# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus

## Angela

See: Lazaridis et al:
*"Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry"*

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...23079.full.pdf

All I can say is WOW!

"The earliest ancient DNA data of modern humans from Europe dates to ~40 thousand years ago, but that from the Caucasus and the Near East to only ~14 thousand years ago, from populations who lived long after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ~26.5-19 thousand years ago. To address this imbalance and to better understand the relationship of Europeans and Near Easterners, we report genome-wide data from* two ~26 thousand year old individuals from Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia in the Caucasus from around the beginning of the LGM*. Surprisingly, the Dzudzuana population was *more closely related to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago*. *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, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians."*

----------


## Saetrus

Can anyone explain to me 'Basal Eurasians'?

"The reason it is thought to exist is because Neolithic European farmers as well as modern West Eurasians and North Africans are less closely related to East Asians etc than ancient European hunter-gatherers are"

Why would they speculate Middle Eastern HGs had admixture from this imaginary population instead of speculating European HGs had admixture from some asiatic population that made them more closely related to East Asians?

----------


## Gnarl

I think they would be able to spot such an admixture and haven't. Also, I believe there are a few other reasons to believe there was a Basal Eurasian populations group. For example, populations with a supposed Basal Eurasian admixture show a lower level of Neanderthal ancestry than other groups, indicating mixing with a group that separated from the out-of-Africa group before hybridizing with Neanderthals. I assume they have corrected for the possibility of an influx of genes from Africa ? 

Anyway, I spotted this fascinating sentence in the paper: _"Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians."_

Does anyone have any idea what this could refer to? Surely they would have said African if that was what they meant?

----------


## markod

Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.




* North Africa as a source of massive populations movements, possible at several points during the Paleolithic & Mesolithic. These movements likely brought haplogroup E (back) to Eurasia.

* North Africa as a significant source of admixture in modern West Africans.

* ANE as a two-way mixture between a West Eurasian- and an East Eurasian source (here represented by Tianyuan). The East Eurasian population likely brought with it haplogroups R & Q from South-East Asia.




* The new Caucasus genome is most related to Saudis, Palestinians & Lybians.

* As per the authors, Vilalbruna primarily is what "differentiates Europeans" from non-European populations.

* Villabruna most related to Basques out of all modern populations by a significant margin. Virtually every PCA showed this.

* AG3 as a source mostly for Europeans. Siberians, Caucasians and Iranians prefer deeper ANE-related admixture.

----------


## hrvclv

I know that by referring to Y-dna only, one tends to over-simplify things. But still... here's my (not adamantly sustained) scenario.

Perhaps "basal Eurasian" could be a population very similar, genetically, to the still-undifferentiated GIJK core before it split into subgroups. A group of "leftovers", somehow, that would have remained left behind and isolated for millenia in some corner of Anatolia, without too much genetic drift. GIJK came out of Africa via the Near East and stayed there a while. As fractions of it gradually spread away from the core, they grew genetically distinct. Very broadly: K went North, I went west, J went east, and G found refuge in the valleys of the Caucasus. But some of those who were in Anatolia remained autosomally homogeneous.

As for the "Deep" ancestry, it could be something like a previous Aurignacian-like population: y-dna C and mtdna M. They had come out of Africa long before, along the same route, and had met the Neanderthals. They didn't leave much of their y-dna behind. But some of them might have been assimilated by the next wave of newcomers, hence the autosomal remnants.

If such were the case, then Basal would show a lesser degree of Neanderthal admixture simply because the first wave of C people had already diluted the Neanderthal genes, and "Basal" got his Neanderthal by proxy, somehow, through "Deep". 

I am looking forward to reading from Maciamo on this ground-breaking paper.

----------


## markod

> Can anyone explain to me 'Basal Eurasians'?
> 
> "The reason it is thought to exist is because Neolithic European farmers as well as modern West Eurasians and North Africans are less closely related to East Asians etc than ancient European hunter-gatherers are"
> 
> Why would they speculate Middle Eastern HGs had admixture from this imaginary population instead of speculating European HGs had admixture from some asiatic population that made them more closely related to East Asians?


Basal Eurasian reduces affinity to both Ust'Ishim and Tianyuan, so admixture between East and West Eurasians doesn't work as an explanation. Perhaps in the unlikely case that an ancient undifferentiated East Eurasian population still existed somewhere.

----------


## Saetrus

> Basal Eurasian reduces affinity to both Ust'Ishim and Tianyuan, so admixture between East and West Eurasians doesn't work as an explanation.


The asiatic population European HGs mixed with had affinities to both Ust'Ishim and Tianyuan, now what? Middle Eastern HGs need no 'Basal' or 'Deep' anything in that scenario. Assuming the Europeans are pure while the middle Easterns are mixed looks like a political statement rather than anything scientific.

----------


## markod

> The asiatic population European HGs mixed with had affinities to both Ust'Ishim and Tianyuan, now what? Middle Eastern HGs need no 'Basal' or 'Deep' anything in that scenario.


But there seem to be no extant Eurasians that derive their ancestry from before the East-West split, which means it probably happened soon after OOA. Both Basal & Ancestral North African come from branches that predate this split.





> Assuming the Europeans are pure while the middle Easterns are mixed looks like a political statement rather than anything scientific.


Are you joking?

----------


## epoch

Mtdna U6 and N. Basal U6* has been found in a 35.000 year old Romanian sample.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

----------


## Saetrus

> But there seem to be no extant Eurasians that derive their ancestry from before the East-West split, which means it probably happened soon after OOA. Both Basal & Ancestral North African come from branches that predate this split.



What I'm saying is that the 'East-West split' is between East Asians who are the easternmost people and Middle Eastern HGs who are the westernmost people, with European HGs being a mixture of eastern and western peoples, which is what you clearly see in a global PCA:



No need for a 'Basal Eurasian' population that doesn't exist to explain why Middle East HGs are the westernmost people if instead you just consider European HGs have some asiatic admixture.

----------


## markod

> What I'm saying is that the 'East-West split' is between East Asians who are the easternmost people and Middle Eastern HGs who are the westernmost people, with European HGs being a mixture of eastern and western peoples, which is what you clearly see in a global PCA:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a 'Basal Eurasian' population that doesn't exist to explain why Middle East HGs are the westernmost people if instead you just consider European HGs have some asiatic admixture.


If that were the case ancient Western Eurasian samples would have Basal Eurasian. With Vestonice, Goyet, Sungir etc. we already have plenty.

----------


## Angela

There's so much to think about in this paper that it's hard to focus.

_"_Outgroup f3-statistics10 108 show that Dzudzuana clusters with Near Eastern populations109 primarily from Anatolia and secondarily from the Levant, but not with the geographically110 proximate CHG (Extended Data Fig. 3). A genetic relationship between Dzudzuana and111 Neolithic Anatolians is also shown by principal components analysis (PCA) in the space of‘outgroup f4-statistics’16 112 of the form f4(Test, O1; O2, O3) where (O1; O2, O3) is a triple of113 outgroups (Fig. 1c; Methods); performing PCA on the space defined by these statistics has114 the advantage of not being affected by genetic drift peculiar to the Test populations. It also115 allows us to visualize genetic relationships between ancient populations alone, without116 projecting onto the variation of present-day people. European hunter-gatherers in our analysis117 form a cline with Villabruna/WHG samples on one end and ANE on the other. None of the118 PGNE populations other than the Neolithic Anatolians cluster with the Ice Age Caucasus119 population from Dzudzuana."

Contrary to the Felman paper from the Krause group on Anatolian farmers...

"These125 analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,126 except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG127 (Extended Data Fig. 5a). Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of NeolithicAnatolians6128 does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an129 Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya.130 Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other131 ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically132 related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE133 populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East134 from Europe."

So, if they weren't in Europe originally, where were they?

For that matter, where were the BE people?

"The Dzudzuana population was not145 identical to the WHG, as it shared fewer alleles with both an early Upper Paleolithic Siberian(Ust’Ishim19) and an early Upper Paleolithic East Asian (Tianyuan20 146 ) (Extended Data Fig.5c), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry6,9147 . The detectionof this type of ancestry, twice as early as previously documented5,6148 and at the northern edge149 of the Near East, lends weight to the hypothesis that it represents a deep Near Eastern lineagerather than a recent arrival from Africa6."

Were they both in the Near East, one near the Caucasus originally and one closer to the Levant?

----------


## Angela

As to Taforalt...

"Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirmsthat the Taforalt population was mixed11 162 , but instead of specifying gene flow from the163 ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow164 in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closelyrelated to Taforalt17 165 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow,166 and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information167 section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to168 North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spreadof morphological features22 169 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East."

"Such a 170 scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufiansand Levantine farmers6171 , a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model172 predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt173related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan Africansource11 174 ; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in WestAfricans23 175 . An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component176 in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."

WOW!

So much for this paper:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...light=Taforalt

----------


## markod

I think the authors ask the most important and intersting question at least as far as European population genetics are concerned:




> However, it is unlikely that the Villabruna cluster sojourned in mainland Europe, as members of the cluster have been attested there only by ~14kya, marking an increased affinity of these European populations of the time to NearEastern ones . Was there migration at the time from mainland Europe to the Near East or vice versa, or, indeed from a geographically intermediate Ice Age refugium in southeast Europe, Anatolia, or the circum-Pontic (Black Sea) region that might explain the affinity of postglacialLevantine and Anatolian populations to those of Europe ? It is also unknown how the affinity between early populations in the eastern European-Caucasus-Iran zone first arose.


Where did the Villabruna cluster and by extension also its common West Eurasian ancestor come from? IJ*, the common ancestors of the haplogroups that should be associated with that expansions survives in Persians at about ~2%:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0041252

In the supplements Lazaridis also confirms the presence of the Near Eastern 'stuff' in Eastern European and Scandinavian HGs that's been the subject of debate before: 




> It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. 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.


Glad this one is finally settled  :Grin:

----------


## Angela

Here's another bombshell or two:
"This analysis180 shows that we cannot reject the hypothesis that Dzudzuana and the much later Neolithic181 Anatolians form a clade with respect to ESHG (P=0.286), consistent with the latter being a182 population largely descended from Dzudzuana-like pre-Neolithic populations whose183 geographical extent spanned both Anatolia and the Caucasus. Dzudzuana itself can be184 modeled as a 2-way mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage.185 Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers186 from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of187 Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the188 Basal Eurasians. Considering 2-way mixtures, we can model Karelia_HG as deriving189 34±2.8% of its ancestry from a Villabruna-related source, with the remainder mainly fromANE represented by the AfontovaGora3 (AG3) sample from Lake Baikal3190 ~17kya. Finally,191 we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry192 largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like193 population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE194 ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."

"In qpAdm modeling, a deeply divergent hunter-gatherer lineage that contributed in relatively197 unmixed form to the much later hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster is specified as198 contributing to earlier hunter-gatherer groups (Gravettian Vestonice16: 35.7±11.3% and199 Magdalenian ElMiron: 60.6±11.3%) and to populations of the Caucasus (Dzudzuana:200 72.5±3.7%, virtually identical to that inferred using ADMIXTUREGRAPH). In Europe,201 descendants of this lineage admixed with pre-existing hunter-gatherers related to Sunghir3from Russia4 for the Gravettians and GoyetQ116-1 from Belgium3202 for the Magdalenians, while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of204 agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe,205 while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE206 cline of ancestry (Fig. 1c). In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with207 North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern208 non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiatedpopulations at the dawn of the Neolithic6209 were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster210 and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both211 North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia whose proximate sources may be clarified by212 future sampling of geographically and temporally intermediate populations."

"while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of204 agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe,205 while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE206 cline of ancestry (Fig. 1c). In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with207 North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern208 non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiatedpopulations at the dawn of the Neolithic6209 were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster210 and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both211 North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia whose proximate sources may be clarified by212 future sampling of geographically and temporally intermediate populations."

----------


## Angela

New PCA of modern populations:
[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## Angela

Basal Eurasian of various populations:
[IMG][/IMG]

As we've speculated, was it perhaps around Mesopotamia?

----------


## Angela

Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).

I guess without a pure Basal Eurasian genome this is the best they can do...
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## holderlin

Came straight here! Reading now.......

