Ancient Egyptian dna-Kraus et al

Most would agree that Berbers including their U6 came from the Near East, particularly the Levant.

"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”

(Ottoni et al. 2010)


The Gravettians are believed have developed from the Levantine Ahmarians

The Ahmarian culture dates from 46,000-42,000 BP. Do you think that U5b2b5 originated in the Ahmarian culture, even though its first appearace in the Levant is about 42,000 years later? Maybe you also think that the Ahmarians were Phoenicians?

Megalithic people likely originated from the Natufians

The European megalithic people were EEF + Euro HG. Paternally they had almost exclusively Euro HG lineages (I2a).


Villabruna Cromagnons show close affiliations with Natufians who like the Cro-Magnons, came from the Levant.

Villabruna is significantly different to Natufians. And U5b has not been found in any Natufian remains.


I could go on and on.

You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. There's no point going on and on making unfounded and nonsensical claims.

The fact is, even if U5b2b5 came to Egypt from the Levant, it originally came from Europe. If Phoenicians had U5b2b5 this just means they had European ancestry.
 

2010 BC to 1961 BC according to the paper:

"(Djehutynakht's) tomb has been firmly dated to within a generation between the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th Dynasties (1961–2010 BC). The head is clearly original to the tomb."

The Yale paper said younger but again it makes no difference because the Hyksos were already pouring in from the earlier date
 
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion.”



The Ahmarian culture dates from 46,000-42,000 BP. Do you think that U5b2b5 originated in the Ahmarian culture, even though its first appearace in the Levant is about 42,000 years later? Maybe you also think that the Ahmarians were Phoenicians?



The European megalithic people were EEF + Euro HG. Paternally they had almost exclusively Euro HG lineages (I2a).



Villabruna is significantly different to Natufians. And U5b has not been found in any Natufian remains.



You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. There's no point going on and on making unfounded and nonsensical claims.

The fact is, even if U5b2b5 came to Egypt from the Levant, it originally came from Europe. If Phoenicians had U5b2b5 this just means they had European ancestry.

-The related U haplogroup motifs between the Sami and North African Berbers, Canary Islanders and some Egyptian mummies have associations with Near Easterners. Likewise, North African ancestral Iberomaurusians have lots of Natufian

- You're the one that brought up Gravettian U5 so I simply informed you that the Gravettians came from Levantine Ahmarian, NOT U5b2b5 .

-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170

-Natufian comprises basal European ancestry and the Neolithic expansion with megalithic Jericho, Gobekli Tepe, and great tools like bow and arrow and all kinds of agriculture


-"Dzudzuana-like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East ..In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia"

This same paper says they dont know the the direction of gene flow but hypothesis opposite directions especially concerning the Natufian's Out of Africa and basal European components, which to me show they're interpretation is very biased and calibrated on flimsy eurocentric radiomagic racial dating.

-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N
 
Last edited:
Most would agree that Berbers including their U6 came from the Near East, particularly the Levant.


Megalithic people likely originated from the Natufians

Villabruna Cromagnons show close affiliations with Natufians who like the Cro-Magnons, came from the Levant.

I could go on and on.

I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.
 
I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.

Sorry I had a post on this but it along with several others and even some edits were somehow deleted. Here is an article quote I mentioned above: "In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia..This Dzudzuana-like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East."

Here is more covering what you seem tp mention: "Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’ were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’ admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe"

What I gather from their conclusion is that a Dzudzuana population from the Caucasus, which had ANE and Villabruna DNA took over the Levant and from there swept over large portions of Europe, Asia and Africa, etc This Dzudzuana population is at least partly known as the Natufians who also had ancient North African ancesty
 
This is a very interesting article explaining what Ive been talking about. Wish I would have found it earlier

[h=1]Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands[/h]
 
This is a very interesting article explaining what Ive been talking about. Wish I would have found it earlier

Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands

As the very most of our modern Humans ancestors (we Eurasians, even western) come some time long ago from Africa, and surely through Near-East or a region close to it, we may say Villabruna come "once upon a time" from Near East. The question is: Villabruna cluster people were in Europe long time BEFORE NEOLITHIC! And Villabruna had common ancestor with THE NOT BASAL EURASIAN Dzudzuana ancestor; the fact we found this Dzudzuana in Caucasus doesn't say us where this ancestors were living before. So to say Villabruna come from Natufians who have AND Basal Eurasian AND Ancient North African ancestry is not only a shortcut but distords reality a bit, in my view, concerning time and direction of genes flow. Just my point.
It's not to say this 'dzudzuana' part didn't come from Near East at some point of History but it would have been very sooner, in a very far time I don't know about just now ; but if we rely on trees about Villabruna we see it would have shared a lot of ancestry with the mesolithical Loschbour and more ancient ancestry with Vestonice-16, this last one old of about 30000. The uniparental markers and this shared ancestry point to a long and not straight way from the Near East to Europe !
 
