Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 139

Thread: Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus

  1. #26
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Ok wow, so if i udnerstand the paper clearly, this new Caucasus genome is some kind of an ancestor to some modern middle-eastern and " the whole neolithic " and also related with the Villabruna Cluster, but Villabruna descend from AG3, so are Anatolian_Neolithic also partially coming from AG3?

    What's the big difference of this HG and Satsurblia / Kotias? Can someone make some kind of resumé of all the genetic relation with the different party?

    Btw, mtdna U6 is now probably the most interesting maternal lineage to study, looking at his ancient and modern distribution.
    How does Villabruna connect with AG3? Was this before or after 26 ka?

  2. #27
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Did you notice that now Samara_HG is now modeled roughly 20% Villabruna, 70% Afontova Gora 3, 10% Baikal Eneolithic... What is that change?
    Baikal Early Neolithic ..

    Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.

  3. #28
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).

    I guess without a pure Basal Eurasian genome this is the best they can do...
    [IMG][/IMG]

    [IMG][/IMG]
    this Mbuti component is confusing
    Laziridis should have split between Mbuti and Ancestral North African as in the admixture graph
    I suspect the Mbuti in Tarofalt is not Mbuti, but a proxy for Ancestral North African
    he says himself that there was no Yoruba in Tarofalt, but it was the other way around ..
    see also the admixture graph

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    518
    Points
    11,370
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,370, Level: 32
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 580
    Overall activity: 20.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I don't think so, BE is >50 ka.
    But it has not been detected prior to the 26 ka Dzudzuana.
    It was not in Siberia, northern China or Europe.
    That's all we know.
    My guess remains India or the Indus delta, and it was brought to the Near East by haplo G and H2.
    Do you have any data of BE in Dravidians?
    bicicleur, why do you think G came from India? I mean, it could be, but I don't know of any evidence of that. In fact, the highest G-M201 diversity would be far from there (Armenia and surroundings?). Its TMRCA is abt. 26k ybp.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,583
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,583, Level: 24
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 467
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    How does Villabruna connect with AG3? Was this before or after 26 ka?
    The way i understand it is that, Villabruna - Bichon Cluster is something El Miron + Dzudzuana Related and AG3 = WHG. How the relationship works... no idea. The " southern " part of Villabruna detected early is probably linking with Dzudzuana and the little " far east " detected in some Villabruna Cluster individuals is maybe AG3.

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,397
    Points
    6,583
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,583, Level: 24
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 467
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    Baikal Early Neolithic ..

    Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.
    Oh yeah...
    I dont understand how CHG wich is between EHG and Iran_Neolithic and is not at all related with Dzudzuana and was previously thought to be part of Samara. Is not anymore? And what is the Samara individual use as a reference?

  7. #32
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    bicicleur, why do you think G came from India? I mean, it could be, but I don't know of any evidence of that. In fact, the highest G-M201 diversity would be far from there (Armenia and surroundings?). Its TMRCA is abt. 26k ybp.
    looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley
    these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
    along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world

    TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
    where was G between 48 and 26 ka?

    in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
    Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka

  8. #33
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There's so much to think about in this paper that it's hard to focus.

    "Outgroup f3-statistics10 108 show that Dzudzuana clusters with Near Eastern populations109 primarily from Anatolia and secondarily from the Levant, but not with the geographically110 proximate CHG (Extended Data Fig. 3). A genetic relationship between Dzudzuana and111 Neolithic Anatolians is also shown by principal components analysis (PCA) in the space of‘outgroup f4-statistics’16 112 of the form f4(Test, O1; O2, O3) where (O1; O2, O3) is a triple of113 outgroups (Fig. 1c; Methods); performing PCA on the space defined by these statistics has114 the advantage of not being affected by genetic drift peculiar to the Test populations. It also115 allows us to visualize genetic relationships between ancient populations alone, without116 projecting onto the variation of present-day people. European hunter-gatherers in our analysis117 form a cline with Villabruna/WHG samples on one end and ANE on the other. None of the118 PGNE populations other than the Neolithic Anatolians cluster with the Ice Age Caucasus119 population from Dzudzuana."

    Contrary to the Felman paper from the Krause group on Anatolian farmers...