----------


## holderlin

Almost forgot

----------


## bicicleur

> The asiatic population European HGs mixed with had affinities to both Ust'Ishim and Tianyuan, now what? Middle Eastern HGs need no 'Basal' or 'Deep' anything in that scenario. Assuming the Europeans are pure while the middle Easterns are mixed looks like a political statement rather than anything scientific.


nothing is pure, it all depends on how far you go back in time
but ancestral Villabruna was pure compared to Vestonice and El Miron and it is very usefull to use this component
ancestral Villabruna probably originated 35-40 ka in Eastern Europe, prior to the formation of the Vestonice cluster, and it is linked to the origins of the Gravettian

Basal Eurasian is a much older component

----------


## bicicleur

> As to Taforalt...
> 
> "Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirmsthat the Taforalt population was mixed11 162 , but instead of specifying gene flow from the163 ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow164 in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closelyrelated to Taforalt17 165 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow,166 and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information167 section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to168 North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spreadof morphological features22 169 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East."
> 
> "Such a 170 scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufiansand Levantine farmers6171 , a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model172 predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt173related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan Africansource11 174 ; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in WestAfricans23 175 . An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component176 in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."
> 
> WOW!
> 
> So much for this paper:
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...light=Taforalt


it confirms what I suspected when Tarofalt Y-DNA was published
it is E-M78, but a dead end of E-M78
the E-M78 branch split 13.3 ka in the Levant
it has been found in Ain Ghazal and it's E-L618 branch in Cardial Ware Croatia, ancestral to E-V13

Natufians were a mixture of E-Z830 and Tarofalt-like E-M78 with probably also some H2

----------


## bicicleur

> Basal Eurasian of various populations:
> [IMG][/IMG]
> 
> As we've speculated, was it perhaps around Mesopotamia?


I don't think so, BE is >50 ka.
But it has not been detected prior to the 26 ka Dzudzuana.
It was not in Siberia, northern China or Europe.
That's all we know.

My guess remains India or the Indus delta, and it was brought to the Near East by haplo G and H2.

Do you have any data of BE in Dravidians?

----------


## halfalp

Ok wow, so if i udnerstand the paper clearly, this new Caucasus genome is some kind of an ancestor to some modern middle-eastern and " the whole neolithic " and also related with the Villabruna Cluster, but Villabruna descend from AG3, so are Anatolian_Neolithic also partially coming from AG3?

What's the big difference of this HG and Satsurblia / Kotias? Can someone make some kind of resumé of all the genetic relation with the different party?

Btw, mtdna U6 is now probably the most interesting maternal lineage to study, looking at his ancient and modern distribution.

----------


## halfalp

Did you notice that now Samara_HG is now modeled roughly 20% Villabruna, 70% Afontova Gora 3, 10% Baikal Eneolithic... What is that change?

----------


## bicicleur

> Ok wow, so if i udnerstand the paper clearly, this new Caucasus genome is some kind of an ancestor to some modern middle-eastern and " the whole neolithic " and also related with the Villabruna Cluster, but Villabruna descend from AG3, so are Anatolian_Neolithic also partially coming from AG3?
> 
> What's the big difference of this HG and Satsurblia / Kotias? Can someone make some kind of resumé of all the genetic relation with the different party?
> 
> Btw, mtdna U6 is now probably the most interesting maternal lineage to study, looking at his ancient and modern distribution.


How does Villabruna connect with AG3? Was this before or after 26 ka?

----------


## bicicleur

> Did you notice that now Samara_HG is now modeled roughly 20% Villabruna, 70% Afontova Gora 3, 10% Baikal Eneolithic... What is that change?


Baikal Early Neolithic ..

Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.

----------


## bicicleur

> Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).
> 
> I guess without a pure Basal Eurasian genome this is the best they can do...
> [IMG][/IMG]
> 
> [IMG][/IMG]


this Mbuti component is confusing
Laziridis should have split between Mbuti and Ancestral North African as in the admixture graph
I suspect the Mbuti in Tarofalt is not Mbuti, but a proxy for Ancestral North African
he says himself that there was no Yoruba in Tarofalt, but it was the other way around ..
see also the admixture graph

----------


## Regio X

> I don't think so, BE is >50 ka.
> But it has not been detected prior to the 26 ka Dzudzuana.
> It was not in Siberia, northern China or Europe.
> That's all we know.
> My guess remains India or the Indus delta, and it was brought to the Near East by haplo G and H2.
> Do you have any data of BE in Dravidians?


bicicleur, why do you think G came from India? I mean, it could be, but I don't know of any evidence of that. In fact, the highest G-M201 diversity would be far from there (Armenia and surroundings?). Its TMRCA is abt. 26k ybp.

----------


## halfalp

> How does Villabruna connect with AG3? Was this before or after 26 ka?


The way i understand it is that, Villabruna - Bichon Cluster is something El Miron + Dzudzuana Related and AG3 = WHG. How the relationship works... no idea. The " southern " part of Villabruna detected early is probably linking with Dzudzuana and the little " far east " detected in some Villabruna Cluster individuals is maybe AG3.

----------


## halfalp

> *Baikal Early Neolithic ..*
> 
> Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.


Oh yeah... 
I dont understand how CHG wich is between EHG and Iran_Neolithic and is not at all related with Dzudzuana and was previously thought to be part of Samara. Is not anymore? And what is the Samara individual use as a reference?

----------


## bicicleur

> bicicleur, why do you think G came from India? I mean, it could be, but I don't know of any evidence of that. In fact, the highest G-M201 diversity would be far from there (Armenia and surroundings?). Its TMRCA is abt. 26k ybp.


looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley 
these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world

TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
where was G between 48 and 26 ka?

in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka

----------


## epoch

> There's so much to think about in this paper that it's hard to focus.
> 
> _"_Outgroup f3-statistics10 108 show that Dzudzuana clusters with Near Eastern populations109 primarily from Anatolia and secondarily from the Levant, but not with the geographically110 proximate CHG (Extended Data Fig. 3). A genetic relationship between Dzudzuana and111 Neolithic Anatolians is also shown by principal components analysis (PCA) in the space of‘outgroup f4-statistics’16 112 of the form f4(Test, O1; O2, O3) where (O1; O2, O3) is a triple of113 outgroups (Fig. 1c; Methods); performing PCA on the space defined by these statistics has114 the advantage of not being affected by genetic drift peculiar to the Test populations. It also115 allows us to visualize genetic relationships between ancient populations alone, without116 projecting onto the variation of present-day people. European hunter-gatherers in our analysis117 form a cline with Villabruna/WHG samples on one end and ANE on the other. None of the118 PGNE populations other than the Neolithic Anatolians cluster with the Ice Age Caucasus119 population from Dzudzuana."
> 
> Contrary to the Felman paper from the Krause group on Anatolian farmers...
> 
> "These125 analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,126 except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG127 (Extended Data Fig. 5a). Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of NeolithicAnatolians6128 does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an129 Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya.130 Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other131 ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically132 related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE133 populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East134 from Europe."
> 
> So, if they weren't in Europe originally, where were they?


Remember that I pushed a theory of a very old remigration from Aurignacian Europe to the ME? The exchanges that pissed off MarkoZ? That obviously wasn't mine, it came from Ofer Bar-Yosef, one of the coauthors of this paper. It can be found in these articles:

http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt...ogia/45/20.pdf
http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt...ogia/45/19.pdf






> For that matter, where were the BE people?
> 
> "The Dzudzuana population was not145 identical to the WHG, as it shared fewer alleles with both an early Upper Paleolithic Siberian(Ust’Ishim19) and an early Upper Paleolithic East Asian (Tianyuan20 146 ) (Extended Data Fig.5c), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry6,9147 . The detectionof this type of ancestry, twice as early as previously documented5,6148 and at the northern edge149 of the Near East, lends weight to the hypothesis that it represents a deep Near Eastern lineagerather than a recent arrival from Africa6."
> 
> Were they both in the Near East, one near the Caucasus originally and one closer to the Levant?


What do we know of the Middle-Eastern cultures of the Upper Paleolithic? There is the Zagros Aurignacian in Iran, there is Ahmarian in the Levent, apparently contemporaneous to the Levantine Aurignacian. What more do we know? 

Also, the paper claims that there are *two* kinds of basal Eurasian, one that did go through the same bottleneck as current Eurasians went, and one that didn't. An approach to identifying the cultures associated with these two Basal Eurasian ancestries might be to figure what caused that bottleneck, where that happened and when.

----------


## epoch

Did anyone notice in that qpAdm output that Chan do Lindeiro (Iberia_Chan) sample is almost full blooded Magdalenian? It is 9000 years old. We see Magdalenian continuity into the Mesolithic.

----------


## Regio X

> looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley 
> these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
> along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world
> TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
> where was G between 48 and 26 ka?
> in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
> Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka


F is in fact ancestor of GHIJK. https://www.yfull.com/tree/CF/
As for G route, there is indeed a huge gap between the time of G formation and its TMRCA. GHIJK first split could have happened around the area you mentioned, or close to it, indeed. In the case of G, ok, it could have been a route from east to west, till the first split of G itself around Armenia. HIJK from west to east doesn't seem to work, since the clades involved don't present such gap, as you suggested. No time to HIJK "jump" from the area around Caucasus to South Asia. 
Anyway, I guess I got your hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speculate people related to an older wave from Africa, with a now extinct Y-DNA lineage(?), would have lived in South Asia and would have been the original Basal Eurasians. Then GHIJK - related to another wave - came without this component. Already separated, G and H would have gone south and mixed with this older pop, whereas IJK took another route. Later, G and H would have migrated west bringing BE. Is that right?

----------


## epoch

Ah. There is off course the Emiran culture.. Looked like it was a continuation on the Mousterien. Good candidate for a Basal Eurasian culture.

----------


## Angela

> this Mbuti component is confusing
> Laziridis should have split between Mbuti and Ancestral North African as in the admixture graph
> I suspect the Mbuti in Tarofalt is not Mbuti, but a proxy for Ancestral North African
> he says himself that there was no Yoruba in Tarofalt, but it was the other way around ..
> see also the admixture graph


What he says is that "_ ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "
_
So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.
He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?

Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia? 

Part of that is Basal Eurasian.

You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.

----------


## markod

I 100% agree with bicicleur about Y-DNA dispersals, but I think the BE in India is rather unlikely. East Eurasian components from India and surroundings show the typically Eurasian inflation of archaic human ancestry. There's also the similiarity of BE to the newly detected Ancestral North African component, as well as the peaks of BE ancestry in modern North Africans.

I find it more likely that early humans who migrated from South Asia to the West would have picked up BE ancestry in the Arabian peninsula or vicinity when they crossed the Persian Gulf. This would also explain the secondary peak of BE ancestry in ancient Western Iran, whence it migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus. BE and Ancestral North African likely existed in a continuum in North & East Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula, the Sinai etc. . Earlier human migrations mopped up archaic human populations so BE/ANA only acquired limited & indirect admixture with them.

It would be interesting to test whether haplogroup D like its sister clade is also at least to an extent associated with a reduction of archaic human ancestry, because its present distribution seems to be the result of a migration that went the opposite direction of most early Eurasian population movements that generally went from the East to the West.

The precise nature of these movements will be very difficult to figure out without DNA from India and South-East Asia in any case, as these places should be the primary homelands of Eurasian humans.

----------


## berun

What I have noticed is how it's possible to get easily Yamnaya ancestries if running a supervised admixture.

----------


## epoch

> What he says is that "_ ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "
> _
> So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.




Basal means that we see ancestral rather than derived SNP's. So, they split off very early, after which the rest shared mutations and drift. These changes in the rest will be shared among them but not with Basal. As Mbuti is the farthest from anybody else - It split the earliest - chances that it shares something *ancestral* - i.e. not mutated or otherwise changed - with Basal rather than with later Eurasian is greater. Hence the possibility to use Mbuti as proxy. However, if the affinity was due to later SSA admixture, than the part that admixted must share *other* drift and mutations with SSA. In other words, in that case it is not so much the _ancestral_ that it shares but the _derived_. That should be clearly picked up with formal stats, but it doesn't.

EDIT: I don't think this is accurate anymore. Drift is by far a bigger changer of DNA than mutations.