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!
 
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!

You can easily devine that my view is close to yours!
Time passes and people moves, brethren go their ways and separate... If history is only to found our more ancient common ancestors, we could go back until the coelacanthe (fish).
 
Moesan what is your opinion on this comments by Daniel

“”-EEF such as Otzi the ice man had Levantine haplogroups. Likewise Haplogroup I came from the Levant.””
""-Nah the bottom line is Basal haplogroup U is found in Mal'ta Boy and U come from Southeast Asian haplogroup R, which comes from Levantine Haplogroup N ""

How many thousands of years has Haplogroup I been in Europe ! 20,000 TO 30,000 THOUSAND YEARS, if not more! Wont that be like saying the Chinese Haplogroup O is Levantine because – well it is about what 45,000 thousand years ago! What about the Aborigines in Australia? Well they have a Levantine Haplogroup also, we all do!

You can easily devine that my view is close to yours!
Time passes and people moves, brethren go their ways and separate... If history is only to found our more ancient common ancestors, we could go back until the coelacanthe (fish).

It seems you're projecting your own radiometric centrism. You claim these Egyptian mummies must of come from Europe because the Haplogroup U Cro-Magnons were dated in Europe to 30-odd thousand years ago. I simply showed that your own maestros claim these same Cro-magnon had recently migrated from the Levant.

Yes, Otzi is yDNA G2a2b and mtDNA K1f. A genetic study on Palestinians showed that 75% were yDNA G2a and like 32% of Ashknazi Jews are mtDNA K1

And why didn't you guys didn't read the article on on how Phoenicians spread U haplogroups like U5 ?
 
Last edited:
with some people like Daniel, there really is no point. You're not dealing with a rational person.

Actually, the logical fallacy is the typical ad hominem attack against anyone having issue with Wallace and Klein's cosmic ray generated giant brained Puncuated Gravettian Equilibrium that replaced everyone then back-migrated to build the Pyramids to sacrifice more so called troglodyte ape-man servants to their cosmic ray god yada yada yada :bored:
 


Here is more covering what you seem tp mention: "Most of the Dzudzuana population’s ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the ‘Villabruna cluster’, but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such ‘Basal Eurasians’ were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’ admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe"

What I gather from their conclusion is that a Dzudzuana population from the Caucasus, which had ANE and Villabruna DNA took over the Levant and from there swept over large portions of Europe, Asia and Africa, etc This Dzudzuana population is at least partly known as the Natufians who also had ancient North African ancesty

My take, a bit different!
Dzudzuana was very closer to Ancient Anatolians than to Ancient Caucasians of Satsurbia, and I don't find mention of ANE in them (Dzudzu); what maked it different to WHG is that WHG had NO 'basal eurasian'; so 'basal eurasian' is old in West Eurasia was NOT IN WHOLE West Eurasia at first. the difference between Dzudzuana and Natufians is the lack of ANA (Ancient North Africa). Dzudzuana was not 'Natufian', only Natudians were partly 'Dzudzuana'! So: Natufians cannot be ancestral to Europeans at first. Only a weak part of the Natufian mix could have been passed into Europe (West Western Eurasia) through the small Levant Farmers part in the ANF pop who colonized Europe. So you confuse things and do "painful" shortcuts. I don't answer other points of you because I suspect the same disorder is found in them. No offense.
 
I think you are running fast and are doing kind of shortcuts, maybe. The links between Villabruna and Dzudzuana and between this last and Natufian are not the proof of a straight link between Villabruna and Natufian. And it seems to me I read the direction of genes flow was rather ANA to Natufian than the opposite, concerning North Africa, even if we may suppose the Berbers language came (later?) from people of the Red Sea surroundings. Could you mention me papers backing your affirmations on these points? Thanks beforehand.

