qpAdm Neolithic admix chart for West Eurasians ANF/Natufian/CHG/Iran N/EHG/WHG etc.

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

I might add more populations another time and change a bit the left and right pops.

The Italian_North's Natufian seems inflated here because Iran N underinflated, probably because the Standard Errors were high on that model for some reason.

Edit: i'm gonna remake this because i had to remove Jordan_PPNB from the outgroups for some pops to get a good p value but it made the model less accurate. I've found a way to fix it. For example Mycenaeans score 12.4% PPNB and with Natufian they get around 8% with the proper right pops.





This below is not fully finished yet, i might change a right pop and i will also model more people. But overall i think it's pretty good when it comes to Anatolian HG vs Natufian admix. Sadly we don't have high coverage Iran Mesolithic samples so i can make it an all mesolithic model with CHG/Iran Meso.



I merged Caucasus Hunter Gatherer Satsurblia + Iran N to estimate total CHG/Iran N related shift.

[Anfänger]

Interesting but totally different results compared to G25.

[Angela]

I might add more populations another time and change a bit the left and right pops.

The Italian_North's Natufian seems inflated here because Iran N underinflated, probably because the Standard Errors were high on that model for some reason.

Do you have any idea how closes CHG and Iran Neo are to one another???

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Do you have any idea how closes CHG and Iran Neo are to one another???

They are drifted and different enough for qpAdm to tell them apart despite their very similar paleolithic components. In almost all models i had low STD errors

They have thousands or even 10,000 years of separation (not total isolation). Also Steppe does not even have direct CHG Kotias or Iran Neo, they have something related to those which is why North Euros and Yamnaya score both. When you add just Iran Neo and no CHG it absorbs some of the Natufian of many populations, so i need to use both to make it balanced, in most cases STD errors were low but in North Italians were abit higher.

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Interesting but totally different results compared to G25.

Even the creator of G25 pointed out that its not perfect. I mainly use G25 to run quick models before confirming them on qpAdm.

[bicicleur 2]

Do you have any idea how closes CHG and Iran Neo are to one another???

check this, from the Dzudzuana paper by Laziridis :

qpAdm zoom 2.jpg

both have Dzudzuana as main component
they have the same amount of ANE, but the sources may be different - Y DNA R1 for CHG, R1 or R2 for Iran Neo
Iran Neo has the double amount of deep ancestry (African, not Basal Eurasian) - through mixture with the Ibero-Maurisians (Tarofalt) (E-M35)

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

check this, from the Dzudzuana paper by Laziridis :

qpAdm zoom 2.jpg

both have Dzudzuana as main component
they have the same amount of ANE, but the sources may be different - Y DNA R1 for CHG, R1 or R2 for Iran Neo
Iran Neo has the double amount of deep ancestry (African, not Basal Eurasian) - through mixture with the Ibero-Maurisians (Tarofalt) (E-M35)

Also Iran N and CHG were drifted apart for many thousands of years which made them easier to separate. The problem is that Steppe has neither of those but has a ghost CHG/Iran N related ancestry. I dont know if their deep ancestry is Basal Eurasian or African, Lazaridis didnt specify on that study i think? Unless he figured it on a recent study i missed.

[Anfänger]

Even the creator of G25 pointed out that its not perfect. I mainly use G25 to run quick models before confirming them on qpAdm.

Yep, that’s why I don’t use G25 anymore. Just wanted to clarify that G25 is inferior.

Also Iran N and CHG were drifted apart for many thousands of years which made them easier to separate. The problem is that Steppe has neither of those but has a ghost CHG/Iran N related ancestry. I dont know if their deep ancestry is Basal Eurasian or African, Lazaridis didnt specify on that study i think? Unless he figured it on a recent study i missed.

I actually agree on the ghost CHG/Iran_N. Exactly what I insisted on many times on anthrogenica and here but some people called me "southern supremacist“, whatever that means. I think the separation of CHG and Iran_N has to be about 13000 BC according to the Y-DNA TMCRA. They’re still very much alike, though.
Btw, i think the ghost CHG/Iran_N population lived in Azerbaijan or Northern Iran/Armenia. Where do you think this ghost population lived?

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Yep, that’s why I don’t use G25 anymore. Just wanted to clarify that G25 is inferior.
I actually agree on the ghost CHG/Iran_N. Exactly what I insisted on many times on anthrogenica and here but some people called me "southern supremacist“, whatever that means. I think the separation of CHG and Iran_N has to be about 13000 BC according to the Y-DNA TMCRA. They’re still very much alike, though.
Btw, i think the ghost CHG/Iran_N population lived in Azerbaijan or Northern Iran/Armenia. Where do you think this ghost population lived?