From the SI: "It is clear that Sub Saharan African populations lack shared genetic drift between North African and West Eurasian populations, usually interpreted as the Out-of-Africa bottleneck."




> He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?


Exactly. Also, we should take a look at the Emiran. It is considered ancestral to Ahmarian in the Levant as well as later UP cultures in North-Africa.




> Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia? 
> 
> Part of that is Basal Eurasian.
> 
> You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.


Assuming that you refer to Extended Dat Fig. 7: I am quite curious which HG's that are. The only identified ones have 0% Basal.

----------


## bicicleur

> What he says is that "_ ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "
> _
> So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.
> He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?
> Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia? 
> Part of that is Basal Eurasian.
> You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.


well, at least the label 'Mbuti' is unfortunate then, as Mbuti is a pygmy tribe in Congo

the Dzudzuana in eastern HG is always accompanied by AG3, it seems to me at some point some Dzudzuana admixed with some EHG
what is EHG, isn't it WHG + ANE ?

I wonder in how far common west eurasian = villabruna = WHG ? It is not 100 % correct because there should be some drift in between.
This would mean Dzudzuana = 72 % WHG + 28 % BE
But if you use this equasion then the Feldman AHG = 50 % WHG + 50 % Levant Neo would convert into 
AHG = 56 % WHG + 39 % Dzudzuana + 5 % Anciant North African
It's a long shot, and it is approximate but at first sight, it makes some sense to me, it's another way to look at it.
I would expect AHG to have more Dzudzuana than Levant Neo, though a combination of both is possible too.

----------


## bicicleur

> F is in fact ancestor of GHIJK. https://www.yfull.com/tree/CF/
> As for G route, there is indeed a huge gap between the time of G formation and its TMRCA. GHIJK first split could have happened around the area you mentioned, or close to it, indeed. In the case of G, ok, it could have been a route from east to west, till the first split of G itself around Armenia. HIJK from west to east doesn't seem to work, since the clades involved don't present such gap, as you suggested. No time to HIJK "jump" from the area around Caucasus to South Asia. 
> Anyway, I guess I got your hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speculate people related to an older wave from Africa, with a now extinct Y-DNA lineage(?), would have lived in South Asia and would have been the original Basal Eurasians. Then GHIJK - related to another wave - came without this component. Already separated, G and H would have gone south and mixed with this older pop, whereas IJK took another route. Later, G and H would have migrated west bringing BE. Is that right?


yes, it's speculation of course, but that is what I meant

----------


## bicicleur

> I 100% agree with bicicleur about Y-DNA dispersals, but I think the BE in India is rather unlikely. East Eurasian components from India and surroundings show the typically Eurasian inflation of archaic human ancestry. There's also the similiarity of BE to the newly detected Ancestral North African component, as well as the peaks of BE ancestry in modern North Africans.
> I find it more likely that early humans who migrated from South Asia to the West would have picked up BE ancestry in the Arabian peninsula or vicinity when they crossed the Persian Gulf. This would also explain the secondary peak of BE ancestry in ancient Western Iran, whence it migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus. BE and Ancestral North African likely existed in a continuum in North & East Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula, the Sinai etc. . Earlier human migrations mopped up archaic human populations so BE/ANA only acquired limited & indirect admixture with them.
> It would be interesting to test whether haplogroup D like its sister clade is also at least to an extent associated with a reduction of archaic human ancestry, because its present distribution seems to be the result of a migration that went the opposite direction of most early Eurasian population movements that generally went from the East to the West.
> The precise nature of these movements will be very difficult to figure out without DNA from India and South-East Asia in any case, as these places should be the primary homelands of Eurasian humans.


the thing is, IJK seems not to have had BE, so if G+H picked up BE, it must have been after the GHIJK split up
my guess is that IJK moved north, maybe upstream the Indus river, while F+G+H moved along the Indian westcoast, and some of them moved even further inland via the Narmada river

----------


## Angela

> well, at least the label 'Mbuti' is unfortunate then, as Mbuti is a pygmy tribe in Congo
> 
> the Dzudzuana in eastern HG is always accompanied by AG3, it seems to me at some point some Dzudzuana admixed with some EHG
> what is EHG, isn't it WHG + ANE ?
> 
> I wonder in how far common west eurasian = villabruna = WHG ? It is not 100 % correct because there should be some drift in between.
> This would mean Dzudzuana = 72 % WHG + 28 % BE
> But if you use this equasion then the Feldman AHG = 50 % WHG + 50 % Levant Neo would convert into 
> AHG = 56 % WHG + 39 % Dzudzuana + 5 % Anciant North African
> ...


I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.

Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?

----------


## Angela

> Basal means that we see ancestral rather than derived SNP's. So, they split off very early, after which the rest shared mutations and drift. These changes in the rest will be shared among them but not with Basal. As Mbuti is the farthest from anybody else - It split the earliest - chances that it shares something *ancestral* - i.e. not mutated or otherwise changed - with Basal rather than with later Eurasian is greater. Hence the possibility to use Mbuti as proxy. However, if the affinity was due to later SSA admixture, than the part that admixted must share *other* drift and mutations with SSA. In other words, in that case it is not so much the _ancestral_ that it shares but the _derived_. That should be clearly picked up with formal stats, but it doesn't.
> 
> From the SI: "It is clear that Sub Saharan African populations lack shared genetic drift between North African and West Eurasian populations, usually interpreted as the Out-of-Africa bottleneck."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Also, we should take a look at the Emiran. It is considered ancestral to Ahmarian in the Levant as well as later UP cultures in North-Africa.
> 
> 
> ...



It's taking me a while to get through the 76 page supplement, in the midst of, you know, life. :) I'll let you know.

----------


## Angela

> I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.
> 
> Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?


Of course, by the time that CHG formed, i.e. 14-15,000 ya, the ANE had arrived in the Caucasus.

Just found this in the Caucasus, which might be pertinent to our discussions:

"If Vestonice16 did indeed have ancestry from a Villabruna-related population then this type of ancestrywas already in both Europe and the Caucasus by ~30-27 thousand years ago, and mixed (in Europe) withthe earliest inhabitants represented by Sunghir3 and in the Caucasus (see below) with Basal Eurasians.The fact that it was also present in western Anatolia at the time of the Neolithic, as well as in easternEurope by the time of the Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Karelia (see below) suggest adistribution of this type of ancestry around the Black Sea from which it could have propagated."

----------


## Angela

Also interesting. I didn't know this at all.

"Finally, we model Russia_Baikal_EN as a 2-way mixture of Han and 15.7±1.6% MA1-related ancestry.This set of ~7-8 thousand year old samples from Lokomotiv contrast with the ~18 thousand year old AG3sample which as we saw above could be modeled as a clade with MA1. It appears that populations of EastAsian-related ancestry appeared in the region in the intervening period14. As we will see below, mixedAG3/East Asian-related ancestry reached West Eurasia as well."

Did they domesticate the horse? Did they bring that as well as ceramics to the party?

----------


## Angela

> I think he probably used Mbuti to get as far back into the tree as possible? I don't know.
> 
> Couldn't the AG3 have come either before or after on its own?


I guess I was right.

From the supplement:
"Both Dzudzuana and Taforalt are modeled as 2-way mixtures of Mbuti and Villabruna. Mbuti occupies asymmetrical phylogenetic position to all Eurasians populations—splitting off before the differentiation ofwestern Eurasians, eastern non-Africans, and Ust’Ishim6,12,19 from each other—and can thus be used toquantify such ancestry12."

----------


## Angela

Other interesting bits we haven't discussed.

This answers my question as to which of these ancient lineages is bottlenecked, and it is Basal Eurasian. So perhaps the other deep lineage in Taforalt remained in North Africa?

"Whatever the non-African related population that admixed to form Ibero-Maurusians, we can say that it ismost closely related to Dzudzuana and Villabruna, and that with Villabruna as a baseline, Dzudzuanaalready had some deep ancestry and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt even more. The admixture graph40model suggests that this deep ancestry was distinct in Taforalt and Dzudzuana, with *Taforalt possessingancestry from both an early and a later split, while Dzudzuana possessing ancestry only from the latersplit (the later split corresponds to the original concept of “Basal Eurasians”ref indicating that it largelyderives from the same bottleneck that affected other non-Africans)."
*
As to whether Villabruna is "pure":

"Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestryfrom Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as allthese sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model forVillabruna as a simple clade, and an unadmixed Villabruna acts as a plausible source for several other We are thus cautious about accepting this qpAdm result at face value aswell. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago."

Fyi, I am very impressed reading about the modeling. On top of everything else, I like that a lot of it is automated, to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

To continue:
"From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeedcomplex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to allthe remaining sources. *This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainlandEurope migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kyapopulation of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seemsto have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period."


*

----------


## Angela

@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."

----------


## Angela

For those who haven't yet read it, I think the archaeology section of the Supplement has some pertinent information:

"Conclusions: 

It seems that the beginnings of the UP in western Georgia are relatively late, compared withthe earliest UP in the Near East and southeastern Europe and they appear to be alreadydominated by the production of bladelets (e.g., Dzudzuana Unit D). Another importantobservation is that while the Caucasus served as a geographic barrier between two MPNeanderthal populations (the Mousterian of the southern flanks which closely resembles theMousterian of the Taurus and the Zagro, and the Late Mousterian of the northern Caucasus,similar to the northern European Micoquian Mousterian (Meignen & Tushabramishvili2006), the early UP assemblages on both sides of the Caucasus Mountains demonstratesimilarities, indicating the dispersal of modern humans throughout the whole region.The proceeding cultural traditions (e.g., Dzudzuana Unit C) do not follow the UP sequence ofwestern Europe or the Near East as previously claimed. In particular, the ‘carinated core’industries found all over the Caucasus region lack any evidence for the presence of the westEuropean ‘classical’ Aurignacian (and see Belfer-Cohen & Grosman 2007; Goring-Morris &Belfer-Cohen 2006, vis à vis carinated artefacts).

"The presence of carinated cores in some sites may indicate a general contemporaneity amongsites in western Georgia, as with the site of Gubs (Amirkhanov 1986) located on the northernslopes of the Caucasus. Yet, there are no typical Aurignacian tool types either among thelithics or among the bone artefacts. The bone and antler implements in Dzu Unit C (as inother UP assemblages in the Caucasus) do not comprise artefacts such as the split-base point,the hall-mark of the west European early Aurignacian. Bone awls, needles, points and the likewere recovered from UP contexts all over the Old World and the same is true for the rarebone beads and decorations. The same is true also for the other sites in Georgia dating to theearly UP (and see Moncel 2013; Pleardeau et al. 2016) as well as sites in the neighboringArmenia and northern Caucasus (and see above).All in all the UP in the Caucasus retains its own local characteristics, differing both fromEurope (no Aurignacian industry) and the Levant (no el Wad points, yet with rich boneartefacts industries) (and see Golovanova et al. 2014)."

----------


## holderlin

This is awesome

Do some of these models contradict each other? I've drunk too much wine to give an example at the moment, but that was my initial impression.

----------


## holderlin

> Baikal Early Neolithic ..
> 
> Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.


All that R1a in the neolithic Baikal samples too. Lines up.

----------


## holderlin

> looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley 
> these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
> along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world
> 
> TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
> where was G between 48 and 26 ka?
> 
> in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
> Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka


I agree with this, but mine was just on a hunch based on the Farmers paper.

----------


## Angela

> This is awesome
> 
> Do some of these models contradict each other? I've drunk too much wine to give an example at the moment, but that was my initial impression.


Read the supplement when you're not drunk.

----------


## Maciamo

I am commenting a bit late on this new paper due to lack of time. If I understood well, this Dzudzuana sample is ancestral to the population of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG). Testing of Mesolithic samples showed that EHG were a mixture of Y-haplogroups I2, R1a and R1b, but dominated by haplogroup R1b - notably in the Iron Gates and Latvia as well as the Villabruna sample from Epipaleolithic Italy. 

This means that Dzudzuana could belong to Y-haplogroup R1* (as R1a and R1b had not yet appeared 26,000 ybp according to current age estimates.) It's a shame that the pre-print doesn't mention it.




> It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. 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.


So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.

The fact that Dzudzuana is 'more closely related to to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago' can easily be explained by population blending between R1 EHG from Southeast Europe (or even western or northern Anatolia) and those early Anatolian farmers.

