Ancient Egyptian dna-Kraus et al

[Daniel]

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

[MOESAN]

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]

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]

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 hasless 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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

@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’sAnd 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]

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'.

dzudzuana tree .jpgImage 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 ago^1-4, 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 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 or Arabia^24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa²⁶. 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]

Im thinking Dzudzuana ancestral to Villabruna is possible?

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

[MOESAN]

dzudzuana tree .jpgImage 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 ago^1-4, 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 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 or Arabia^24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa²⁶. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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