I don't know. I don't have enough data to determine where they lived and i dont know where they received the East Eurasian from.

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Yep, that’s why I don’t use G25 anymore. Just wanted to clarify that G25 is inferior.
I actually agree on the ghost CHG/Iran_N. Exactly what I insisted on many times on anthrogenica and here but some people called me "southern supremacist“, whatever that means. I think the separation of CHG and Iran_N has to be about 13000 BC according to the Y-DNA TMCRA. They’re still very much alike, though.
Btw, i think the ghost CHG/Iran_N population lived in Azerbaijan or Northern Iran/Armenia. Where do you think this ghost population lived?

Some extra models because i used Natufian as a proxy on the chart. Their CHG/iran N related admix seems to be a bit more related to CHG than Iran N but it's pretty close

[bicicleur 2]

Also Iran N and CHG were drifted apart for many thousands of years which made them easier to separate. The problem is that Steppe has neither of those but has a ghost CHG/Iran N related ancestry. I dont know if their deep ancestry is Basal Eurasian or African, Lazaridis didnt specify on that study i think? Unless he figured it on a recent study i missed.

no, he didn't specify this, but the most obvious would be the 'ancestral north african' which was introduced by the early Ibero-Maurisians

tree.jpg

the Ibero-Maurisians had a combination of African Y-DNA E-M35 and Eurasian mtDNA U6

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

no, he didn't specify this, but the most obvious would be the 'ancestral north african' which was introduced by the early Ibero-Maurisians

tree.jpg

the Ibero-Maurisians had a combination of African Y-DNA E-M35 and Eurasian mtDNA U6

I thought about Taforalt mixing in before more Dzudzuana moved down to make Natufian but it could also just be excess Basal Eurasian in Iran N

[real expert]

@bicicleur, @Idontknowwhatimdoing.

Do you both think that Natufians and Iran Neo have SS-African ancestors? I'm aware that some Afrocentrists on AG have been arguing for a long time that Basal Eurasians are not a real component and not Eurasian either since they behave like SSAs in a statistical tool. So, according to them, BE could be just an SSA-like component, an artifact. To be honest, I thought that they came to this conclusion due to their afrocentric bias. Anyway, the nature of the ANA lineage is also debated; some believe it is neither SSA-like nor Eurasian, while others believe it is closer to SSA proper, and still others believe it is closer to Eurasian and possibly a precursor of Eurasian lineages. Furthermore, it is strange that Lazaridis has yet to publish his Dzudzuana paper after nearly 5 years. He appears to have made a mistake.

[Moja]

CHG: Greece_BA_Mycenaean_All 0.7% but Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 21.9%

We know Mycenaeans were an ancient Indo-European people but what is this story about the homeland of Indo-Europeans and CHG/Yamnaya ancestry?

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

CHG: Greece_BA_Mycenaean_All 0.7% but Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 21.9%

We know Mycenaeans were an ancient Indo-European people but what is this story about the homeland of Indo-Europeans and CHG/Yamnaya ancestry?

Pay attention to the Standard Errors. And most importantly Steppe does not have CHG but has a ghost component related to CHG and Iran N.

[Anfänger]

Some extra models because i used Natufian as a proxy on the chart. Their CHG/iran N related admix seems to be a bit more related to CHG than Iran N but it's pretty close

Yes, I noticed that too. It is a bit more related to CHG than Iran_N even though it's pretty close. That's why I imagine that the ghost population must have lived between CHG(Kotias) and Iran_N(GanjDareh), slightly closer to CHG though.

Also, CHGs seem to be an offshoot of Iran_N that mixed with what was left of Dzudzuana + minor EHG.

IMG_7825.jpg

[Francesco]

Why such a low level of Iran_N in northern Italy (BTW is it possible that Morocco_Enolithic deflates the natufin component in southern Italy to more "physiologic" levels)?

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Why such a low level of Iran_N in northern Italy (BTW is it possible that Morocco_Enolithic deflates the natufin component in southern Italy to more "physiologic" levels)?

Yes, the the model with Morocco_en shows realistic levels of Natufian in Southern Italy. In my older models like i said the Natufian was inflated because i couldnt use Morocco_En. About North Italy, it had higher STD errors than the other models, also i didnt check what North Italian regions they included in that group, it could be messing up too, i might separate them by city another time.

[bicicleur 2]

@bicicleur, @Idontknowwhatimdoing.