The Dzudzuana paper wasn't absolutely certain of flow direction

Also "Basal Eurasian ancestry is highest in the Near East, with estimates as high as 66% in Epipaleolithic Natufian individuals from the Levant " a similar proportion is found in Talforalt
 
The Dzudzuana paper wasn't absolutely certain of flow direction

Also "Basal Eurasian ancestry is highest in the Near East, with estimates as high as 66% in Epipaleolithic Natufian individuals from the Levant " a similar proportion is found in Talforalt

It’s hard to be be 100 % sure.
Nevertheless, some affirmations from 2 studies (Dzudzuana HG’s & Anatolian HG’s)
Dzudzuana : 24500/17000 BC // AHG : 13700/13000 BCE // AAF : 8300/8200 BCE // PPNB : 7700/7600 & 7000/6800 BCE -


Dzudzu HG’s: 28/29 % Basal Eurasian BE > < Anatolian HG’s AHG : about 25 % Basal Eurasian -
Dzudzu closer to Anatolian Farmers then to Levant Farmers, than to CHG ! -
Dzudzu closer to WHG (Villabruna cluster) than to Natufians or North-West Africa
after Dzudzu appeared input of ANE in Caucasus and Iran, and of North-West Africa on Natufians
AHG : midway between WHG and a pop close to Natufians (so a bit closer to Natufians than is Dzudzu) – the authors think what they consider as the result of a crossing took place at least 5000 years before the beginning of agriculture (so : ? 15000 BC or sooner?)
Anatolian Aceramic Farmers AAF : ~90 % AHG + ~10 % Neolithic Iran-like
Anatolian Ceramic Farmers ACF : ~75 % AAF + ~25 % others, principally from Levant
ACF had more of Iranlike than AAF but Neolithic Anatolia (West?) as a mean has less than AAF, what could suppose external later inputs -
Levant Farmers PPNB : ~78/82 % Natufians + 18,2 % AHG or 21,3 % AAF -
& :
Iron Gates HG’s (Balkans) : 63 % WHG + 26 % AHG + 11 % Natufian (only 1,6 % Basal Eurasian BE in all) ;


&& : based on BE percentages (poor in Iron Gates), the authors thought WHG’s ancestors gave genes to people of Anatolia, rather than they took from them -


what may we try to resume from that ?
- BE was not among European HG’s, neither WHG nor EHG
- but BE is old enough around Anatolia, Near-East, Caucasus and surely farther towards South-East, and does not seem come recently from Northern Africa
- full defined Natufians cannot be ancestors to European HG’s, by lack of BE and lack of NWA among Euro HG’s, and they cannot be ancestors of Dzudzu by lack of NWA among Dzudzu -
- a possible osmosis (bilateral matings) could have occurred before agriculture between South-East Europe and Western Anatolia, when BE was not already high among Anatolians ; it remains the supposed 11 % of Natufians in Iron gates with a so low % of BE : drift : it needed enough time to reduce BE ?…
supposition of mine : a common metapopulation of HG’s occupied South-Eastern Europe, Anatolia and Caucasus before LGM, without any BE : maybe an « indivision » where Y-haplo’s IJ, I, J were dense before splitting their ways, Y-I replacing for the most previous European HG’s with Y-C ? Then (when ? Possibly soon enough too) came BE rich bearers from South Near-East or Red Sea surroundings, missing to colonize the more northern lands ? Before the coming of NWAfrica or even North Africa (with elements giving way to the Natufian mix and spreading some Y-E subclades ? -
All the way, the diverse European HG’s, whatever the roads they ran, did it long ago and cannot be considered as Natufians descendants – It’s rather Natufians who took from ‘Euro HG’, at a small scale -
other games of « go and return » of less demic importance occurred in Near-East Anatolia Caucasus during Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron, but they did not send any important novelty on genetic ground, IMO, only progressive osmosis ; only in Europe Neolithic changed things, and even there, more by proportions than by novelty.
IN SHORT, more than a direction to people moves in past, but not the same ones for all pop’s and not in the same time ! Let4s not confuse everything, OR WE MAY SAY WE ARE ALL OF US ARABS BECAUSE OUR DIVERSES CLOSELY RELATED ANCESTORS CROSSED ARABIA FROM AFRICA AT SOME STAGE OF EURASIAN HISTORY.
 
My take, a bit different!
Dzudzuana was very closer to Ancient Anatolians than to Ancient Caucasians of Satsurbia, and I don't find mention of ANE in them (Dzudzu); what maked it different to WHG is that WHG had NO 'basal eurasian'; so 'basal eurasian' is old in West Eurasia was NOT IN WHOLE West Eurasia at first. the difference between Dzudzuana and Natufians is the lack of ANA (Ancient North Africa). Dzudzuana was not 'Natufian', only Natudians were partly 'Dzudzuana'! So: Natufians cannot be ancestral to Europeans at first. Only a weak part of the Natufian mix could have been passed into Europe (West Western Eurasia) through the small Levant Farmers part in the ANF pop who colonized Europe. So you confuse things and do "painful" shortcuts. I don't answer other points of you because I suspect the same disorder is found in them. No offense.

Moesan, I accidentally answered the wrong post so my last post was actually in response to this one, which I hadn't answered yet.