----------


## bicicleur

> All that R1a in the neolithic Baikal samples too. Lines up.


there was also N, C2 and Q
the R1a must have been the R1a-YP1272, which spread the comb-ceramic culture



https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M459/

----------


## bicicleur

> Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * North Africa as a source of massive populations movements, possible at several points during the Paleolithic & Mesolithic. These movements likely brought haplogroup E (back) to Eurasia.
> 
> * North Africa as a significant source of admixture in modern West Africans.
> 
> * ANE as a two-way mixture between a West Eurasian- and an East Eurasian source (here represented by Tianyuan). The East Eurasian population likely brought with it haplogroups R & Q from South-East Asia.


the 73 % Dzudzuana in Natufian must come from the Kebaran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebaran

The appearance of the Kebarian culture, of microlithic type implies a significant rupture in the cultural continuity of Levantine Upper Paleolithic. The Kebaran culture, with its use of microliths, is associated with the use of the bow and arrow and the domestication of the dog.[1] The Kebaran is also characterised by the earliest collecting of wild cereals, known due to the uncovering of grain grinding tools. It was the first step towards the Neolithic Revolution.

Taforalt also has 55 % Dzudzuana

E-M35 is probably of African origin, but before it spread 24 ka, it was heavily admixed with the Eurasian Dzudzuna-like DNA

----------


## halfalp

Btw, i found interesting the new Baikal Early Neoilithic component wich is mostly 50% Han and 50% Mal'ta Related. It is found now in prehistoric eastern europe. Doesn't it confirm the old archeological hypothesis that from Northern China / Mandchuria, Comb Ceramic ( and the first Ceramic in general ) and maybe also Millet, roam until eastern europe and finland? It was maybe progressive, but it certainly was both cultural and demic.

----------


## halfalp

> I am commenting a bit late on this new paper due to lack of time. If I understood well, t*his Dzudzuana sample is ancestral to the population of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG)*. Testing of Mesolithic samples showed that EHG were a mixture of Y-haplogroups I2, R1a and R1b, but dominated by haplogroup R1b - notably in the Iron Gates and Latvia as well as the Villabruna sample from Epipaleolithic Italy. 
> 
> This means that Dzudzuana could belong to Y-haplogroup R1* (as R1a and R1b had not yet appeared 26,000 ybp according to current age estimates.) It's a shame that the pre-print doesn't mention it.
> 
> 
> 
> So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, *which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b*), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.
> 
> The fact that Dzudzuana is 'more closely related to to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago' can easily be explained by population blending between R1 EHG from Southeast Europe (or even western or northern Anatolia) and those early Anatolian farmers.


But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?

So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.

----------


## halfalp

It starts to show more and more that early paleolithic europeans were y-dna C1, but that at this point, C1 and related group were not already differtiated into a west eurasian and an east eurasian groups ( probably somehow related with ust ishim ). And mtdna U2,U8, U5. If i had to bet, i would think U2 and U8 were probably the original lineages of C1 and that U5 came from some related group of Dzudzuana without changing that much of the genetic. They have recently found an Anatolian_HG and stated that ( *Anatolian_HG is ancestral to Anatolian_Neolithic* ) but he was C1a2, so clearly of early paleolithic european origins. Were is the place of y-dna I and y-dna R1b here? Sounds more and more that I was actually related with Villabruna-Dzudzuana somehow more than the tripartite Aurignacian-Gravettian-Magdalenian. Also, what is the role of the Solutrean right there? Solutrean was also in Maghreb, Iberomaurusian is fought to descend from Solutrean... mtdna U6 and N now in late paleolithic south Caucasus, late paleolithic Romania, epipaleolithic north africa and chalcolithic Levante... this cannot be a coincidence, there is a link somehow. Seems like ancestral dna seems to conflict with ancient migrations.

----------


## Maciamo

> But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?


I am just quoting the paper: "_These analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,except Neolithic Anatolians_". ESHG is EHG and SHG.

They also say: "_Dzudzuana itself can be modeled as a 2-way mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage._" That Basal Eurasian could be what was previously reported as CHG in the EHG population.




> So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.


Sorry, you are right, AG3 was female and R1b was mtDNA. However Fu et al.'s paper indicate that that sample cluster with Mal'ta, which was R1*, so it is likely to be an Y-DNA R1-related tribe. The only other possibility is Q1a, which is also found at low frequency in EHG populations. Both Q1a and R1 are related to the ANE admixture.

----------


## Silesian

Ah yes Georgia, a tiny geographical country, located in the large area- known as Eurasian or Afro-Eurasian,land mass. The land of interesting genetics, close to Maykop[wheels wagons-metalurgy] and Yamnaya burial sites ! Basal Caucasian[ Dzudzuana] remains near Georgian Neanderthal[ Ortvale K’lde ] remains. Early use of Wine[viticulture] and flax fibers** 
1)Basal "Caucasian" component[proper]-aka basal Eurasian 20YBP+/-
2)Neanderthal remains
3)Dmanisi-1.8+/-million hominid remains(5)

footnote**
https://anthropology.net/2009/09/11/...-cave-georgia/

----------


## epoch

> "Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestryfrom Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as allthese sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model forVillabruna as a simple clade, and an unadmixed Villabruna acts as a plausible source for several other We are thus cautious about accepting this qpAdm result at face value aswell. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago."


At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium it hid in, at same being time a source for an admixted pre-LGM Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling _allows_ for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.

----------


## epoch

> So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, *which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b*), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.


Afontova Gora 3 was a female and carried *mtDNA* R1b.

EDIT: O, already noted. Forget about it.

----------


## markod

> At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium is hid in, at same time a source for an admixted Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling _allows_ for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.


The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.



I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.

----------


## epoch

> @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."
> ...


OK. Here we go...

We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Therefore we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.

From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.

Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.

----------


## epoch

> The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.


O, I think we just discovered it.

----------


## markod

> OK. Here we go...
> 
> We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Thus we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.
> 
> From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.
> 
> Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.


I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.

----------


## epoch

> But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?
> 
> So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.


It's mtdna R1b which is interesting enough in itself as KO1 has that too.

----------


## epoch

> I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.


You're right. +/- 6,5 %. So the "where" is just NE of Israel?

EDIT: Or this may be later admixture.

----------


## markod

> O, I think we just discovered it.


I think the problem with this is the lack of anything resembling BE in Vestonice. Of course the Dzudzuana HGs would be very closely related to that "undiscovered" HG population.

----------


## Angela

I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.

What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?

----------


## halfalp

> The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.


Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.

----------


## markod

> Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.


Yes, the Villabruna-like influence (here called 'Common Eurasian') begins with Vestonice. Completely agree with everything you said. I'd tentatively add G to the Y-DNA haplogroups that could have spread with the Common Eurasian HGs, although as a minor lineage that only rises in numbers with the Neolithic.

----------


## hrvclv

For "basal" to remain basal over the centuries, it had to be severely isolated. 
Dzudzuana were no longer in the Caucasus by the time of Kotias and Satstrublia (CHG). So they had moved.
Anatolian pre-farming men were Dzuduana + Basal. But no basal west of them.
So Basal must have been on the way, in between the Caucasus and western Anatolia. 
The Indus Valley hardly fits the bill...

----------


## holderlin

> Read the supplement when you're not drunk.


Oooo sassy

----------


## Angela

I think some of the usual suspects are shell shocked. "I can't find anything wrong with the analyses, but it can't be right." :)

My overriding impression, and I think what any honest layperson would see, is that all of the barriers we put up between most of the different West Eurasian groups is really just nonsense. Peel back enough layers and you'll see the common core.

----------


## Angela

We haven't discussed it much but I'm quite surprised by the R1a carrying half Han Chinese like, half Malta like Botai Neolithic. 

Once again the "R" lineages are associated with ANE originally.

----------


## epoch

> I think the problem with this is the lack of anything resembling BE in Vestonice. Of course the Dzudzuana HGs would be very closely related to that "undiscovered" HG population.


This one without the Basal, that is.




> I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.
> 
> What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?


Yes. And mtDNA U6 in Natufians. And do note we have *two* basal mtDNA R*'s in the oldest Europeans yet. One in Fumane and one in Les Colles (Only read an abstract of a talk about that, BTW). Wasn't R0 common in Arabia?

EDIT: Les Cottés cave, not Les Colles. It's near Poitier.

----------


## bicicleur

> We haven't discussed it much but I'm quite surprised by the R1a carrying half Han Chinese like, half Malta like Botai Neolithic. 
> Once again the "R" lineages are associated with ANE originally.


wasn't this R1b-L389xP297 ?
a very old clade, formed 17.1 ka 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

----------


## bicicleur

> For "basal" to remain basal over the centuries, it had to be severely isolated. 
> Dzudzuana were no longer in the Caucasus by the time of Kotias and Satstrublia (CHG). So they had moved.
> Anatolian pre-farming men were Dzuduana + Basal. But no basal west of them.
> So Basal must have been on the way, in between the Caucasus and western Anatolia. 
> The Indus Valley hardly fits the bill...


there is another admixture graph, fig 2.13

CHG is modelled as a 93 % mixture of 70 % Dzudzuana + 30 % Tianyuan-like with 7 % Taforalt

CHG = 0.93 * (0.7 Dzu + 0.3 Tian) + 0.07 Taforalt

So first another 30 % Tianyuan was added and then another 7 % Taforalt

on the same graph :

Iran Neo = 0.81 (0.65 Dzudzuana + 0.35 Tianyuan) + 0.19 Basal Eurasian

Instead of extra Tarofalt, Iran Neo has extra Basal Eurasian

----------


## bicicleur

> This one without the Basal, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And mtDNA U6 in Natufians. And do note we have *two* basal mtDNA R*'s in the oldest Europeans yet. One in Fumane and one in Les Colles (Only read an abstract of a talk about that, BTW). Wasn't R0 common in Arabia?


The mtDNA U6 should ring a bell.
It points to a Eurasian introduction.
Basal Eurasian was not African in origin.

Think where it first appeared, in Transcaucasia, mixing with Villabruna-like.
And it is this mixture which spread into northern Africa, not the pure BE.

Another shot of pure BE got mixed into Iran Neo. (see my post n° 82)

----------


## bicicleur

> I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.
> 
> What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?


Angela, 2 things I think about Mesopotamia/Persian Gulf :

1/ it's to close, BE is very old yet 26 ka the only single form of BE in the middle east is the Dzudzuana mixture
the 2nd shot of BE arrived only after LGM, in Iran Neo
2/ it's very close to where Neanderthals were, yet no admixture with Neanderthals

and another thing is I believe the FGHIJK split happened near the Indus delta

----------


## epoch

> there is another admixture graph, fig 2.13
> 
> CHG is modelled as a 93 % mixture of 70 % Dzudzuana + 30 % Tianyuan-like with 7 % Taforalt
> 
> CHG = 0.93 * (0.7 Dzu + 0.3 Tian) + 0.07 Taforalt
> 
> So first another 30 % Tianyuan was added and then another 7 % Taforalt
> 
> on the same graph :
> ...




Do take in account that they model ANE as 2/3 K14-ish stuff and 1/3 Tianyuan-ish stuff. So (Dzu + Tian), or parts of it, may serve as proxy for ANE.

----------


## halfalp

> Yes, the Villabruna-like influence (here called 'Common Eurasian') begins with Vestonice. Completely agree with everything you said. I'd tentatively add G to the Y-DNA haplogroups that could have spread with the Common Eurasian HGs, although as a minor lineage that only rises in numbers with the Neolithic.


Yes its likely that the Common Eurasian begin even maybe with y-dna F. Vestonice have an F and GHIJK ( wich maybe is because of low snps ). I'm pretty sure R1b have nothing to do with Villabruna-Dzudzuana originally, they just replace the previous dominant male lineage but they kept the ancestral dna because of the lack of input of their original group. Europe makes me think more and more to a Dead End ( geographically speaking ), to survive they needed input coming from the southeast and the northeast, or they would have had serious diminution of their demographics like Neanderthals.

