Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68

Thread: The Population History of Northeastern Siberia

  1. #26
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=GillSansRegular]

    'yana split from Europe 38.7 ka and got 29.2 % east asian admixture'
    it would be odd to say
    'yana split from east asia 38.7 ka and got 70.8 % european admixture'
    but would it be incorrect too?
    aren't there 2 ways to see it, as both events happened simultaneously?

  2. #27
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post

    'yana split from Europe 38.7 ka and got 29.2 % east asian admixture'
    it would be odd to say
    'yana split from east asia 38.7 ka and got 70.8 % european admixture'
    but would it be incorrect too?
    aren't there 2 ways to see it, as both events happened simultaneously?

    It's not the same - the Western component split off the ancestors of the Kostenki-Sungir population 38.7 years ago. We don't know much about the nature of the Eastern component because we have so few samples outside of Europe and Siberia.

  3. #28
    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



    Also, again Mal'ta and EHG are modelled as having 10-20% CHG-related ancestry. So many discussions about this over the years

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Also, again Mal'ta and EHG are modelled as having 10-20% CHG-related ancestry. So many discussions about this over the years
    What could it mean?

  5. #30
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    What could it mean?
    I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

    Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.

  6. #31
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    259
    Points
    5,537
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,537, Level: 21
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Did they actually find X2a in NE Siberia? I believed (against the tide, I know) that it was brought by pre-Columbian pre-Viking West Eurasian contact...

    By the way, why do we STILL not know what subclade of R1b the Native Americans belonged to? I mean, it can't be that hard, surely. If I had to guess, it would be some rare form of M269 not found among present-day European populations.





    I'll just out myself now - I'm a supporter of Thor Heyerdahl's Canary hypothesis (the gist, anyway - as one example, samples of cocaine (a New World crop) found amongst some of the Egyptian mummies (people try to explain it away as "contamination", as if people were doing coke while excavating - it was found in the hair anyway, which is normally enough to rule something like that out, but because this is so incredible people see it as crackpot)).
    Wrong, the R1b in Ojibwe Canadians (where this frequently reported statistic comes from ) is likely P312 or U106 just like the British and French settlers. M269 didn't exist 17000 years ago.

  7. #32
    Baron Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-12
    Posts
    259
    Points
    5,537
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,537, Level: 21
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    Despite the similarities to Ma'lta, I suspect this population was still considerably closer to the one who founded the Americas - Q1a3 (or whatever the latest nomenclature is). Lake Baikal isn't all that close, and even then, was probably a genetic dead end like this Yana tribe. R1 was successful far to the west of here. I'm curious though, what Y line carried the additional East Asian admixture before the first North Americans (aka Natives) crossed the Bering Strait. Was it C3? The more recent "neo-Siberians" were probably YDNA N and O.

  8. #33
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1981 View Post
    Wrong, the R1b in Ojibwe Canadians (where this frequently reported statistic comes from ) is likely P312 or U106 just like the British and French settlers. M269 didn't exist 17000 years ago.
    No, because that doesn't explain why they wouldn't have other haplogroups like I1 (from your hypothesis they should). It clearly is a lot older than that.

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

    Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.
    In the Dzudzuana paper they were saying that CHG/Iranian Neolithic was likely just a result of ANE moving South during the cold snap and admixing with Dzudzuana plus more basal/deep lineage (I think), with CHG being in the EHG<-->Iranian Neolithic Cline. Seems like Iranian Neolithic didn't exist until after 20k years ago, according to that paper.

    Eurasians seem to be suddenly splitting off during a relatively short span of time. I'm imagining a cartoonish argument about which way to go, between groups that look like ethnic caricatures of themselves.