Do you both think that Natufians and Iran Neo have SS-African ancestors? I'm aware that some Afrocentrists on AG have been arguing for a long time that Basal Eurasians are not a real component and not Eurasian either since they behave like SSAs in a statistical tool. So, according to them, BE could be just an SSA-like component, an artifact. To be honest, I thought that they came to this conclusion due to their afrocentric bias. Anyway, the nature of the ANA lineage is also debated; some believe it is neither SSA-like nor Eurasian, while others believe it is closer to SSA proper, and still others believe it is closer to Eurasian and possibly a precursor of Eurasian lineages. Furthermore, it is strange that Lazaridis has yet to publish his Dzudzuana paper after nearly 5 years. He appears to have made a mistake.

Basal Eurasian is not African, and Laziridis stated in the Dzudzuana paper that the Yoruba recieved Eurasian DNA, not the other way around.
However there is this 'Ancestral North African'. I believe it was brought by the ancestors of the Ibero-Maurusians who carried Y-DNA E-M35.
I believe they came from the Nile Valley in Nubia, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khormusan
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...40618212033423

The Ibero-Maurusians had a mixture of Ancestral North African and Dzudzuana DNA.



The Natufians are supposed to be a mixture of Mushabians and Kebaran HG.
The Mushabians were Ibero-Maurusians living in the arid area between the Levant and the Nile Delta.

We don't have Kebaran DNA, but it must have been almost 100 % Dzudzuana, because the Natufians had much less Ancestral North African and more Dzudzuana than the Ibero-Maurusians.
You can check this in the tree beneath :

tree.jpg

Levant PPN had even less Ancestral North African than Natufian, so they should have received some extra Kebaran DNA.
According to Laziridis NW Anatolia EN is also almost 100 % Dzudzuana.
So I guess haplogroup G were Kebaran HG, but it is possible that H2, L and T were also Kebaran HG.

[bicicleur 2]

I thought about Taforalt mixing in before more Dzudzuana moved down to make Natufian but it could also just be excess Basal Eurasian in Iran N

there was a mixture with Dzudzuana twice
first possibly at the formation of the Ibero-Maurusians (25-30.000 years ago), at least before Tarofalt 15 ka
second at the formation of the Natufians (14.500 years ago)

and even a third, at the formation of Levant PPNB (10.800 years ago)

[bicicleur 2]

CHG: Greece_BA_Mycenaean_All 0.7% but Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 21.9%

We know Mycenaeans were an ancient Indo-European people but what is this story about the homeland of Indo-Europeans and CHG/Yamnaya ancestry?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247

check the paper on the bronze age

[bicicleur 2]

Why such a low level of Iran_N in northern Italy (BTW is it possible that Morocco_Enolithic deflates the natufin component in southern Italy to more "physiologic" levels)?

according to Laziridis in the Dzudzuana paper Morocco neolithic was very similar to Tarofalt 15 ka
Morocco neolithic doesn't have Levantine or Anatolian neolithic DNA

[bicicleur 2]

Also, CHGs seem to be an offshoot of Iran_N that mixed with what was left of Dzudzuana + minor EHG.

I think it is more likely that both CHG and Iran N ancestors were 100 % Dzudzuana.
Then both mixed with Ancestral North African, but Iran N more than CHG.
Short after LGM, both also recieved ANE DNA.

[Angela]

Also Iran N and CHG were drifted apart for many thousands of years which made them easier to separate. The problem is that Steppe has neither of those but has a ghost CHG/Iran N related ancestry. I dont know if their deep ancestry is Basal Eurasian or African, Lazaridis didnt specify on that study i think? Unless he figured it on a recent study i missed.

Percentage wise, they ARE VERY SIMILAR, as I said. Numerous academicians have stated that they are so similar that it is very difficult to distinguish between them, but of course you know more than all of them.

As to the highlighted segment, again, academicians differ.

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Percentage wise, they ARE VERY SIMILAR, as I said. Numerous academicians have stated that they are so similar that it is very difficult to distinguish between them, but of course you know more than all of them.

As to the highlighted segment, again, academicians differ.

I know that they are very similar percentage wise but they are not identical and have thousands of years of drift from each other, they are also different Enough that Iranians score 35% Iran N and 14% CHG while Georgians score 32% CHG and 10.5% Iran N. There is obviously some distinction.

For Europeans and Yamnaya i use both Iran N and CHG as proxies to "reconstruct" their ghost CHG/Iran N related ancestry, and if they actually have both then still good. The amounts appear consistent in Europeans, with the exception of North Italians, whose model had higher Standard Errors than the others. Whatever Yamnaya had is more related to CHG than Iran N, so I used both as proxies to show which of the two Georgians, Iranians, and Steppe prefer.

As to the highlighted segment.