----------


## halfalp

I think about BE and CE, the context can be similar to Sungir/Kostenki and Goyet. The problem with like Goyet, is that it could came from an even previous and unrelated to Kostenki/Sungir and Vestonice, population that got an input from the " Gravettians ". For exemple, Goyet is y-dna C1 and mtdna M. I dont think mtdna M or even the few R we have in paleolithic europe, have relation with the original population that created Sungir/Kostenki, so we might even look for a more ancestral population that we dont have any real proxy yet. The same with BE, they could have been in the middle-east, neighbor of CE, but we dont have any proxy yet. To found an ancestral proxy for BE in Mesopotamia is very very unlickely geographically speaking. If you want to found very old specimens in the middle-east, you need to search in the caves of some mountains ranges... Zagros, Taurus, Caucasus, Galilée, Sarawat, Sinai... here you can found what you search.

----------


## halfalp

Btw is this study the link that IronHorse was searching for why Arabians had some relationship with WHG?

----------


## Gnarl

My guess for the BE refugium is the Ur-Schatt valley. Seems to have all the features you'd expect, and the location.




> Angela, 2 things I think about Mesopotamia/Persian Gulf :
> 
> 2/ it's very close to where Neanderthals were, yet no admixture with Neanderthals


We don't seem to have admixed with Neanderthals we know we overlapped with though. Hajdinjak, Fu et al published "_Reconstructing the genetic history of the Neanderthals_" in march 2018, and it contained something that astonished me, but does not seem to have generated the discussion I though it would. The gene flow, or at least most of it, into early modern humans appear to have originated from one Neanderthal population. Which we have not so far identified from DNA. Apparently they diverged from the neanderthals we have DNA from between 90 - 150 kyears ago. So the majority of Neanderthal populations early modern humans encountered or overlapped with did not exchange genes with us.

----------


## bicicleur

yes, I believe the 40 ka Tianyuan sample was on the eastern extremities of the Tianyuna-like area
IMO the Tianyuna-like area strectched from Central Asia, where it originated 45 ka, into the Altaï-area and further into Mongolia and northern China

----------


## bicicleur

> Hajdinjak, Fu et al published "_Reconstructing the genetic history of the Neanderthals_" in march 2018, and it contained something that astonished me, but does not seem to have generated the discussion I though it would. The gene flow, or at least most of it, into early modern humans appear to have originated from one Neanderthal population. Which we have not so far identified from DNA. Apparently they diverged from the neanderthals we have DNA from between 90 - 150 kyears ago. So the majority of Neanderthal populations early modern humans encountered or overlapped with did not exchange genes with us.


maybe
Attachment 10423

----------


## Jovialis

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...of-noahs-sons/

----------


## Angela

> My guess for the BE refugium is the Ur-Schatt valley. Seems to have all the features you'd expect, and the location.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't seem to have admixed with Neanderthals we know we overlapped with though. Hajdinjak, Fu et al published "_Reconstructing the genetic history of the Neanderthals_" in march 2018, and it contained something that astonished me, but does not seem to have generated the discussion I though it would. The gene flow, or at least most of it, into early modern humans appear to have originated from one Neanderthal population. Which we have not so far identified from DNA. Apparently they diverged from the neanderthals we have DNA from between 90 - 150 kyears ago. So the majority of Neanderthal populations early modern humans encountered or overlapped with did not exchange genes with us.


I've been thinking about that too. I thought I had posted this map, but I guess I forgot.




@Epoch,
Yes, lots of mtDna RO in Arabia. 

Wonder about the yDna. Could it be an early form of "E"?

@Bicicleur,
Sorry, it was a typo as well as off-topic. :)

----------


## bicicleur

> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...of-noahs-sons/


of course the model is a simplification, the whole reality will never be exposed
but it's a huge progress compared to the 2-3 year old Laziridis model in which he models all population in functio of just 4 'basic popultaions' (WHG-EHG-Levant Neo-Iran Neo)
the models is based on 26 ka DNA, so it does not say anything for populations more recent than 10 ka, that would be useless
it's a pitty that Anatolia Neo is not modelled, he just says that Anatolia Neo is very similar to Dzudzuana

----------


## bicicleur

> I've been thinking about that too. I thought I had posted this map, but I guess I forgot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Epoch,
> Yes, lots of mtDna RO in Arabia. 
> 
> Wonder about the yDna. Could it be an early form of "E"?
> ...


I guess no archeologic evidence there, because covered by thick sediments.

It has been speculated that the Zagros Neanderthals stayed in the cool mountains in summer, but that they roamed the hot valleys in winter.

----------


## Aaron1981

Botai was R1b-M73, not R1a.

----------


## Angela

> Botai was R1b-M73, not R1a.


Yes, thanks. I already thanked Bicicleur for correcting my typo.

----------


## O Neill

So what of the Aurignacian culture and the chauvet cave paintings ?
This Villabruna-Dzudzuana man was allready in europe for 20.000 years before the Dzudzuana cave findings ?

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

The attempts to understand a process discovery is one more reason to stay aware ot the changes that seem to be happening faster than I can read much more digest. yet thats why I can't get enough for that I have to thank you for allowing me to learn with bites. I want to understand and will continue to nibble before I'm able to take a bite. Recently I've found more reasons to keep trying to understand and at that trying to develop a process that can add to the conversation.

_The extent to which prehistoric migrations of farmers influenced the genetic pool of western North Africans remains unclear. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Neolithization process may have happened through the adoption of innovations by local Epipaleolithic communities or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. Here, we present an analysis of individuals’ genome sequences from Early and Late Neolithic sites in Morocco and from Early Neolithic individuals from southern Iberia_

ANATOLIANEPI-PALEOLITHIC PERIOD ASSEMBLAGES: 
Problems,Suggestions, Evaluations and Various Approaches 
Abstract

There are a number of problems and considerable deficiencies on the chronology, terminology and data
about the Anatolian Epi-paleolithic period. It has been necessary to offer some suggestions for the above
mentioned queries. And we hopefully addressed to them with this paper. Some mistakes have been
determined and new opinions will be offered by us especially on the chronology and terminology with
the comparisons between the previous and current research in Anatolia.

It is clear that the new efforts will
bring to light the question: "between 20.000 B.P. an
d 10.000 B.P., what was the exact cultural picture of
Anatolia like, taking the Levant and Europe into consideration?"
Although the dates of some Anatolian Epi-paleolithic
assemblages are quite earlier than the European
Mesolithic assemblages, the Levantine Epi-paleolithic assemblages are approximately contemporary with
the Anatolian Epi-paleolithic period. Consequently, we
prefer to use the term "Epi-paleolithic" instead of
"Mesolithic" for the being mentioned period in Anatolia
taking the recent data into consideration. On the
other hand, the intention of this paper is to avoid making the Levantine connections, at least for the
present, whether it is true or not. However, this is
only one of the problematic matters to bring into light
for Anatolia.

The hunt continues and the search demands more time yet the mysteries continue to unfold and it's one part of my life's quest.

----------


## markod

> So what of the Aurignacian culture and the chauvet cave paintings ?
> This Villabruna-Dzudzuana man was allready in europe for 20.000 years before the Dzudzuana cave findings ?


Assuming that GoyetQ116 is representative of the wider Aurignacien horizon those HGs probably went extinct, although their distant relatives from somewhere else would later emerge with the 'Common West Eurasian' cluster and repopulate Europe and the Near East.

If the models in the paper are correct the relatives of the Gravettien Hunters who painted the Chauvet cave survived - although with significant eastern admixture - in the emerging ANE population. This would mean that present day Siberians and Native Americans carry the largest shares of Gravettien ancestry.

----------


## O Neill

Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol

----------


## Angela

> Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
> Whats next R1b from the west ? lol


What the heck? There were no "Europeans" in the periods we're talking about. 

Plus, if Villabruna is a subset of Dzudzuana, then try looking at the CAUCASUS. 

Otherwise, a very ancient group of humans, ultimately deriving from Africa, by way of India/Central Asia, formed the majority of the ancestry of both Villabruna and Dzudzuana.

----------


## markod

> Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
> Whats next R1b from the west ? lol


No, those hunter gatherers all came from the east. The models in the paper predict that the ancient samples from Europe were on dead branches for the most part (up until Villabruna that is).

----------


## paul333

Regarding the early migrations of humans reaching into Europe,35,000 yrs ago, developing into the Aurignacian culture, Maciamo, ( Oct 2016 ) informs that these early Humans brought old Y haplogroups such as Y, C-V20, and Y H P-96, ( Y-H2 ), meaning Y H2, P-96 was one of the first Y Haplogroups to reach Europe, and is associated with the development of the Augnacian culture. 

Y H2 P96 is then also, believed to of come to Europe from both the African and Middle East, areas alongside a WestAsian,and Indian area route, travelling with the Anatolian early farmers, ( back into Europe ? ) around 9,000-6000 years ago.

As the early Humans are believed to of left Africa around 45,000 years ago, and the age of Y H2, separation is given as a similar age, not to far distant at around the 43,000 yr mark, there is around a 10/12,000 year gap, in reaching the European areas. 

Is it possible Y H2 could also have a Caucasus connection, back into Europe, meaning Y H2, P96, came to Europe Twice, which seems to be the case, ( and possibly even a third journey ? ) and a split of some thousands of years between each.

That they ( Y H2, P96 ) were both Early Paleolithic and Neolithic suggests and indicate's they were both Hunter Gatherers, and later Farmers, and that there must therefore be two very separate, and distinct groups sharing the same 'Y H2 P96 ' Haplogroup ??. separations of both groups some 25-30,000 yrs apart ??

----------


## O Neill

Seems to me ijk went west through the med from lebanon 50k Ya. Met up with the rest only 12 or 13k YA in the Caucasus to come back with the IEI.
i agree with the indus valley refuge aswell.

----------


## Jovialis

> Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * North Africa as a source of massive populations movements, possible at several points during the Paleolithic & Mesolithic. These movements likely brought haplogroup E (back) to Eurasia.
> 
> * North Africa as a significant source of admixture in modern West Africans.
> 
> ...



Here's some more figures from the paper:

----------


## holderlin

> Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.


Seriously? You believe you have just discovered the BE homeland?

----------


## halfalp

Are the two genomes of enough good quality to try to make a snp test if they had like blue eyes?

----------


## Gnarl

> maybe


Attachment not working ?

----------


## Silesian

> 





> Currently earliest fossils of Neanderthals in Europe are dated at 430,000 years ago, and thereafter Neanderthals expanded into Southwest and Central Asia. They are known from numerous fossils, as well as stone toolassemblages.



Neanderthal percentages/admixture in the above groups?

*The genetic history of Ice Age Europe*

*Extended Data Table 3*

Significant correlation of Neanderthal ancestry estimate with specimen age


*Extended Data Table 2*Estimated proportion of Neanderthal ancestry



_f4-ratios_
Archaic Ancestry Informative SNPs

Sample Code
Age BP
SNPs
Est.
95% CI
SNPs
Est.
95% CI
Increase in Neanderthal ancestry with B
S.E.

