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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
uBiZdIs.png
 
This is not finished yet, i might change a right pop and i will also model more people. But overally 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.

f4EQjSn.png
 
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.
uBiZdIs.png


what North Italians are you having issues with ...French side ones or Austrian side ones ? .................most should have North-Caucasus majority, south-Caucasus less so, Steppe and Asia-Minor components
 
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/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618212033423

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

1-s2.0-S1040618212033423-gr1.jpg


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 :

View attachment 13751

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.

Kebaran is 20000 years old ...............the only haplogroup was J in that area ............as per an old paper

According to Semino et al. (2004) this haplogroup J arisen roughly 31,700 12,800 years ago. This date would coincide with my proposed date of modern man emergence estimated to about 20,000 years ago: namely the haplogroup J .........................at this second stage modern humans migrated from Yemen to the north for reaching Levant at about 18,000 years ago where they founded the Kebaran culture
 
Kebaran is 20000 years old ...............the only haplogroup was J in that area ............as per an old paper

According to Semino et al. (2004) this haplogroup J arisen roughly 31,700 12,800 years ago. This date would coincide with my proposed date of modern man emergence estimated to about 20,000 years ago: namely the haplogroup J .........................at this second stage modern humans migrated from Yemen to the north for reaching Levant at about 18,000 years ago where they founded the Kebaran culture

H and G are close at that time in Asia-Minor .............but L and T where still in Central Asia or South Central Asia

J and E would be in the Area
 
What we are missing in these tables are: Maykop culture and also some central Asia cultures , like: Otrar culture.
Otrar is later culture, however we have many other old populations in Central Asia like MA1.
Maykop culture is exactly a mixture between european and central Asia.
Yamnaya culture is 50:50 mixture between such Maykop culture and WHG or EHG . BTH, EHG are also a branch of WHG mixed with Central Asia ANE or similar.

The reason to mention Otrar culture is: we have this individulal: KNT002 . You may validate where it is in PCA or other statistics.
 
The model is interesting. One thing that seems a bit strange to me is the very low Levant Neolithic /Iran Neolithic ratio in Southern Italy, Sicily and Crete (i.e. they have high Iran N but fairly low Levant Neolithic, even lower than in Myceneans), so I wonder what donor population could increase the Iran_N component without increasing the Levant_N one: the levant bronze age populations have roughly the same propiortion between the two component, so they don't seem a viable source. Even the bronze age Anatoilan populations seem to have a more "balanced" Levant N/ Iran N ratio. Maybe it is just an issue with the sampling and not with the model.
 
Last edited:
The model is interesting. One thing that seems a bit strange to me is the very low Levant Neolithic /Iran Neolithic ratio in Southern Italy, Sicily and Crete (i.e. they have high Iran N but fairly low Levant Neolithic, even lower than in Myceneans), so I wonder what donor population could increase the Iran_N component without increasing the Levant_N one: the levant bronze age populations have roughly the same propiortion between the two component, so they don't seem a viable source. Even the bronze age Anatoilan populations seem to have a more "balanced" Levant N/ Iran N ratio. Maybe it is just an issue with the sampling and not with the model.


An historical explanation (not necessarily the correct take) would be that the contributing population were Medieval (broadly speaking) Anatolians and not Levantines, so the Iran_N/CHG would be skewed more in favor of the former rather than the latter.

In the case of Crete, we know from Byzantine history that the island received input from Lazica and Armenia in the late 900s with the Phokas' reconquista while almost eradicating the Saracen presence there.
 
I thought about that as well, but the Iron and Bronze age anatolian populations presented in the model still have a pretty higher Levant Neolithic / Iran Neolithic ratio than, for instance, the cretan one (in the model, Crete shows an even higher CHG/Iran_N than anatolian populations, yet a very lower Levant_N component)
So, I'm not sure medieval anatolians could be taken as a good source population (even if, as you said, some influx is highly plausible).
 
I thought about that as well, but the Iron and Bronze age anatolian populations presented in the model still have a pretty higher Levant Neolithic / Iran Neolithic ratio than, for instance, the cretan one (in the model, Crete shows an even higher CHG/Iran_N than anatolian populations, yet a very lower Levant_N component)
So, I'm not sure medieval anatolians could be taken as a good source population (even if, as you said, some influx is highly plausible).


Medieval NE Anatolians and Armenians for Cretans.
 

This thread has been viewed 10917 times.

Back
Top