    "These125 analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,126 except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG127 (Extended Data Fig. 5a). Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of NeolithicAnatolians6128 does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an129 Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya.130 Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other131 ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically132 related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE133 populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East134 from Europe."

    So, if they weren't in Europe originally, where were they?
    Remember that I pushed a theory of a very old remigration from Aurignacian Europe to the ME? The exchanges that pissed off MarkoZ? That obviously wasn't mine, it came from Ofer Bar-Yosef, one of the coauthors of this paper. It can be found in these articles:

    http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt...ogia/45/20.pdf
    http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt...ogia/45/19.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    For that matter, where were the BE people?

    "The Dzudzuana population was not145 identical to the WHG, as it shared fewer alleles with both an early Upper Paleolithic Siberian(Ust’Ishim19) and an early Upper Paleolithic East Asian (Tianyuan20 146 ) (Extended Data Fig.5c), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry6,9147 . The detectionof this type of ancestry, twice as early as previously documented5,6148 and at the northern edge149 of the Near East, lends weight to the hypothesis that it represents a deep Near Eastern lineagerather than a recent arrival from Africa6."

    Were they both in the Near East, one near the Caucasus originally and one closer to the Levant?
    What do we know of the Middle-Eastern cultures of the Upper Paleolithic? There is the Zagros Aurignacian in Iran, there is Ahmarian in the Levent, apparently contemporaneous to the Levantine Aurignacian. What more do we know?

    Also, the paper claims that there are *two* kinds of basal Eurasian, one that did go through the same bottleneck as current Eurasians went, and one that didn't. An approach to identifying the cultures associated with these two Basal Eurasian ancestries might be to figure what caused that bottleneck, where that happened and when.

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Did anyone notice in that qpAdm output that Chan do Lindeiro (Iberia_Chan) sample is almost full blooded Magdalenian? It is 9000 years old. We see Magdalenian continuity into the Mesolithic.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    518
    Points
    11,370
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,370, Level: 32
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 580
    Overall activity: 20.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley
    these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
    along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world
    TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
    where was G between 48 and 26 ka?
    in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
    Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka
    F is in fact ancestor of GHIJK. https://www.yfull.com/tree/CF/
    As for G route, there is indeed a huge gap between the time of G formation and its TMRCA. GHIJK first split could have happened around the area you mentioned, or close to it, indeed. In the case of G, ok, it could have been a route from east to west, till the first split of G itself around Armenia. HIJK from west to east doesn't seem to work, since the clades involved don't present such gap, as you suggested. No time to HIJK "jump" from the area around Caucasus to South Asia.
    Anyway, I guess I got your hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speculate people related to an older wave from Africa, with a now extinct Y-DNA lineage(?), would have lived in South Asia and would have been the original Basal Eurasians. Then GHIJK - related to another wave - came without this component. Already separated, G and H would have gone south and mixed with this older pop, whereas IJK took another route. Later, G and H would have migrated west bringing BE. Is that right?

  11. #36
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Ah. There is off course the Emiran culture.. Looked like it was a continuation on the Mousterien. Good candidate for a Basal Eurasian culture.

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    this Mbuti component is confusing
    Laziridis should have split between Mbuti and Ancestral North African as in the admixture graph
    I suspect the Mbuti in Tarofalt is not Mbuti, but a proxy for Ancestral North African
    he says himself that there was no Yoruba in Tarofalt, but it was the other way around ..
    see also the admixture graph
    What he says is that " ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "

    So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.
    He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?

    Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia?

    Part of that is Basal Eurasian.

    You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I 100% agree with bicicleur about Y-DNA dispersals, but I think the BE in India is rather unlikely. East Eurasian components from India and surroundings show the typically Eurasian inflation of archaic human ancestry. There's also the similiarity of BE to the newly detected Ancestral North African component, as well as the peaks of BE ancestry in modern North Africans.

    I find it more likely that early humans who migrated from South Asia to the West would have picked up BE ancestry in the Arabian peninsula or vicinity when they crossed the Persian Gulf. This would also explain the secondary peak of BE ancestry in ancient Western Iran, whence it migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus. BE and Ancestral North African likely existed in a continuum in North & East Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula, the Sinai etc. . Earlier human migrations mopped up archaic human populations so BE/ANA only acquired limited & indirect admixture with them.