UstIshim
45,020
2,137,615
4.4%
3.6% – 5.3%
778,774
3.0%
2.3% – 3.7%
−0.9%
1.3%

Oase1
39,610
285,076
9.9%
8.4% – 11.4%
59,854
7.5%
6.0% – 8.9%
2.5%
1.8%

Kostenki14
37,470
1,774,156
3.6%
2.7% – 4.4%
632,748
2.8%
2.3% – 3.3%
−1.0%
1.0%

GoyetQ116-1
34,795
846,983
3.4%
2.4% – 4.3%






Muierii2
33,300
98,618
5.2%
3.0% – 7.4%
22,189
3.0%
2.5% – 3.5%
0.6%
1.1%

Paglicci133
32,895
82,330
4.1%
2.1% – 6.0%






Cioclovina1
32,435
12,784
4.1%
−1.1% – 9.3%






Kostenki12
32,415
61,228
1.9%
−0.7% – 4.4%
13,385
2.6%
2.1% – 3.2%
1.7%
1.5%

KremsWA3
30,970
203,986
3.9%
2.6% – 5.2%


-



Vestonice13
30,870
139,568
4.6%
2.6% – 6.5%
35,983
3.3%
2.7% – 3.8%
0.3%
1.3%

Vestonice15
30,870
30,900
4.3%
0.6% – 7.9%
5,855
2.7%
2.1% – 3.4%
−1.5%
1.3%

Vestonice14
30,870
5,677
2.6%
−5.9% – 11.0%






Pavlov1
30,260
57,005
4.4%
1.6% – 7.1%
9,327
3.1%
2.5% – 3.8%
0.7%
1.2%

Vestonice43
30,010
163,946
6.9%
5.2% – 8.5%
38,749
2.9%
2.4% – 3.3%
0.9%
0.9%

Vestonice16
30,010
945,292
4.1%
3.1% – 5.1%
268,157
2.8%
2.3% – 3.3%
−0.1%
1.0%

Ostuni2
28,975
17,017
1.6%
−3.2% – 6.3%
2,746
2.3%
1.4% – 3.1%
1.3%
1.6%

GoyetQ53-1
27,975
12,567
4.8%
−0.7% – 10.3%






Paglicci108
27,750
4,330
3.4%
−6.0% – 12.7%






Ostuni1
27,620
369,313
4.2%
3.0% – 5.4%
88,449
2.6%
2.2% – 3.0%
0.1%
0.9%

GoyetQ376-19
27,515
25,400
6.5%
2.7% – 10.2%






GoyetQ56-16
26,320
9,988
3.6%
−1.9% – 9.1%






Malta1
24,305
1,439,501
2.9%
1.9% – 3.8%
437,187
2.5%
2.1% – 2.9%
1.0%
0.8%

ElMiron
18,720
797,714
3.6%
2.6% – 4.5%
250,071
2.8%
2.5% – 3.2%
0.6%
0.9%

AfontovaGora3
16,710
286,355
3.0%
1.8% – 4.2%
96,237
3.3%
2.9% – 3.7%
−1.5%
1.0%

AfontovaGora2
16,710
143,751
2.2%
0.4% – 4.0%
37,280
2.3%
1.9% – 2.7%
−0.3%
0.9%

Rigney1
15,465
35,600
0.8%
−2.6% – 4.2%






HohleFels49
15,130
63,151
2.3%
−0.6% – 5.2%






GoyetQ-2
15,005
72,263
1.7%
−0.6% – 4.0%






Brillenhohle
14780
13,459
2.5%
−3.0% – 8.1%






HohleFels79
14,670
11,211
1.7%
−5.1% – 8.5%






Burkhardtshohle
14,615
38,376
1.7%
−1.6% – 5.0%






Villabruna
13,980
1,215,433
2.7%
1.8% – 3.5%
425,148
3.3%
3.0% – 3.7%
1.1%
0.9%

Bichon
13,665
2,116,782
2.9%
1.9% – 3.8%
769,422
2.7%
2.2% – 3.2%
0.7%
1.3%

Satsurblia
13,255
1,460,368
1.5%
0.6% – 2.4%
542,561
2.0%
1.7% – 2.4%
0.9%
0.6%

Rochedane
12,960
237,390
1.9%
0.5% – 3.3%






Iboussieres39
11,725
9,659
6.4%
−0.8% – 13.7%






Continenza
10,855
11,717
4.1%
−1.4% – 9.6%
1,733
2.9%
1.8% – 4.0%
−10.6%
4.4%

Ranchot88
10,085
414,863
2.9%
1.8% – 4.0%






LesCloseaux13
9,900
8,635
−3.0%
−9.7% – 3.8%






Kotias
9,720
2,133,968
1.8%
1.0% – 2.7%
779,146
2.1%
1.8% – 2.4%
0.7%
0.5%

Falkenstein
9,200
64,428
4.8%
1.7% – 7.8%






Karelia
8,375
1,754,410
1.9%
1.1% – 2.7%
582,444
2.2%
1.9% – 2.6%
−0.2%
0.7%

Bockstein
8,265
21,977
5.7%
1.0% – 10.5%






Ofnet
8,245
6,263
9.8%
1.4% – 18.1%






Chaudardes1
8,205
92,657
1.9%
−0.2% – 3.9%






Loschbour
8,050
2,091,584
2.5%
1.6% – 3.3%
774,139
2.6%
2.0% – 3.1%
2.7%
1.7%

LaBrana1
7,815
1,884,745
1.9%
1.1% – 2.8%
642,231
2.7%
2.3% – 3.2%
0.4%
0.8%

Hungarian.KO1
7,660
1,410,303
2.1%
1.2% – 3.0%
439,408
2.4%
2.0% – 2.8%
−0.1%
1.2%

Motala12
7,625
1,874,519
2.5%
1.6% – 3.3%
655,685
2.3%
1.9% – 2.7%
−0.1%
0.7%

BerryAuBac
7,245
54,690
2.5%
−0.2% – 5.1%






Stuttgart
7,140
2,078,724
1.9%
1.1% – 2.7%
767,813
2.1%
1.8% – 2.5%
0.0%
0.7%

Dai
0
2,144,502
1.4%
0.7% – 2.1%
782,066
1.8%
1.5% – 2.1%
1.4%
0.4%

Han
0
2,144,502
1.8%
1.1% – 2.5%
782,164
2.1%
1.8% – 2.5%
1.9%
0.7%

English
0
2,144,502
1.5%
0.8% – 2.2%






French
0
2,144,502
1.5%
0.9% – 2.1%
782,386
1.7%
1.4% – 1.9%
1.4%
0.6%

Sardinian
0
2,144,502
1.2%
0.6% – 1.9%
782,351
1.7%
1.4% – 2.0%
0.7%
0.5%

Karitiana
0



782,037
2.1%
1.7% – 2.4%
1.5%
1.0%

----------


## epoch

> No, those hunter gatherers all came from the east. The models in the paper predict that the ancient samples from Europe were on dead branches for the most part (up until Villabruna that is).


That is if we don't model Villabruna as Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE. Which fits nicely, as per this paper. They even mention the logic of a clade emerging later - post-LGM - being composed of earlier branches makes quite some more sense than it being a virgin clade surviving the LGM unadmixted. 

But the modeling is done with Villabruna as ancestral branch.

----------


## Flying

"So, to try and sum up:

Dzudzuana shares ancestry with ‘Common West Eurasian’ (CWE). the ancestor cluster of Villabruna.Dzudzuana diverges from CWE because of a Basal Eurasian ancestry contribution [which supports that Basal Eurasian ancestry was a deep Middle Eastern lineage].Dzudzuana is closest to Anatolia Neolithic, and close to Gravettian.Chronologically:

Aurignacian: First West Eurasians arrive ca. 36,000 BP, Goyet cluster expands probably with C1a2 lineages.After that, the early or ‘unmixed’ Villabruna cluster (‘hidden’ somewhere probably east of Europe, either North Eurasia or South Eurasia), lineages unknown (possibly IJ), contributes to:
Gravettian (ca. 30,000 BP): Věstonice cluster expands, probably with IJ lineages.A (hidden) ‘Common West Eurasian’ population._In turn:_
_
Dzudzuana ca. 26,000 BP derived from Common West Eurasian (curiously, haplogroup G seems to split in today’s subclades ca. 26,000 BP).During the Gravettian (ca. 26,000 BP), an Anatolian Neolithic-like population exists already in the Near East. Both Věstonice and this Anatolian HG are close to Dzudzuana; in turn, Dzudzuana from CWE.
_Magdalenian (ca. 20,000 BP): El Mirón cluster expands, probably with more specific I lineages.Bølling-Allerød warming period (ca. 14,000 BP): ‘late’ Villabruna cluster or WHG (=CWE with greater affinity to Near Eastern populations) expands, probably spreading with R1b in mainland Europe and to the east (admixing with Siberian HG), creating the WHG — ANE ancestry cline, as reflected in Iron Gates HG, Baltic HG, etc.

The paper talks about possibilities for Common West Eurasian:
Migration from mainland Europe to Near East or vice versa (not very likely);Migration from a geographically intermediate Ice Age refugium in southeast Europe, Anatolia, or the circum-Pontic region that explain post-glacial affinity of post-glacial Levantine and Anatolian populations.
It also re-states what was known:

EHG (ca. 8,000 BP) = between WHG — ANE (ca. 24,000 BP).CHG (ca. 10,000 BP) = between EHG — Iran N.
I would say that the distinct CHG vs. Dzudzuana ancestry puts CHG probably to the south, within the Iranian Plateau, during the Gravettian, expanding probably later.
Also important, Ancestral North African probably accompanied by haplogroup E. Early expansion of North Africans into the Near East further confirms the impossibility of Afroasiatic (much younger) to be associated with these expansions, and confirms that the still unclear Green Sahar migrations are the key".

Carlos Quiles

----------


## holderlin

> That is if we don't model Villabruna as Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE. Which fits nicely, as per this paper. They even mention the logic of a clade emerging later - post-LGM - being composed of earlier branches makes quite some more sense than it being a virgin clade surviving the LGM unadmixted. 
> 
> But the modeling is done with Villabruna as ancestral branch.


Finally had a minute to pour over this glorious paper.

Epoch's post above is related to where I was getting hung up, but it looks like it was just a matter of how they interpreted the different models that their algo spit out.

We have the statements below that make it sound like Common West Eurasian ->->->->-> Villabruna relatively unadmixed.




> “…..a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed allthe ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry.”





> “…..a deeply divergent hunter-gatherer lineage that contributed in relatively unmixed form to the much later hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster is specified as contributing to earlier hunter-gatherer groups (Gravettian Vestonice16: 35.7±11.3% and Magdalenian ElMiron: 60.6±11.3%) and to populations of the Caucasus (Dzudzuana: 200 72.5±3.7%, virtually identical to that inferred using ADMIXTUREGRAPH).”





> “In Europe, descendants of this lineage admixed with pre-existing hunter-gatherers related to Sunghir3 from Russia for the Gravettians and GoyetQ116-1 from Belgium for the Magdalenians, while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe, while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE cline of ancestry”


But then we have some other discussion in the supplement.




> "Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestry from Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as all these sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model for Villabruna as a simple clade, and an unadmixed Villabruna acts as a plausible source for several other We are thus cautious about accepting this qpAdm result at face value as well. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago….. From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeed complex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to all the remaining sources. This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kya population of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seems to have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period."


Looks like as @epoch says that it all depends on their assumptions given that they have no older WHG like sample to work from. Unadmixed CWE------>Villabruna is the most parsimonious, but since Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE work as well and these samples predate Villabruna we would have to consider this model too.

Awesome paper. And I think I may be rethinking the Basal Eurasian Homeland being South Asia idea. The Dzudzu sample strongly implies that BE is present just South of or in the Caucuses assuming that Common West Eurasian is coming from the North somewhere. This strongly suggests that BE and other deep clade "homelands" are in South West Asia and North Africa, which makes sense as stopping points for these groups as we radiated out of Africa. This is the most popular theory anyway, nothing new.

Where do people think we'll find a sample that fits the "Common West Eurasian" population? I'm thinking South of our other 40k year old samples. Older samples From Italy across the Balkans to just above the Caucuses around 35k years ago is my call. We know that before 27k years ago they were bumping against Basal Eurasians in the South Caucuses and so if we assume CWE is coming from the North that means that they would have had to been just North of the Caucuses on the steppe at some point.

----------


## epoch

> Where do people think we'll find a sample that fits the "Common West Eurasian" population? I'm thinking South of our other 40k year old samples. Older samples From Italy across the Balkans to just above the Caucuses around 35k years ago is my call. We know that before 27k years ago they were bumping against Basal Eurasians in the South Caucuses and so if we assume CWE is coming from the North that means that they would have had to been just North of the Caucuses on the steppe at some point.


Fumane and Les Cottés both seem to have mtDNA R*, the predecessor of U. That, IMO, means these samples were from the same pool as the mtDNA U carriers originated from. We know that in the Balkans there was a proto-Aurignacian occupation from 45 ka to 39 ka which then disappeared (cf Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria). We know that nearby proto-Aurignacian Oase 1 was a complete outlier that likely was not contributing anything to later HG's. That may possibly mean that SE Europe was wiped clean by the Phlegrean Eruption. Tephra from that is found up to the Kostenki 14 site, where it seemed to have terminated proto-Aurignacian layers. So if the Kostenki 14 *sample* - which postdates the eruption and was found in archaeological context of layers above the tephra layers - is an example of a recolonization where did it come from? Fumane was not touched by the eruption, so Uluzzian may be interesting. Even older, Bohunicians perhaps?

EDIT: But I think Villabruna is a mixture with a lot of Vestonice as it simply makes more sense. The culture was called Epigravettian for a reason.