    When you were talking about a single wave model being favored by evidence you listed the fact that most Eurasians don't have archaic ancestry as supporting evidence. Please explain this. My brain is slow today. It seems to me that multiple waves could still result in very limited to zero neanderthal admixture. Your other reasons are sound.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-10-16
    Posts
    12
    Points
    1,646
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,646, Level: 11
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Mongolia



    If ANS or Yana is closely related and ancestral to ANE with both being around 75% West Eurasian and 25% East Eurasian or more, does this means that Native Americans have close to 30% West Eurasian ancestry and might have very low levels of CHG-related admixture being that they are around 40% ANE?

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

    Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.
    Hm. If both Mal'ta have CHG and Andamanese Iran_Neo, it probably have to do with the hypothetic ASE, Ancient South Eurasian, wich is believe to be the ancestor of ANE. Maybe something coming out of India.

  12. #37
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    In the Dzudzuana paper they were saying that CHG/Iranian Neolithic was likely just a result of ANE moving South during the cold snap and admixing with Dzudzuana plus more basal/deep lineage (I think), with CHG being in the EHG<-->Iranian Neolithic Cline. Seems like Iranian Neolithic didn't exist until after 20k years ago, according to that paper.

    Eurasians seem to be suddenly splitting off during a relatively short span of time. I'm imagining a cartoonish argument about which way to go, between groups that look like ethnic caricatures of themselves.

    When you were talking about a single wave model being favored by evidence you listed the fact that most Eurasians don't have archaic ancestry as supporting evidence. Please explain this. My brain is slow today. It seems to me that multiple waves could still result in very limited to zero neanderthal admixture. Your other reasons are sound.
    After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

    Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

    Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.
    A little bit off topic but, i have hard time to believe that Oase 1 and Ust-Ishim are not that much related, they have little years of separation, they have the same y-dna haplogroup, they both share relations somehow with East Asians. Also, on Wikipedia it's says that " Neanderthal DNA in modern humans occurs in broken fragments; however, the Neanderthal DNA in Ust'-Ishim man occurs in clusters, indicating that Ust'-Ishim man lived in the immediate aftermath of the genetic interchange. " and on an article of Lizzie Wade i read this " The Ust-Ishim man likely lived 7000 to 13,000 years after modern humans and Neandertals mated " wich doesn't really make sense because Oase 1 have a neanderthal ancestor 6 generations before him more or less. Do we actually know on all UP samples that we have, with wich Neanderthals they are closer?

  14. #39
    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 halfalp View Post
    A little bit off topic but, i have hard time to believe that Oase 1 and Ust-Ishim are not that much related, they have little years of separation, they have the same y-dna haplogroup, they both share relations somehow with East Asians. Also, on Wikipedia it's says that " Neanderthal DNA in modern humans occurs in broken fragments; however, the Neanderthal DNA in Ust'-Ishim man occurs in clusters, indicating that Ust'-Ishim man lived in the immediate aftermath of the genetic interchange. " and on an article of Lizzie Wade i read this " The Ust-Ishim man likely lived 7000 to 13,000 years after modern humans and Neandertals mated " wich doesn't really make sense because Oase 1 have a neanderthal ancestor 6 generations before him more or less. Do we actually know on all UP samples that we have, with wich Neanderthals they are closer?
    If you read the Oase paper you'll find that they actually find two layers of Neanderthal admixture, one recent, the other related to the Ust'Ishim admixture.

    EDIT: It is even more complicated as there are actually more *ancient* Neanderthal in Oase 1.

    When we remove the seven longest segments, the estimate of Neanderthal ancestry in Oase 1 drops from 7.3% to 4.8%, which is still around twice the 2.0–2.9% estimated for the French, Han, Kostenki and Ust’-Ishim individuals in this remaining part of the genome. This additional Neanderthal ancestry could reflect an older Neanderthal admixture into the ancestors of Oase1, or that we failed to find all segments of recent Neanderthal ancestry. The Oase 1 genome shows that mixture between modern humans and Neanderthals was not limited to the first ancestors of present-day people to leave Africa, or to people in the Near East; it occurred later as well and probably in Europe.
    Last edited by epoch; 25-10-18 at 19:26.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    If you read the Oase paper you'll find that they actually find two layers of Neanderthal admixture, one recent, the other related to the Ust'Ishim admixture.
    Oh ok. Yeah i could not read the Oase paper without register.

  16. #41
    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 halfalp View Post
    Oh ok. Yeah i could not read the Oase paper without register.
    David Reich labs has its publications published online. Pretty cool.

    https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/publications

  17. #42
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Hm. If both Mal'ta have CHG and Andamanese Iran_Neo, it probably have to do with the hypothetic ASE, Ancient South Eurasian, wich is believe to be the ancestor of ANE. Maybe something coming out of India.
    But how can Mal'ta have CHG when it is much, much older than the CHG samples and thus it certainly lacked the particular mix that arose and consolidated in the Caucasus to form the CHG? I think that sounds terribly anachronistic and certainly leads to wrong conclusions. It can only be said that Mal'ta and CHG may have had a part of their genome that represent common ancestral roots (maybe not even implying necessarily a direct relationship, but that they were all influenced by waves of the same ancient population admixtures - though I definitely think ANE-enriched groups contributed to the CHG).

  18. #43
    Dr. Eugenics Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Ethnic group
    Of the world
    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    But how can Mal'ta have CHG when it is much, much older than the CHG samples and thus it certainly lacked the particular mix that arose and consolidated in the Caucasus to form the CHG? I think that sounds terribly anachronistic and certainly leads to wrong conclusions. It can only be said that Mal'ta and CHG may have had a part of their genome that represent common ancestral roots (maybe not even implying necessarily a direct relationship, but that they were all influenced by waves of the same ancient population admixtures - though I definitely think ANE-enriched groups contributed to the CHG).
    Surely it's just that CHG was partly ANE-enriched - I get that it could be that both have similar ancestry, but I can't see how CHG would have gotten to NE Siberia (whereas we know these R1 guys were mobile af)

  19. #44
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

    Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.
    I don't know... I think the archaic humans and AMH only interbred occasionally, but often enough to allow for gradual introgression into the gene pool. We have examples of fully modern human populations who basically maintained genetic borders between close territories for centuries or even millennia without much mixing, so we can't rule that out in the case of people who clearly looked and probably acted in a way quite different from our own. Even different castes in India, often looking reasonably similar and sharing a similar culture and behavioral patterns, have remained separate for such a long time that in some parts of that country the local genetic structure is as diverse as that of entire subcontinents like East Asia.

    As for the difference between modern West Eurasians and the likes of Oase, I think the gradual elimination of part of the Neanderthal genome, apparently unfavorable or at least not more favorable than AMH alleles, can also explain part of that much lower percentage of Neanderthal ancestry. It is probable that at least some regional Middle Eastern AMH populations had much higher percentage of Neanderthal ancestry, but admixture with Basal Eurasians and slow but continuous loss of Neanderthal-derived genes created much less Neanderthal-enriched West Eurasian people.

    Much of the southern Levant and Mesopotamia are warm enough for human habitation even if they as you plausibly say favored only ecological realms with warmer climates, certainly just as warm as much of Africa (much of which lies on high plateaus, besides widespread human habitation since very early times - actually the oldest human skull ever - in North Africa, roughly on the same latitude as Lebanon and Jordan).

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    But how can Mal'ta have CHG when it is much, much older than the CHG samples and thus it certainly lacked the particular mix that arose and consolidated in the Caucasus to form the CHG? I think that sounds terribly anachronistic and certainly leads to wrong conclusions. It can only be said that Mal'ta and CHG may have had a part of their genome that represent common ancestral roots (maybe not even implying necessarily a direct relationship, but that they were all influenced by waves of the same ancient population admixtures - though I definitely think ANE-enriched groups contributed to the CHG).
    Obviously Mal'ta doesn't have Kotias ancestry. But CHG have an origin wich is intermediary between EHG and Iran_Neo. Iran_Neo is ANE + Basal Eurasian. In all this Mal'ta have a shared ancestry that contributed to create CHG later, but what? It cannot be Basal Eurasian or we would know, it has to be something that we didn't discover yet, something maybe related with India like ASE. Wich actually confused me a little bit. When we didn't know about CHG yet, we already know about the " Teal " component wich was said to be " from the near east, but not the same that the Anatolian Farmers that made neolithic europe ". So we just needed to found Satsurblia and Kotias to understand. But here it's just CHG, something we already know, that we found even in mesolithic Europe, so what's the exact link? Complicate...