EEF comes from Levantine Basal Eurasian, which are highly represented by Natufians.

As for as the Hunter gatherers ancestry, I already covered that when I mentioned all of their industries spreading into Europe from the many Levant sites. I do find it rather interesting that Lazaridis’ supplemental papers have many Natufians labeled as Y-haplogroup CT, which is quite ancestral

As for Iron Gates, I thought I had read somewhere that they have a lot of ANE but I can’t find it anywhere. On the other hand, I am reading articles that indicate that the Iron Gates burials are a mixture of WHG and farmers from Anatolia and the Levant, which means there was a bidirectional flow for a long time.

So no I dont buy that Natufians or Near Eastern people mentioned are 87% Dzudzuana but after another Dzudzuana sample or hopefully more, we'll find that they like all the other Caucasus people were heavily influenced by the Fertile Crescent people. And with the race replacement survival of the fittest science, I also dont buy this propopaganda that bright-eyed Villabruna cluster whiped out the other West Eurasian HGs, moved to the NearEast and took them and their technology over and then moved back to slaughter his kinfolk. That said, at least Ian Barnes claims that his team believes that Cheddar man came from the Near East.


As for your last post, Ill have to take some time to Decipher it thanks
 
@Daniel

you:
EEF comes from Levantine Basal Eurasian, which are highly represented by Natufians.
me:aside the question of remote origins, EEF is analysed as partly Natufian, partly WHG (roughly said), spite I'm nit sure of the NWA weight in their Natufian elements, joint to BE - No, at the current concept of auDNA, EEF is not only a Natufian heir, the last surveys seem telling us WHG would be a bit heavier in the mix than 50% (I know this can be discussed partly, but only parlty) -

you:
As for as the Hunter gatherers ancestry, I already covered that when I mentioned all of their industries spreading into Europe from the many Levant sites. I do find it rather interesting that Lazaridis’ supplemental papers have many Natufians labeled as Y-haplogroup CT, which is quite ancestral -

me:
I'm not knowledged for archeology here; not sure your assertions are in the mainstream consensus - but technics can be loaned - concerning Y-CT, I don't know if these results for Natufians are because of an incomplete breaking of their haplo's or if they are TRUE Y-CT's...

you:
As for Iron Gates, I thought I had read somewhere that they have a lot of ANE but I can’t find it anywhere. On the other hand, I am reading articles that indicate that the Iron Gates burials are a mixture of WHG and farmers from Anatolia and the Levant, which means there was a bidirectional flow for a long time.
me:
To be checked again - but I suppose the auDNA labelled 'Iron Gates HG's has been taken among pure HG's sites and not in the mixed ones; I hope it, at the least. That said, studies don't exclude a bi-directional flow, as you said, so I don't deny it, with my recent superficial knowledge.



you:
So no I dont buy that Natufians or Near Eastern people mentioned are 87% Dzudzuana but after another Dzudzuana sample or hopefully more, we'll find that they like all the other Caucasus people were heavily influenced by the Fertile Crescent people. And with the race replacement survival of the fittest science, I also dont buy this propopaganda that bright-eyed Villabruna cluster whiped out the other West Eurasian HGs, moved to the NearEast and took them and their technology over and then moved back to slaughter his kinfolk. That said, at least Ian Barnes claims that his team believes that Cheddar man came from the Near East.

me:
Who said Natufians were 87% Dzudzuana? Not me at least. I think the consensus is that Natufians had a majority of BE.
Concerning Cheddar man, I doubt it came from Near East, or at least that his auDNA correspond to the average of this late region, at any time. I have read of a "late mesolithic wave" which began in Southern Europe (proposed origins : Montenegro/Crna Gora, S-W Ukraina and Tunisia! this Mesolithic wave seem having flew off puhed by the first Neolithic wave of advance (since the 6000's BC), passing to southern Italy, then to Iberia, then to Brittany and N-Benelux before fading out. I have to read it again, but it concerns pops without any agriculture at first sight, so it would be strange they would come recently from Near-East where agriculture was already well established.
I leave you your 'Villabruna' saga.
If you have some readings to propose me, I 'm buyer. Good afternoon.
 
I got that from the Dzudzuana paper:

"The admixture graph model predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5% Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref.23.Two other populations fit as 2-way mixtures in Table S3.5: Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. This does not disprove that Neolithic Anatolians are approximately a clade with Dzudzuana, since Natufians trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana (Tables S3.2, 5), and thus Neolithic Anatolians trace >98% of their ancestry from Dzudzuana, also in agreement with the 2-way models of Table S3.2. This does not mean that there was gene flow from the Levant into western Anatolia, as the (unsampled) hunter-gatherer precursors of Neolithic Anatolians may not have been identical to Dzudzuana. Finally, PPNB can be modeled as a mixture of ~41% Dzudzuana and ~59% Natufians, consistent with them tracing a large part of their ancestry to pre-farming populations of the Levant12. Again, we should not necessarily interpret these admixture proportions as signifying admixture into the Levant from the north during the formation of early Neolithic populations, as PPNB could be descended from a Levantine population that was not identical to the sampled Natufians. Conclusions We summarize our main conclusions from this section:“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture." biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf

In this case, Dzudzuana and Natufian are basically the same. If I recall, their tools look similar too.

The paper I quoted had EEF at 66% Natufian and I believe the rest from the Caucasus but I find your take on EEF being half Natufian and half WHG interesting, especially since the consensus is that EEF originated with Basal Eurasians in the Near East.

Villabruna clusters is an old saga thats been well exposed by books like Bones and Ochre: The Curious Afterlife of the Red Lady of Paviland by Marianne Sommer
 
I got that from the Dzudzuana paper:

"The admixture graph model predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5% Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref.23.Two other populations fit as 2-way mixtures in Table S3.5: Neolithic Anatolians fit as ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Natufians. This does not disprove that Neolithic Anatolians are approximately a clade with Dzudzuana, since Natufians trace ~86-89% of their ancestry to Dzudzuana (Tables S3.2, 5), and thus Neolithic Anatolians trace >98% of their ancestry from Dzudzuana, also in agreement with the 2-way models of Table S3.2. This does not mean that there was gene flow from the Levant into western Anatolia, as the (unsampled) hunter-gatherer precursors of Neolithic Anatolians may not have been identical to Dzudzuana. Finally, PPNB can be modeled as a mixture of ~41% Dzudzuana and ~59% Natufians, consistent with them tracing a large part of their ancestry to pre-farming populations of the Levant12. Again, we should not necessarily interpret these admixture proportions as signifying admixture into the Levant from the north during the formation of early Neolithic populations, as PPNB could be descended from a Levantine population that was not identical to the sampled Natufians. Conclusions We summarize our main conclusions from this section:“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt “Eastern” Near Eastern populations, including Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and Neolithic Iranians (Iran_N) traced most of their ancestry from populations of this cline, but also had additional Ancient North Eurasian/Eastern non-African (ANE/ENA) admixture." biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf


Lasaridis' Dzuduana conclusion doesn't seem to jive with the latest Lasaridis' tree either.
For instance how can he have so much Natufian ancestry coming from WHG (Villabruna) when his tree has WHG branching off Western Eurasians and Natufians branching off Basal Eurasians? If the affinity between them shows anything about ancestry, it would more likely place Natufians as ancestral to Villabruna. A likely scenario for the great affinity could also simply be due to the contact at Iron Gates but then academia seems to believe Villabruna was a type that replaced people they came in contact with
 

Attachments

  • EhpFO2MU4AAfyPn.jpg
    EhpFO2MU4AAfyPn.jpg
    109.7 KB · Views: 165


Lasaridis' Dzuduana conclusion doesn't seem to jive with the latest Lasaridis' tree either.
For instance how can he have so much Natufian ancestry coming from WHG (Villabruna) when his tree has WHG branching off Western Eurasians and Natufians branching off Basal Eurasians? If the affinity between them shows anything about ancestry, it would more likely place Natufians as ancestral to Villabruna. A likely scenario for the great affinity could also simply be due to the contact at Iron Gates but then academia seems to believe Villabruna was a type that replaced people they came in contact with

I prefer the other scheme (the Dzudzu's paper one) - but in the one you produce, we see interactions between Villabruna and Levant, and then between Villabruna and Anatolia. In fact, rather a 'villabrunalike' from Dzudzuana?
we have to put apart hypothetical ancestral populations concerning auDNA and true historical populations, well dated;
the BE part of Natufians ancestors branched off the ancestors of Villabruna long ago in this scheme, and only later mixed with descendants of this late one.
the admixture %s calculated (more or less accutely) are not sufficient, we have to see the auDNA distances, and then, spite the late strictly speaking Villabruna people were living roughly at the same time than the Natufians, they were very distant one from another, by different partial new admixtures but also by drift, and drift requires time of separation. So for me, no, Natufian cannot be ancestor to Villanova, even in the sensu stricto Villabruna. I could use the argument of chronology: at least historical true Natufians are not old enough to be ancestors of any kind of 'villabruna'.
 

This thread has been viewed 33628 times.

Back
Top