----------


## halfalp

> Fumane and Les Cottés both seem to have mtDNA R*, the predecessor of U. That, IMO, means these samples were from the same pool as the mtDNA U carriers originated from. We know that in the Balkans there was a proto-Aurignacian occupation from 45 ka to 39 ka which then disappeared (cf Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria). We know that nearby proto-Aurignacian Oase 1 was a complete outlier that likely was not contributing anything to later HG's. That may possibly mean that SE Europe was wiped clean by the Phlegrean Eruption. Tephra from that is found up to the Kostenki 14 site, where it seemed to have terminated proto-Aurignacian layers. So if the Kostenki 14 *sample* - which postdates the eruption and was found in archaeological context of layers above the tephra layers - is an example of a recolonization where did it come from? Fumane was not touched by the eruption, so Uluzzian may be interesting. Even older, Bohunicians perhaps?


I always believed that mtdna U, or at least partially, like U2, would have been related with the R* of Ust-Ishim. What are Fumane and Les Cottés dated for? And what would be the role of mtdna M into the replacement of pre-campanian ignimbrite eruption?

----------


## epoch

> I always believed that mtdna U, or at least partially, like U2, would have been related with the R* of Ust-Ishim. What are Fumane and Les Cottés dated for?


Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.

http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files...nline_2018.pdf

"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"




> And what would be the role of mtdna M into the replacement of pre-campanian ignimbrite eruption?


No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?

----------


## halfalp

> Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. *They try to get autosomal DNA*. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.
> 
> http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files...nline_2018.pdf
> 
> "Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"
> 
> 
> 
> No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?


Nice, upper paleolithic samples are the most interesting and intriguing i think.

----------


## halfalp

> Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.
> 
> http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files...nline_2018.pdf
> 
> "Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"
> 
> 
> 
> *No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?*


Hm, the both M sample that we have are pretty younger than the other. Goyet is 32'000-30'000 years old and Ostuni1 is 25'000 years old. Also, Genetiker pigmentation snps show most Gravettian like Kostenki / Sunghir to be " Medium " Skinned, while Ostuni1 is " Dark " Skinned. There was maybe an obscure migration coming from north africa already at this point.

----------


## epoch

> Hm, the both M sample that we have are pretty younger than the other. Goyet is 32'000-30'000 years old and Ostuni1 is 25'000 years old. Also, Genetiker pigmentation snps show most Gravettian like Kostenki / Sunghir to be " Medium " Skinned, while Ostuni1 is " Dark " Skinned. There was maybe an obscure migration coming from north africa already at this point.


The reconstructed skin colour most likely means very little with respect to the affinity of these samples. Ostuni1 clusters very clearly with other Gravettians who were reconstructed, it is really not an outlier. The Fu et al paper where it was published was stuffed to the brink with loads and loads of D-stats so you can be absolutely sure about that (They're in the Sup Info, by far the most interesting part of that study).

----------


## halfalp

> The reconstructed skin colour most likely means very little with respect to the affinity of these samples. Ostuni1 clusters very clearly with other Gravettians who were reconstructed, it is really not an outlier. The Fu et al paper where it was published was stuffed to the brink with loads and loads of D-stats so you can be absolutely sure about that (They're in the Sup Info, by far the most interesting part of that study).


Yeah but that's an Upper Paleolithic sample, we have samples distant from Millenia and a low density population. What i mean is that in paleolithic spain we had some Magdalenian y-dna I with a high ressurgence of Goyet admixture, but we know I probably was not the original lineage of the Goyet Cluster. It's very possible that Ostuni is the remnant to an originally older and unrelated population of the Gravettians like Kostenki / Sungir, but more related with Goyet, but they lost their original ancestry to a Gravettian one.

----------


## markod

> EDIT: But I think Villabruna is a mixture with a lot of Vestonice as it simply makes more sense. The culture was called Epigravettian for a reason.


That would mean that due to its absence in WHG the Basal Eurasian (rather than the Ancient North African) component is either a relic or greatly inflated, wouldn't it? 

Going back to the assumption that Villabruna descends from a rather unmixed population, is it possible that there was a super isolated Paleolithic population somewhere in Europe or the Middle East (on islands, in mountains or something)? Sounds stupid I know, but as it stands I find it difficult to imagine that the Proto-Villabrunans would have been freely roaming the Balkans and Anatolia without acquiring either Basal Eurasian or Sungir-Vestonice admixture.

I'm thinking of something like the Corbeddu cave of Sardinia perhaps. Although it's much more likely that those hunters were similar to those on the mainland of course.

----------


## halfalp

> That would mean that due to its absence in WHG the Basal Eurasian (rather than the Ancient North African) component is either a relic or greatly inflated, wouldn't it? 
> 
> Going back to the assumption that Villabruna descends from a rather unmixed population, is it possible that there was a super isolated Paleolithic population somewhere in Europe or the Middle East *(on islands, in mountains or something)*? Sounds stupid I know, but as it stands I find it difficult to imagine that the Proto-Villabrunans would have been freely roaming the Balkans and Anatolia without acquiring either Basal Eurasian or Sungir-Vestonice admixture.
> 
> I'm thinking of something like the Corbeddu cave of Sardinia perhaps. Although it's much more likely that those hunters were similar to those on the mainland of course.


There is plenty of place in modern era that weren't water in those times. Adriatic Sea didn't exist, Persian Gulf didn't exist. If i remember correctly a very old post of Eurogenes, were he even detected minor Kotias ( Dzudzuana likely ), Villabruna was calculated as Vestonice + Afontova Gora 3. I think the problem we have here is the same we have with Eastern Europe in the metal ages, more we are west of it, less CHG, more we are close of Caucasus, more CHG. We probably just didn't found the good pops yet, the pops that was WHG / Villabruna, but a little bit more Dzudzuana Basal Eurasian shifted and that give birth to Anatolian Neolithic. Iron_Gates HG for exemple, are maybe more northern reason why EHG is here and not Basal Eurasian. But i'm confident from Paleolithic Anatolia or even Paleolithic Greece, we might found some pop more middle-eastern shifted than the northern ones.

----------


## halfalp

Another reason why for Iron_Gates HG dont seem to show some Basal Eurasian is that maybe the Villabruna ancestry was way more further east of Anatolia in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, and that they were replaced by Dzudzuana ancestry in the name of Anatolian_Neolithic and Levante_Neolithic in very early Neolithic with the expansion of lineages like F,G,H,E,J,T. Maybe even link with the change of mindset at Gobekli Tepe. This latter hypothesis could also explain some basal form of R1b in Anatolia.

Edit. I just reread the paper and i read the following. " _It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. 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._ " Wich as i was saying few times, sound like the CHG found in Motala or Baltic HG as well as Iron Gates HG might be in fact Dzudzuana and not Kotias. The question is, is CHG in chalcolithic eastern europe Dzudzuana or Kotias?

Also, in the admixture table, Sidelkino wich is our oldest EHG sample to date, have more Dzudzuana ancestry than any other hunter gatherer until the CHG in Yamnaya. There is a sort of picture that start to show.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

14000-12000 BC:




> Khvalynian Sea separated the already noticeably different late-glacial forager cultures that prospered east and west of the Ural Mountains. Around 11,000-9,000 BCE the water finally rose high enough to overflow catastrophically through a southwestern outlet, the Manych Depression north of the North Caucasus Mountains, and a violent flood poured into the Black Sea...But, by the time the sea receded, they [hunter bands] had become very different culturally and probably linguistically on the eastern and western sides of the Ural-Caspian frontier. When domesticated cattle were accepted by societies west of the Urals, they were rejected by those east of the Urals, who remained foragers for thousands of years.


 (Anthony, HWL, p. 136-7)




> In the case of the Ural frontier, the Khvalynian Sea separated the populations east and west of the Ural Mountains for millennia, and the saline desert-steppe that replaced it...probably remained a significant ecological barrier for pedestrian foragers.


 (Ibid, p. 463)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...ig17_318199054

Dates would correspond to the formation of the Villabruna cluster. This could have caused the split between WHG and EHG. In addition, the Manych-Kerch Spillway could have blocked passage, north and south, between the Caucasus and the Pontic-Steppes (splitting CHG from WHG?).

----------


## Ygorcs

> That would mean that due to its absence in WHG the Basal Eurasian (rather than the Ancient North African) component is either a relic or greatly inflated, wouldn't it? 
> 
> Going back to the assumption that Villabruna descends from a rather unmixed population, is it possible that there was a super isolated Paleolithic population somewhere in Europe or the Middle East (on islands, in mountains or something)? Sounds stupid I know, but as it stands I find it difficult to imagine that the Proto-Villabrunans would have been freely roaming the Balkans and Anatolia without acquiring either Basal Eurasian or Sungir-Vestonice admixture.


I think the fact that Dzudzuana already had Basal Eurasian, but apparently the difference from Dzuduzana to Anatolia_Neolithic (mostly Central-Western Anatolia, I presume) was that the latter was more WHG-like (UHG?) possibly indicates that Western & Central Anatolia had little if any influence from Basal Eurasian-enriched people until much later, certainly later than the traversal of the proto-WHG people to Southeast Europe. But what I find particularly hard to believe is that the WHG wouldn't have mixed extensively with the earlier Gravettian (and contemporaneous Epigravettian) populations. Have scientists really insisted on this notion of WHG as "pure"? I find that absolutely unlikely, all the other ancient populations have been found to be mixed, in some cases heavily so.

----------


## markod

> 14000-12000 BC:
> 
> (Anthony, HWL, p. 136-7)
> 
> (Ibid, p. 463)
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...ig17_318199054
> 
> Dates would correspond to the formation of the Villabruna cluster. This could have caused the split between WHG and EHG. In addition, the Manych-Kerch Spillway could have blocked passage, north and south, between the Caucasus and the Pontic-Steppes (splitting CHG from WHG?).


Lazaridis and his colleagues reject an Eastern European origin because they see Villabruna as a unique population which split very early from the Kostenki-Sungir clade. This split predates Goyet116, so we're talking about ~40k BP the latest.

----------


## Ygorcs

> 14000-12000 BC:
> 
> (Anthony, HWL, p. 136-7)
> 
> (Ibid, p. 463)
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...ig17_318199054
> 
> Dates would correspond to the formation of the Villabruna cluster. This could have caused the split between WHG and EHG. In addition, the Manych-Kerch Spillway could have blocked passage, north and south, between the Caucasus and the Pontic-Steppes (splitting CHG from WHG?).


How would this have caused the split between WHG and EHG? EHG were located mainly west of the Urals, so they would've been on the same "side" of the Kvalynian Sea as the WHG. Or do you suggest the EHG were east of the Urals and of the Caucasus and only migrated westward later, replacing the WHG there?

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Lazaridis and his colleagues reject an Eastern European origin because they see Villabruna as a unique population which split very early from the Kostenki-Sungir clade. This split predates Goyet116, so we're talking about ~40k BP the latest.


Where do I say Villabruna/WHG has "an Eastern European origin"????




> By ~14kya a third group, the Villabruna cluster, appeared throughout mainland Europe, coinciding with the Bølling-Allerød warming period. _Members of this cluster, which has also been called western European hunter-gatherers (WHG)_, were found across Europe during Late Upper Paleolithic-to-Mesolithic times, and were the main pre-agricultural Europeans prior to the Neolithic ~8kya.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> How would this have caused the split between WHG and EHG? EHG were located mainly west of the Urals, so they would've been on the same "side" of the Kvalynian Sea as the WHG. Or do you suggest the EHG were east of the Urals and of the Caucasus and only migrated westward later, replacing the WHG there?


It turned what would have been a zone of cultural interpenetration and exchange into a frontier separating radically different ways of life/language families.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It turned what would have been a zone of cultural interpenetration and exchange into a frontier separating radically different ways of life/language families.


So you think the EHG appeared east of the Urals and basically in modern Kazakhstan/Siberia/North Central Asia? Because the Khvalynian Sea created a barrier only between the Pontic-Caspian region and Central Asia, so if EHG lived in Eastern Europe they wouldn't be separated from the WHG in the rest of Europe. Also, that Khvalynian Sea basically receded and started to dry up during the Mesolithic after these floods into the Black Sea, so the barrier would've been very weakened even by Early Mesolithic times.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> So you think the EHG appeared east of the Urals and basically in modern Kazakhstan/Siberia/North Central Asia? Because the Khvalynian Sea created a barrier only between the Pontic-Caspian region and Central Asia, so if EHG lived in Eastern Europe they wouldn't be separated from the WHG in the rest of Europe. Also, that Khvalynian Sea basically receded and started to dry up during the Mesolithic after these floods into the Black Sea, so the barrier would've been very weakened even by Early Mesolithic times.


Weakened, but not removed:




> In the case of the Ural frontier, the Khvalynian Sea separated the populations east and west of the Ural Mountains for millennia, and *the saline desert-steppe that replaced it...probably remained a significant ecological barrier for pedestrian foragers*. (Anthony)


Where you have a persistent barrier, populations diverge. The spill-way from the Khvalynian Sea to the Black Sea would have dried up post-flood (~11,000-9,000 BCE), however, no longer blocking north-south movement between the Caucacus and the Pontic-Steppes. The receding of the northern ice sheets would have allowed greater east-west movement across the steppes and over the Urals. Where WHG, CHG, and EHG fit into this is an open question.

----------


## jpz79

The most disturbing think about this study, is how it makes its brash conclusion, based on a few samples from W. Georgia, dated to the upper palelithic, without samples from the same or earlier time period in iran or anatolia. Especially considering, so called, 'chg' samples, to date, are all j bearers, strongly suggesting they are products of west asian population expansions beginning from the last glacial maximum, up until the neolithic.

----------


## jpz79

Indeed, IJ linker was found in iran, some years ago. That's why I have suggested such conclusions of the paper are not only wrong, but backwards. Caucaus groups , as early as the late upper paleolithic (Satp and kk1), seem much more likely to be the descendants of population movements from the south, in west asia. But the authors dont have samples that date to that period from iran/anatolia, but are surprisingly eager to draw there conclusions. So essentially, the results of these types of studies are better to materbaute to, then to take seriously.

----------


## jpz79

Given the high temporal divergence of caucasoud y-haogroups, but the relatively low adna genetic distance between modern caucasoid populations which bear them, it is clear that the earlier populations which these haplogroups (r1a, r1b, j, i) were found, had been considerable homogenized. Given the types of ultra rare, basal haplogroups found in Iran (ij, r1b*, j2a, r2) and Turkey, there is no more obvious region for the nexus of this homogenization.

----------


## MOESAN

@Epoch
you wrote: EDIT: I don't think this is accurate anymore. Drift is by far a bigger changer of DNA than mutations.

could you explain how drift occurs without mutations? Or it implies crossings with other pops, or "loosing of genes" so reduced DNA (!?!)

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Welcome it's an exciting place to grow and learn. There are always many people to help you and please Never hesitate to ask me. I hope these words that are being shared help you to answer some of your questions
Eduardo Moreno
IZB; University of Bern; Bern, Switzerland
Key words: out of Africa, human evolution, human genetics, ritual fights, human behavior, super-competitors, warfare,
haplotypes, hunter

The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago, spreading
the mitochondrial haplotype L3 throughout the Earth.1-10 Little effort has been made to try to reconstruct the society
and culture of the tribe that left Africa to populate the rest of the world.1 Here, I find that hunter-gatherers that belong
to mitochondrial haplotypes L0, L1 and L2 do not have a culture of ritualized fights. In contrast to this, almost all L3
derived hunter-gatherers have a more belligerent culture that includes ritualized fights such as wrestling, stick fights
or headhunting expeditions. This appears to be independent of their environment because ritualized fights occur in
all climates, from the tropics to the arctic. There is also a correlation between mitochondrial haplotypes and warfare
propensity or the use of murder and suicide to resolve conflicts. The data implicate that the original human population
outside Africa is descended from only two closely related sub-branches that practiced ritual fighting and had a higher
propensity towards warfare and the use of murder for conflict resolution. This warfare culture may have given the out of
Africa migrants a competitive advantage to colonize the world. But it could also have crucially influenced the subsequent
history of The Earth. In the future, it would be interesting to see how we could further reconstruct the society and culture
of the “Out of Africa Tribe.”

----------


## Jovialis

> Welcome it's an exciting place to grow and learn. There are always many people to help you and please Never hesitate to ask me. I hope these words that are being shared help you to answer some of your questions
> Eduardo Moreno
> IZB; University of Bern; Bern, Switzerland
> Key words: out of Africa, human evolution, human genetics, ritual fights, human behavior, super-competitors, warfare,
> haplotypes, hunter
> 
> The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago, spreading
> the mitochondrial haplotype L3 throughout the Earth.1-10 Little effort has been made to try to reconstruct the society
> and culture of the tribe that left Africa to populate the rest of the world.1 Here, I find that hunter-gatherers that belong
> ...


The current data does not support the idea that the human race evolved from a single tribe in Africa. Rather, it supports multi-regionalism within Africa.

It is discussed in this thread:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Does-It-Matter

----------


## bicicleur

> The current data does not support the idea that the human race evolved from a single tribe in Africa. Rather, it supports multi-regionalism within Africa.
> 
> It is discussed in this thread:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Does-It-Matter


yes, but that was before out of Africa

the out of Africa have common ancestors with those who remained in Africa

----------


## Tamakore

My understanding of this paper is shaky at best, but would it be correct to say that there are two main scenarios that would explain these results?

1) In 26,000bp there was a small Dzudzuana population in the Caucasus that migrated and expanded between 26,000 and 13,000bp, leaving the Caucasus and becoming dominant in West Asia and after 13,000bp expanding further to become dominant throughout West Eurasia and North Africa.

2) In 26,000bp the Dzudzuana population, which might be called Ancestral West Asian, was already widespread across Anatolia and perhaps the Levant. Dzudzuana Cave was near the eastern edge of this population. After 13,000bp it became more widespread because it was the main ancestral component of both WHG and West Asian neolithic populations, including the West Anatolian neolithic population that spread into Europe.
In 26,000bp this large Dzudzuana population was contemporaneous with the Gravettian in Europe, ANE in Siberia, an Iranian HG population, and other HG populations further east. Because the Caucasus was the eastern fringe of the Dzudzuana population, over the next 10-12,000 years the Caucasian sub-population inter-mixed with their neighbours, ANE coming from the north east and Iranian HGs from the south east. By around 13,000bp, CHG combined admixture from these three populations, with Dzudzuana reduced to a minor component. 

The second hypothesis seems more plausible to me, but the answer will come when there are more Paleolithic aDNA samples from West Asia and North Africa.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> F is in fact ancestor of GHIJK. https://www.yfull.com/tree/CF/
> As for G route, there is indeed a huge gap between the time of G formation and its TMRCA. GHIJK first split could have happened around the area you mentioned, or close to it, indeed. In the case of G, ok, it could have been a route from east to west, till the first split of G itself around Armenia. HIJK from west to east doesn't seem to work, since the clades involved don't present such gap, as you suggested. No time to HIJK "jump" from the area around Caucasus to South Asia. 
> Anyway, I guess I got your hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong. You speculate people related to an older wave from Africa, with a now extinct Y-DNA lineage(?), would have lived in South Asia and would have been the original Basal Eurasians. Then GHIJK - related to another wave - came without this component. Already separated, G and H would have gone south and mixed with this older pop, whereas IJK took another route. Later, G and H would have migrated west bringing BE. Is that right?


Seems unlikely to me. WOuldn't AASI have been first that east?

----------


## ratchet_fan

> What he says is that "_ ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. "
> _
> So, there could be "extra" Basal in there, a lineage that split before Basal, as well as any modern SSA or East African in people. Remember the SSA that used to show up in ancient samples? If the algorithm spotted something really old it threw it in SSA perhaps.
> He has no sample for these deep lineages that include not only Basal Eurasian but other lineages that split off before Basal. There's also the language about bottlenecked and non-bottlenecked lineages. Which one was which, the Basal or the pre-Basal? What was the bottleneck, what caused it, where?
> 
> Looking at this graph I'm struck by the Dzudzuana in the more "eastern" hunter-gatherers, like Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Russian Mesolithic, Motala and Iron Gates. Movement westward from the Caucasus? Or straight from Anatolia? 
> 
> Part of that is Basal Eurasian.
> 
> You can also see it in the graph of the amount of Basal Eurasian. According to that, the hunter gatherers had what looks like from 1 to 10%, which is just about what the Feldman et al (Krause) paper on Anatolian hunter-gatherer transition to farmer said would be in the ball park for the amount of Basal Eurasian that would need to be in Iron Gates if there had been movement from Anatolia to Europe at that period. Of course, they only found something like 1.6.


I believe even Mata needs CHG admixture.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> there is another admixture graph, fig 2.13
> 
> CHG is modelled as a 93 % mixture of 70 % Dzudzuana + 30 % Tianyuan-like with 7 % Taforalt
> 
> CHG = 0.93 * (0.7 Dzu + 0.3 Tian) + 0.07 Taforalt
> 
> So first another 30 % Tianyuan was added and then another 7 % Taforalt
> 
> on the same graph :
> ...


Are these models still considered accurate? That would make CHG and Iran_Neo about 27% East Eurasian.

----------


## ratchet_fan

Is there any update on this genome being released? I heard the lab is working on a paper. Are there any new samples? Where did West Eurasians split from East Eurasians?

----------


## Regio X

> Seems unlikely to me. WOuldn't AASI have been first that east?


Yeah, South Asia as the source of BE looks unlikely, especially now. What Razib said here about it seems to make sense.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> Yeah, South Asia as the source of BE looks unlikely, especially now. What Razib said here about it seems to make sense.


IMO though South Asia could be a major sink for Basal Eurasian. There's no ancient DNA to support it but it wouldn't surprise me if that is the first component to settle the region. I don't see too many AASI makers in their ydna and mtdna M in South Asia seems to be younger and derivative of SE Asian mtdna M.

----------


## kingjohn

this is intersting abstract  :Thinking:  :Smile: 

*Metagenomes and ancient human lineages from a pre-LGM layer of Satsurblia cave in the Caucasus

**Here we present genomic data from sediment from an Upper Paleolithic occupational level of Satsurblia cave, Imereti region,western Georgia, dated to 25, 000 years before present (bp). The site has yielded a rich archaeological record for Upper Palaeolithic occupation which spans from 33,000-14,000 years before present [2]. A previous study of a complete human genome from a human right temporal bone from this site, dated to the Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,132–13,380 cal bp) [3], showed that the post-LGM population which inhabited this region, were ‘Caucasus hunter-gatherers’ (CHG), a main source population for several Eurasian populations. However, the genetic composition of the pre-LGM inhabitants of the region remains unknown as there are no genomic data for this period for Western Eurasia.

We report the recovery and analysis of a human mitochondrial genome with clear genetic affinity to Bacho Kiro mitogenomes from Bulgaria, dated to 45,000 years bp* *[4]. The analysis of the nuclear genome shows that the recovered human data does not cluster with the previous reported genome from Satsurbila Cave, in contrast it appears to be close to the present-day Levant populations.This results evidence of genetic discontinuity during the LGM in the Southern Caucasus region.

Additionally, in the same layer we have also identified the presence of three other mammal species:C. lupus, B. taurus and Ovis species. The genomic comparison of these lineages revealed relevant data on the evolution of these species as well as the interaction between humans and human-related species.


source:
*ESHE abstracts are online:
https://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/file..._Abstracts.pdf

----------


## Malaparte

> I think some of the usual suspects are shell shocked. "I can't find anything wrong with the analyses, but it can't be right." :)
> 
> My overriding impression, and I think what any honest layperson would see, is that all of the barriers we put up between most of the different West Eurasian groups is really just nonsense. Peel back enough layers and you'll see the common core.



Didn't Reich claim somewhere that there was more genetic distance between WHG, AN and Steppe than exists in modern times between Europeans, East Asians, and SSA? Doesn't the 2018 Lazaridis paper on Dzudzuana speak against this claim, as it looks like all the various foraging groups were interrelated well before the dawn of the Neolithic?

----------


## Diictodon

I read somewhere that Dzudzuana requires ANA in them and Pinarbasi requires more WHG beyond the UHG stuff in them and that mtDNA K1a was WHG mediated. Some AHG has Y-C1b and I-M70 in them

----------