    It would be interesting to test whether haplogroup D like its sister clade is also at least to an extent associated with a reduction of archaic human ancestry, because its present distribution seems to be the result of a migration that went the opposite direction of most early Eurasian population movements that generally went from the East to the West.

    The precise nature of these movements will be very difficult to figure out without DNA from India and South-East Asia in any case, as these places should be the primary homelands of Eurasian humans.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,084
    Points
    8,922
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,922, Level: 28
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 428
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    What I have noticed is how it's possible to get easily Yamnaya ancestries if running a supervised admixture.
    "What I've seen so far after my entire career chasing Indoeuropeans is that our solutions look tissue thin and our problems still look monumental" J.P.Mallory

    "The ultimate homeland of the group [PIE] that also spread Anatolian languages is less clear." D. Reich

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    What he says is that " ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "

    So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.


    Basal means that we see ancestral rather than derived SNP's. So, they split off very early, after which the rest shared mutations and drift. These changes in the rest will be shared among them but not with Basal. As Mbuti is the farthest from anybody else - It split the earliest - chances that it shares something *ancestral* - i.e. not mutated or otherwise changed - with Basal rather than with later Eurasian is greater. Hence the possibility to use Mbuti as proxy. However, if the affinity was due to later SSA admixture, than the part that admixted must share *other* drift and mutations with SSA. In other words, in that case it is not so much the ancestral that it shares but the derived. That should be clearly picked up with formal stats, but it doesn't.

    EDIT: I don't think this is accurate anymore. Drift is by far a bigger changer of DNA than mutations.

    From the SI: "
    It is clear that Sub Saharan African populations lack shared genetic drift between North African and West Eurasian populations, usually interpreted as the Out-of-Africa bottleneck."

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?
    Exactly. Also, we should take a look at the Emiran. It is considered ancestral to Ahmarian in the Levant as well as later UP cultures in North-Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia?

    Part of that is Basal Eurasian.

    You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.
    Assuming that you refer to Extended Dat Fig. 7: I am quite curious which HG's that are. The only identified ones have 0% Basal.
    Last edited by epoch; 27-09-18 at 21:41.

  16. #41
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    What he says is that " ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "

    So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.
    He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?
    Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia?
    Part of that is Basal Eurasian.
    You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.
    well, at least the label 'Mbuti' is unfortunate then, as Mbuti is a pygmy tribe in Congo

    the Dzudzuana in eastern HG is always accompanied by AG3, it seems to me at some point some Dzudzuana admixed with some EHG
    what is EHG, isn't it WHG + ANE ?

    I wonder in how far common west eurasian = villabruna = WHG ? It is not 100 % correct because there should be some drift in between.
    This would mean Dzudzuana = 72 % WHG + 28 % BE
    But if you use this equasion then the Feldman AHG = 50 % WHG + 50 % Levant Neo would convert into
    AHG = 56 % WHG + 39 % Dzudzuana + 5 % Anciant North African
    It's a long shot, and it is approximate but at first sight, it makes some sense to me, it's another way to look at it.
    I would expect AHG to have more Dzudzuana than Levant Neo, though a combination of both is possible too.

  17. #42
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    F is in fact ancestor of GHIJK. https://www.yfull.com/tree/CF/
    As for G route, there is indeed a huge gap between the time of G formation and its TMRCA. GHIJK first split could have happened around the area you mentioned, or close to it, indeed. In the case of G, ok, it could have been a route from east to west, till the first split of G itself around Armenia. HIJK from west to east doesn't seem to work, since the clades involved don't present such gap, as you suggested. No time to HIJK "jump" from the area around Caucasus to South Asia.
    Anyway, I guess I got your hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speculate people related to an older wave from Africa, with a now extinct Y-DNA lineage(?), would have lived in South Asia and would have been the original Basal Eurasians. Then GHIJK - related to another wave - came without this component. Already separated, G and H would have gone south and mixed with this older pop, whereas IJK took another route. Later, G and H would have migrated west bringing BE. Is that right?
    yes, it's speculation of course, but that is what I meant