  21. #46
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    763
    Points
    7,464
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,464, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    But how can Mal'ta have CHG when it is much, much older than the CHG samples and thus it certainly lacked the particular mix that arose and consolidated in the Caucasus to form the CHG? I think that sounds terribly anachronistic and certainly leads to wrong conclusions. It can only be said that Mal'ta and CHG may have had a part of their genome that represent common ancestral roots (maybe not even implying necessarily a direct relationship, but that they were all influenced by waves of the same ancient population admixtures - though I definitely think ANE-enriched groups contributed to the CHG).
    I think this is just one of the models that shot out of the algo, that ANE has CHG ancestry. Perhaps this paper was written before they read the Dzudzuana paper.

    It seems more likely that there was an ANE/Iran_Neo cline forming from North to South, as ANE moved out of the freeze zone and into Central/West Asia, which was also gradually morphing into a Iran_Neo/EHG cline with CHG in the middle as WHG/Common West Eurasian types mixed from the West.

    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

    Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.
    Gotchya, you're essentially saying that if we had two distinct waves, one being significantly before another, we'd be more likely to see at the very least more significant differences in Neanderthal ancestry among Eurasians. Don't know if I'm sold, but it does make some sense. I'd probably point out that there are differences in Neanderthal admixture more than I would disagree with this reasoning.

  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Surely it's just that CHG was partly ANE-enriched - I get that it could be that both have similar ancestry, but I can't see how CHG would have gotten to NE Siberia (whereas we know these R1 guys were mobile af)
    because NE Siberia 38 ka wasn't restricted to NE Siberia
    this population covered a vast territory of which NE Siberia was an extremity which they reached 31.6 ka
    my guess is their 38 ka origin lies in Central Asia

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.
    Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.
    I don't think so.
    IMO AMH lived side by side with Neanderthals in the Middle East from 90 ka till 45 ka and we know 90 - 60 ka Eurasian AMH experienced a bottle neck.
    The 55-60 ka admixture event was out of necessity, because AMH had very few partners to mate with.

    We have a lot of European paleolithic DNA.
    AMH were in Europe since 48 ka and lived there next to Neanderthals till 39 ka.
    The only one that mated with Neanderthals within Europe was Oase I.

  24. #49
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    But how can Mal'ta have CHG when it is much, much older than the CHG samples and thus it certainly lacked the particular mix that arose and consolidated in the Caucasus to form the CHG? I think that sounds terribly anachronistic and certainly leads to wrong conclusions. It can only be said that Mal'ta and CHG may have had a part of their genome that represent common ancestral roots (maybe not even implying necessarily a direct relationship, but that they were all influenced by waves of the same ancient population admixtures - though I definitely think ANE-enriched groups contributed to the CHG).
    this paper tries to modell CHG from ANS and Basal Eurasian
    to modell CHG properly you need Dzudzuana, which this paper doesn't know

  25. #50
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,370
    Points
    5,836
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,836, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 214
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I don't think so.
    IMO AMH lived side by side with Neanderthals in the Middle East from 90 ka till 45 ka and we know 90 - 60 ka Eurasian AMH experienced a bottle neck.
    The 55-60 ka admixture event was out of necessity, because AMH had very few partners to mate with.

    We have a lot of European paleolithic DNA.
    AMH were in Europe since 48 ka and lived there next to Neanderthals till 39 ka.
    The only one that mated with Neanderthals within Europe was Oase I.
    So you consider Skhul and Qafzeh as part of our own phylogenetic group as modern humans?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •