Arabo-Persian Gulf Basin possible homeland of Basal Eurasians?

Jovialis

Advisor
Messages
9,353
Reaction score
5,962
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
mtDNA haplogroup
H6a1b7
Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the structuring of the modern human population in the three main groups, in the awake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite the poor climatic conditions for recovery of ancient DNA human evidence in Arabia, the availability of genomic data from neighbouring ancient specimens and of informative statistical tools allow better modelling the ancestry of these populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in 291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking west Arabia with Levant, and east Arabia with Iran and Caucasus. East Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for possible bias due to recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, east Arabians were also the ones with higher similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were so far the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans that diverged from the common European-East Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, and before the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results are strong evidence to include the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf as possible home of basal Eurasians, to be investigated further on namely by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.24.432678v1
 
Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the structuring of the modern human population in the three main groups, in the awake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite the poor climatic conditions for recovery of ancient DNA human evidence in Arabia, the availability of genomic data from neighbouring ancient specimens and of informative statistical tools allow better modelling the ancestry of these populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in 291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking west Arabia with Levant, and east Arabia with Iran and Caucasus. East Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for possible bias due to recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, east Arabians were also the ones with higher similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were so far the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans that diverged from the common European-East Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, and before the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results are strong evidence to include the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf as possible home of basal Eurasians, to be investigated further on namely by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.24.432678v1



The authors conclude here that the Iberomaurusians were so far the best proxy for the basal Eurasians.
And there are some genetic amateurs who argue for Basal Eurasians being actually "ANA", thus technically speaking an African instead a Eurasian lineage. Does it sound plausible to you?
 
The authors conclude here that the Iberomaurusians were so far the best proxy for the basal Eurasians.
And there are some genetic amateurs who argue for Basal Eurasians being actually "ANA", thus technically speaking an African instead a Eurasian lineage. Does it sound plausible to you?

I am not an expert but I'll give my two cents: if the "standard model" is correct, before the crown eurasian(henceforth "CrE") there was a split between the former and BE, and before that between BE and ANA, so depending to whether BE was closer to ANA or CrE the affinities of BE for CrE or BE could be stronger or weaker, that is it is an empirical matter to see that case it is but both possible results could be supported by the stardard model; Also, Iberomaurasians were an epipaleolithic lineage, so it is isn't clear they can be taken as being 100% ANA (still a ghost pop), and the old models having it as 2/3 Natufian and 1/3 SSA hint at having strong affinities with out of africa groups.
 
I am not an expert but I'll give my two cents: if the "standard model" is correct, before the crown eurasian(henceforth "CrE") there was a split between the former and BE, and before that between BE and ANA, so depending to whether BE was closer to ANA or CrE the affinities of BE for CrE or BE could be stronger or weaker, that is it is an empirical matter to see that case it is but both possible results could be supported by the stardard model; Also, Iberomaurasians were an epipaleolithic lineage, so it is isn't clear they can be taken as being 100% ANA (still a ghost pop), and the old models having it as 2/3 Natufian and 1/3 SSA hint at having strong affinities with out of africa groups.

What you say seems plausible. In fact, the authors suggest that the Iberomaurasians themselves were part Basal Eurasian.
 
the one with most Basal Eurasian is Dzudzuana
Tarofalt has 45 % ANA

qpgraph-dzudzuana.jpg
 
Iberomaurusian is a good candidate because lack of neanderthal-like traits that are found in pre-glacial eurasians.

Neanderthal optical traits (Face + hair morphology, hair + eye color, teeth) in populations/single samples:

Chimpanzee(78%)
All Africans (75%)
Bantu(72%)
Zlaty Kun (72%)
Pygmy(71%)
Ust Ishim (64%)
Australian(63%)
Jarawa(63%)
Yamnaya(62%)
Asian(60%)
Arabian(59%)
Swede(59%)
AnatoliaHG (56%)
Loschbour(53%)
Villabruna(50%)
Iberomaurusian(49%)

There are ancient samples that are harboring African and rainbow-like Eurasian components and that are the ones from Sima de los Huesos Spain, Europe. But they are very low quality and cannot be used for trait prediction.

Any source for fastq/bam files for Dzudzuana?
 
I agree, I look forward to finally seeing these samples, if this paper ever gets published.



This waiting for the Dzudzuana paper feels like an eternity. And it’s a bit boring right now, no new published ancient DNA.
 
It is indeed irritating that it has taken so long. Almost four years now!


Ever since COVID-19, there has been a noticeable dearth of new papers coming out. This hobby has certainly been uneventful lately.

They should at least release the samples, while the paper continues to be peer-reviewed. It is not unheard of papers releasing the samples before the papers come out.
 
Hmm, it's a bit confusing to be honest, depending on what context they mean.

On Dzudzuana pre-print Basal Eurasian is rather closer to Crown Eurasian which a common parent component split from ANA.

I visualize Basal Eurasians to look rather smaller in stature and more petite, a precursor to Proto-Mediterranean race. While ANA was the opposite, Taforalt/Iberomarusian/Kiffian and Paleolithic Egyptian skeletons are extremely robust and tall. Average Taforalt male height 15k years ago was 178cm with some of them reaching 2m height.

This dude is in Egyptian museum, he is a Paleolithic Egyptian, i suppose his Y-DNA was either E-M35 or downstream E-M78 and he was atleast 70% ANA.

q99mA1m.jpg


Compare them with Iberomaurusians/Taforalt cranium.

JQocyJd.jpg


Kfv5NEB.jpg


Natufian crania full with Basal Eurasian looks different, more refined, petite.
 
Hmm, it's a bit confusing to be honest, depending on what context they mean.

On Dzudzuana pre-print Basal Eurasian is rather closer to Crown Eurasian which a common parent component split from ANA.

I visualize Basal Eurasians to look rather smaller in stature and more petite, a precursor to Proto-Mediterranean race. While ANA was the opposite, Taforalt/Iberomarusian/Kiffian and Paleolithic Egyptian skeletons are extremely robust and tall. Average Taforalt male height 15k years ago was 178cm with some of them reaching 2m height.

This dude is in Egyptian museum, he is a Paleolithic Egyptian, i suppose his Y-DNA was either E-M35 or downstream E-M78 and he was atleast 70% ANA.

Natufian crania full with Basal Eurasian looks different, more refined, petite.

Gravettians - haplo I were 1m80 or taller.
I guess haplo J should have been more or less the same before admixture with Basal Eurasian.
 
Gravettians - haplo I were 1m80 or taller.
I guess haplo J should have been more or less the same before admixture with Basal Eurasian.

I am talking about averaged, and averaged Iberomaurusians were taller than averaged Gravettians.
 
I am talking about averaged, and averaged Iberomaurusians were taller than averaged Gravettians.


I recall reading that the Gravettians were on average around 184 cm tall, and even the females were on average over 170 cm in height. That being said, the Iberomaurasians were also on the taller side with some reaching 2 meters as you said which is impressive.The thing is, that the Natufians who are believed to have significant ANA-like admixture, and the Egyptians were rather moderately short people.
 
I recall reading that the Gravettians were on average around 184 cm tall, and even the females were on average over 170 cm in height. That being said, the Iberomaurasians were also on the taller side with some reaching 2 meters as you said which is impressive.The thing is, that the Natufians who are believed to have significant ANA-like admixture, and the Egyptians were rather moderately short people.

Yes, that looks to be true, Gravettians look to have been quite tall which is interesting, in comparison with Iberomaurusuians they were more slender, so it seems they were a very tall and slender type. As for Natufians, they had approximately ~25% ANA and Old Kingdom Egyptians would probably have less of it i guess, ~10% probably.
 
Yes, that looks to be true, Gravettians look to have been quite tall which is interesting, in comparison with Iberomaurusuians they were more slender, so it seems they were a very tall and slender type. As for Natufians, they had approximately ~25% ANA and Old Kingdom Egyptians would probably have less of it i guess, ~10% probably.


Were Upper Paleolithic Europeans not overall robust and heavily built folks? The Cro Magnons for example, had a strong and hardy robust build.The body was generally heavy,strong and muscular, thus they were much stronger than modern people.

Here is a reconstruction of an Iberomaurasian individual, and he has a broadly Western Eurasian morphology, and to me, he's not particularly robust nor archaic looking. So, how realistic do you think this reconstruction is?








142645986_456931105737230_2994808971682666203_n.jpg
 
Were Upper Paleolithic Europeans not overall robust and heavily built folks? The Cro Magnons for example, had a strong and hardy robust build.The body was generally heavy,strong and muscular, thus they were much stronger than modern people.

Here is a reconstruction of an Iberomaurasian individual, and he has a broadly Western Eurasian morphology, and to me, he's not particularly robust nor archaic looking. So, how realistic do you think this reconstruction is?








142645986_456931105737230_2994808971682666203_n.jpg

Not really reliable, it's an amateurish attempt, especially the shinny Latino hairstyle and goatee lol.

Iberomaurusians were noted in all accounts to be the most robust Paleolithic/Mesolithic population on earth. But, i do admit Gravettians looks to be very tall, in Wikipedia article i read Gravettians were extremelly tall and relativiely slender then in the source i don't really read it to be noted precisely that they were slender, it just notes a decreased lower limb robusticity which doesn't tell anything about overall robustness.

The Upper Paleolithic represents both the phase during which anatomically modern humans appeared and the climax of hunter-gatherer cultures. Demographic expansion into new areas that took place during this period and the diffusion of burial practices resulted in an unprecedented number of well-preserved human remains. This skeletal record, dovetailed with archeological, environmental, and chronological contexts, allows testing of hypotheses regarding biological processes at the population level. In this article, we review key studies about the biology of Upper Paleolithic populations based primarily on European samples, but integrating information from other areas of the Old World whenever possible. Data about cranial morphology, skeletal robusticity, stature, body proportions, health status, diet, physical activity, and genetics are evaluated in Late Pleistocene climatic and cultural contexts. Various lines of evidence delineate the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) as a critical phase in the biological and cultural evolution of Upper Paleolithic populations. The LGM, a long phase of climatic deterioration culminating around 20,000 BP, had a profound impact on the environment, lifestyle, and behavior of human groups. Some of these effects are recorded in aspects of skeletal biology of these populations. Groups living before and after the LGM, Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) and Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP), respectively, differ significantly in craniofacial dimensions, stature, robusticity, and body proportions. While paleopathological and stable isotope data suggest good health status throughout the Upper Paleolithic, some stress indicators point to a slight decline in quality of life in LUP populations. The intriguing and unexpected incidence of individuals affected by congenital disorders probably indicates selective burial practices for these abnormal individuals. While some of the changes observed can be explained through models of biocultural or environmental adaptation (e.g., decreased lower limb robusticity following decreased mobility; changes in body proportions along with climatic change), others are more difficult to explain. For instance, craniodental and upper limb robusticity show complex evolutionary patterns that do not always correspond to expectations. In addition, the marked decline in stature and the mosaic nature of change in body proportions still await clarifications. These issues, as well as systematic analysis of specific pathologies and possible relationships between genetic lineages, population movements and cultural complexes, should be among the goals of future research.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19003886/
 
I might say - "what else". It can be only around Sinai, between Nile Valley and Levante, or deeper into Arabia, especially the Arabo-Persian Gulf region. And I guess that haplogroup E too will be found there, but with an early (pre-E1b1b) and later (post-E1b1b) back migration to Africa. The first bringing ANA, the latter Iberomaursians/Basal Eurasian.
 
Were Upper Paleolithic Europeans not overall robust and heavily built folks? The Cro Magnons for example, had a strong and hardy robust build.The body was generally heavy,strong and muscular, thus they were much stronger than modern people.

Here is a reconstruction of an Iberomaurasian individual, and he has a broadly Western Eurasian morphology, and to me, he's not particularly robust nor archaic looking. So, how realistic do you think this reconstruction is?








142645986_456931105737230_2994808971682666203_n.jpg


First of all, I wonder what they based his nose shape on... Have they the concerned autosomes with some accuteness?
 

This thread has been viewed 30738 times.

Back
Top