  18. #43
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I 100% agree with bicicleur about Y-DNA dispersals, but I think the BE in India is rather unlikely. East Eurasian components from India and surroundings show the typically Eurasian inflation of archaic human ancestry. There's also the similiarity of BE to the newly detected Ancestral North African component, as well as the peaks of BE ancestry in modern North Africans.
    I find it more likely that early humans who migrated from South Asia to the West would have picked up BE ancestry in the Arabian peninsula or vicinity when they crossed the Persian Gulf. This would also explain the secondary peak of BE ancestry in ancient Western Iran, whence it migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus. BE and Ancestral North African likely existed in a continuum in North & East Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula, the Sinai etc. . Earlier human migrations mopped up archaic human populations so BE/ANA only acquired limited & indirect admixture with them.
    It would be interesting to test whether haplogroup D like its sister clade is also at least to an extent associated with a reduction of archaic human ancestry, because its present distribution seems to be the result of a migration that went the opposite direction of most early Eurasian population movements that generally went from the East to the West.
    The precise nature of these movements will be very difficult to figure out without DNA from India and South-East Asia in any case, as these places should be the primary homelands of Eurasian humans.
    the thing is, IJK seems not to have had BE, so if G+H picked up BE, it must have been after the GHIJK split up
    my guess is that IJK moved north, maybe upstream the Indus river, while F+G+H moved along the Indian westcoast, and some of them moved even further inland via the Narmada river

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    well, at least the label 'Mbuti' is unfortunate then, as Mbuti is a pygmy tribe in Congo

    the Dzudzuana in eastern HG is always accompanied by AG3, it seems to me at some point some Dzudzuana admixed with some EHG
    what is EHG, isn't it WHG + ANE ?

    I wonder in how far common west eurasian = villabruna = WHG ? It is not 100 % correct because there should be some drift in between.
    This would mean Dzudzuana = 72 % WHG + 28 % BE
    But if you use this equasion then the Feldman AHG = 50 % WHG + 50 % Levant Neo would convert into
    AHG = 56 % WHG + 39 % Dzudzuana + 5 % Anciant North African
    It's a long shot, and it is approximate but at first sight, it makes some sense to me, it's another way to look at it.
    I would expect AHG to have more Dzudzuana than Levant Neo, though a combination of both is possible too.
    I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.

    Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?

  20. #45
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post


    Basal means that we see ancestral rather than derived SNP's. So, they split off very early, after which the rest shared mutations and drift. These changes in the rest will be shared among them but not with Basal. As Mbuti is the farthest from anybody else - It split the earliest - chances that it shares something *ancestral* - i.e. not mutated or otherwise changed - with Basal rather than with later Eurasian is greater. Hence the possibility to use Mbuti as proxy. However, if the affinity was due to later SSA admixture, than the part that admixted must share *other* drift and mutations with SSA. In other words, in that case it is not so much the ancestral that it shares but the derived. That should be clearly picked up with formal stats, but it doesn't.

    From the SI: "
    It is clear that Sub Saharan African populations lack shared genetic drift between North African and West Eurasian populations, usually interpreted as the Out-of-Africa bottleneck."



    Exactly. Also, we should take a look at the Emiran. It is considered ancestral to Ahmarian in the Levant as well as later UP cultures in North-Africa.



    Assuming that you refer to Extended Dat Fig. 7: I am quite curious which HG's that are. The only identified ones have 0% Basal.

    It's taking me a while to get through the 76 page supplement, in the midst of, you know, life. :) I'll let you know.

  21. #46
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.

    Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?
    Of course, by the time that CHG formed, i.e. 14-15,000 ya, the ANE had arrived in the Caucasus.

    Just found this in the Caucasus, which might be pertinent to our discussions:

    "If Vestonice16 did indeed have ancestry from a Villabruna-related population then this type of ancestrywas already in both Europe and the Caucasus by ~30-27 thousand years ago, and mixed (in Europe) withthe earliest inhabitants represented by Sunghir3 and in the Caucasus (see below) with Basal Eurasians.The fact that it was also present in western Anatolia at the time of the Neolithic, as well as in easternEurope by the time of the Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Karelia (see below) suggest adistribution of this type of ancestry around the Black Sea from which it could have propagated."

  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Also interesting. I didn't know this at all.

    "Finally, we model Russia_Baikal_EN as a 2-way mixture of Han and 15.7±1.6% MA1-related ancestry.This set of ~7-8 thousand year old samples from Lokomotiv contrast with the ~18 thousand year old AG3sample which as we saw above could be modeled as a clade with MA1. It appears that populations of EastAsian-related ancestry appeared in the region in the intervening period14. As we will see below, mixedAG3/East Asian-related ancestry reached West Eurasia as well."

    Did they domesticate the horse? Did they bring that as well as ceramics to the party?

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.

    Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?
    I guess I was right.

    From the supplement:
    "Both Dzudzuana and Taforalt are modeled as 2-way mixtures of Mbuti and Villabruna. Mbuti occupies asymmetrical phylogenetic position to all Eurasians populations—splitting off before the differentiation ofwestern Eurasians, eastern non-Africans, and Ust’Ishim6,12,19 from each other—and can thus be used toquantify such ancestry12."

  24. #49
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Other interesting bits we haven't discussed.

    This answers my question as to which of these ancient lineages is bottlenecked, and it is Basal Eurasian. So perhaps the other deep lineage in Taforalt remained in North Africa?

    "Whatever the non-African related population that admixed to form Ibero-Maurusians, we can say that it ismost closely related to Dzudzuana and Villabruna, and that with Villabruna as a baseline, Dzudzuanaalready had some deep ancestry and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt even more. The admixture graph40model suggests that this deep ancestry was distinct in Taforalt and Dzudzuana, with Taforalt possessingancestry from both an early and a later split, while Dzudzuana possessing ancestry only from the latersplit (the later split corresponds to the original concept of “Basal Eurasians”ref indicating that it largelyderives from the same bottleneck that affected other non-Africans)."

    As to whether Villabruna is "pure":

    "Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestryfrom Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as allthese sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model forVillabruna as a simple clade, and an unadmixed Villabruna acts as a plausible source for several other We are thus cautious about accepting this qpAdm result at face value aswell. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago."

    Fyi, I am very impressed reading about the modeling. On top of everything else, I like that a lot of it is automated, to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

    To continue:
    "From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeedcomplex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to allthe remaining sources. This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainlandEurope migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kyapopulation of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seemsto have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period."



  25. #50
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    @Epoch,

    "It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates14. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe."

    He sounds very sure about this. What it would mean is that they don't have "extra" percentages of these ancient lineages, only what was in Dzudzuana. Something like the way that WHG in Southern Europeans is "hidden" in their Anatolia Neolithic ancestry, and what shows as "WHG" is only the "extra" ancestry?

    So, when he says the following, he means "extra" WHG, on top of the related ancestry in Dzudzuana?

    "Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations1 and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region14,23,24. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic25."

    I've read every word of the Supplement and that's all I could find.

    More on these ancient lineages:

    "The fact that the genetic drift before and after the Basal Eurasian split is estimated similarly by the admixture graph model of Fig. 2 (which uses no archaic samples or Chimp) and Extended Data Fig. 8 68 (which uses archaic ancestry estimated using Altai, Chimp, and Denisova as outgroups) provides two independent lines of evidence for our estimates of these quantities, suggesting that ~2/3 of the drift since the split from East Africans is shared by Basal Eurasians and an additional ~1/3 is shared by non-Basal Eurasian non-Africans. This suggests that the Basal Eurasians (so named because they occupy a basal position in the phylogeny of Eurasians10) did in fact experience most of the common bottleneck shared by Eurasians. (Note also, that if we used the lower (1.6%) estimate of absolute Neandertal ancestry in Ust’Ishim from the f4-ratio, this would imply even more shared genetic drift between Basal Eurasians and other non-Africans, since then f4(Deep, Tianyuan; Ust’Ishim, Chimp)=-0.016*0.436 ≈-0.007.)"

    "The other “Deep” lineage found in Taforalt (Fig. 2) experienced only 0.008 units of genetic drift with non-Africans (Fig. 2) and could be plausibly interpreted as having deep presence in (North) Africa. Note that Taforalt and the Neolithic of the Maghreb are well below the regression line (Extended Data Fig. 8) and thus lack more genetic drift with Ust’Ishim than is predicted by their level of archaic ancestry; this is expected if they trace their ancestry from a lineage that is even more deeply diverged than the Basal Eurasians."

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •