the pure modern Homo sapiens branch. There is nothing else. Like the ancestors of Australo-Melanesians moved on, after leaving Africa, to the South East. So there was not even a common evolutionary path for the rest of the main Eurasians. The only thing which made them different from Basal Eurasian is, that Basal Eurasian was restricted to the Near East, possibly North East Africa, and had no(t as much) archaic admixture. That's it, period.Quote:
I tended to believe before this that even a moderate increase in the proportion of BE ancestry would bring an individual much further from another with lower BE admixture, roughly as it happens when there is admixture between two very divergent population clusters, like West African vs. European. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so weren't Basal Eurasians very different from other West Eurasians to begin with?
The resolution and quality of the sample might be questionable and there is no other information than "substantial". I would say 25 percent is substantial. So whatever the exact percentage, what this proves is the early, widespread presence of BEA, nothing else.Quote:
Or is it just that the "significant" BE admixture in this new sample is actually not much higher than in Dzudzuana, therefore even lower than what you could find in later populations like Iran_N, CHG, Anatolia_N and Natufian (correct me if I'm wrong, but Anatolia_N was basically modelled by Lazaridis as Dzudzuana + extra BE)?
Like I wrote before, ANE were the large bodied steppe mammoth hunters, either because the climate became to hostile and cold, or the megafauna was depleted, or they had a demographic growth, whatever was the reason, probably all of this together, they began to push South and West, on a grand scale. And they chased away whoever was in their way or mixed with those. So at the LGM you had one big chain migration event, caused by the climate and the migration of ANE, in West Eurasia Africa. Even Iberomaurusians fit into this, because one group had to push the next. And that is where modern Subsaharan ancestry (and the Negroid phenotype) began to emerge, because ANE pushed Dzudzuana, those pushed their Basal Eurasian neighbours and created a mix, this mixed Levantine group pushed into Africa and spread IBM. The ANA lake dwellers too began to move South, and began to mix with Basal H.s. and archaic groups (Iwo Eleru) in Africa.Quote:
On a related note, I wonder if between the early LGM and the Mesolithic there was a consistent east-to-west trend: Iran_Meso/CHG-like people, a mix of ANE, Dzudzuana-like and maybe a bit more BE, migrated from Iran to the Caucasus and nearby areas; the former Dzudzuana-like people that lived there migrated westward towards Anatolia; and the WHG-like people that lived in Western Anatolia and Southeasternmost Europe migrated (north)westward into the rest of Europe. We'll see if that scenario holds true when more Paleolithic DNA from Eurasia appear.
The same pattern repeated itself numerous times, it did so with Natufian like expansions into Africa, with the developed Neolithic, and the beginning metal Ages. And with every push from the North the movement of culturally more developed people penetrated more of Africa. In the end this created the Bantu expansion as well. Its right, Basal Eurasian mixed in from the South and when ANE entered the scene, they pushed the whole range of the variation from the Near East down to Africa, so that a lot of the lineages ended up much more South than they orginally were.
Now where they were originally, like E or E1b, we don't know, we can't know. Because if the result of the push was that whole communities were on the move, the present distribution won't prove the past one. Only ancient DNA can.
I think we should remember that the geography was quite different during the LGM. Vast ice sheets prssing down the land in the north, massive meltwater rivers going that way in the summer, but no egress to the ocean that way. Sea levels far lower.
My personal guess for the Basal Eurasians is the Ur-Schatt valley.
I thinks its clear that E is from the mostly ANA releated component in Taforalt and E in Eurasians mostly have come via Natufians/Levant PPNB and later Cardial Ware culture in Europe. Yoruba has 13% IBM mixture which explains E1b1a in West African/Bantu associated peoplesQuote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
Clear as in clear from the 2018 Dzudzuana paper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diictodon
very likely agree :cool-v:
That is unknown. It might be more or less probable, but its not decided yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diictodon
That is clear.Quote:
and E in Eurasians mostly have come via Natufians/Levant PPNB and later Cardial Ware culture in Europe. Yoruba has 13% IBM mixture which explains E1b1a in West African/Bantu associated peoples
Two different things. People sometimes forget how old E and its main clades actually are and the main problem is just that Basal Eurasian is still not found, the Southern Arabian peninsula and the Nile region/Egypt not researched yet. Two big, unresolved issues for that debate.
Our cousin D is asian and maybe even paleo-mongolid :thinking:
I know about the nigerian /saudian D branch
But most of haplogroup D branches look asian
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
I do look at the distribution of modern samples and these are, from my point of view, inconclusive to in favour of back migration from Asia for haplogroup E as a whole. However, it might be even more complicated with numerous forth and back migrations being possible, we don't know without actual, conclusive evidence. Its like it is with E-V13 too. Without having tested ancient DNA, all kinds of theories might have been viable options back in the days. With ancient DNA being tested, the number of viable theories decreased drastically and is still going down with every new tested ancient individual from the candidate regions, where E-V13 could have "wintered" before the MBA-LBA, to expand in the LBA-EIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
Its pretty much the same with E probably, they might or might not have "wintered" in Southern Arabia among Basal Eurasians before expanding into Africa. How can we know without having anything from there at all? There really is no way to be sure going by the currently available data.
E-v13 might be the most complicated
Haplogroup in europe the 5000bc avellander cave is mind blowing ....
That live the door open that it might originated
In southwest europe and not in the balkan after presumed migration from anatolia
P.s
Might there be also a big mess as to where E generally speaking was at first and to which ancient population it belonged
As you said nothing is set in stone yet....
Interesting.
I agree, perhaps E was brought there with Basal Eurasians, before the arrival of ANA, that led to the ethnogenesis of Natufians. Nevertheless, I recall all Natufians were a form of E.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I thought that Cruciani (2007) located the 'birth' of E in Libya/Egypt. My subbranche E-V22 was born about the twilight of the Egyptian civilization....The desert was developing and the people concentrated in the Nile strip. What would be a reason to revise that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
I have to dig around for it, but I recall a paper that was shared by Bicicleur a couple years ago, that suggested that it could have come with Basal Eurasians. I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener