@Epoch,
"It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates14. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe."
He sounds very sure about this. What it would mean is that they don't have "extra" percentages of these ancient lineages, only what was in Dzudzuana. Something like the way that WHG in Southern Europeans is "hidden" in their Anatolia Neolithic ancestry, and what shows as "WHG" is only the "extra" ancestry?
So, when he says the following, he means "extra" WHG, on top of the related ancestry in Dzudzuana?
"Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations1 and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region14,23,24. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic25."
I've read every word of the Supplement and that's all I could find.
More on these ancient lineages:
"The fact that the genetic drift before and after the Basal Eurasian split is estimated similarly by the admixture graph model of Fig. 2 (which uses no archaic samples or Chimp) and Extended Data Fig. 8 68 (which uses archaic ancestry estimated using Altai, Chimp, and Denisova as outgroups) provides two independent lines of evidence for our estimates of these quantities, suggesting that ~2/3 of the drift since the split from East Africans is shared by Basal Eurasians and an additional ~1/3 is shared by non-Basal Eurasian non-Africans. This suggests that the Basal Eurasians (so named because they occupy a basal position in the phylogeny of Eurasians10) did in fact experience most of the common bottleneck shared by Eurasians. (Note also, that if we used the lower (1.6%) estimate of absolute Neandertal ancestry in Ust’Ishim from the f4-ratio, this would imply even more shared genetic drift between Basal Eurasians and other non-Africans, since then f4(Deep, Tianyuan; Ust’Ishim, Chimp)=-0.016*0.436 ≈-0.007.)"
"The other “Deep” lineage found in Taforalt (Fig. 2) experienced only 0.008 units of genetic drift with non-Africans (Fig. 2) and could be plausibly interpreted as having deep presence in (North) Africa. Note that Taforalt and the Neolithic of the Maghreb are well below the regression line (Extended Data Fig. 8) and thus lack more genetic drift with Ust’Ishim than is predicted by their level of archaic ancestry; this is expected if they trace their ancestry from a lineage that is even more deeply diverged than the Basal Eurasians."
