# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Earliest paleolithic homo sapiens remains from bacho kiro cave bulgaria

## kingjohn

Pribislav from anthrogenica : 
Anlayse the calls 
So
y haplogroup : C, F,P  :Thinking:  :Cool V: 

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post746078

CC7-335 (A11201); 44840-42880 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-C-M130 https://www.yfull.com/tree/C/
C level: 27 derived SNPs, 4 ancestral SNPs Negative for all downstream subclades.
BB7-240 (A11199); 44180-42450 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-C-M130 https://www.yfull.com/tree/C/ 
C level: 20 derived SNPs, 6 ancestral SNPs and 2 mixed calls SNPs Negative for all downstream subclades.
F6-620; 42260-40860 BC*; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-F-Y27277 https://yfull.com/tree/F-Y27277/
AA7-738; 42260-40860 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; F-M89 https://www.yfull.com/tree/F/
CT+, C-, F+ (M3679/PF2656/CTS2220+ G>A (1A)), G-, I-, J-, L-, T-, NO-, K-Y28299-, M-, R1+ (FGC465+ G>A (1A))
BK-1653; 32870-32260 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-P-P226 or pre-R https://www.yfull.com/tree/P-P226/

----------


## Angela

Oh, this paper they're not going to attempt to bury. :)

I think we suspected there would be C and F, yes? Good to have it confirmed though. The P showing up is interesting, if this is correctly done. It's anthrogenica, after all; they want at least P to show up. :)

----------


## kingjohn

> Oh, this paper they're not going to attempt to bury. :)
> I think we suspected there would be C and F, yes? Good to have it confirmed though. *The P showing up is interesting, if this is correctly done.* It's anthrogenica, after all; they want at least P to show up. :)


Yes 
The C and F not unexpected
The p is interesting  :Smile: 
Pribislav up untill now showed 
That we can trust his calls anlaysis
I think he knows what he is doing
I don't think he has an agenda...  :Thinking: 
Here is the cool cave 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacho_Kiro_cave


From: Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria

----------


## torzio

> Pribislav from anthrogenica : 
> Anlayse the calls 
> So
> y haplogroup : C, F,P 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post746078
> CC7-335 (A11201); 44840-42880 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-C-M130 https://www.yfull.com/tree/C/
> C level: 27 derived SNPs, 4 ancestral SNPs Negative for all downstream subclades.
> BB7-240 (A11199); 44180-42450 BC; Bacho Kiro Cave, Dryanovo; Bulgaria; EUP; pre-C-M130 https://www.yfull.com/tree/C/ 
> C level: 20 derived SNPs, 6 ancestral SNPs and 2 mixed calls SNPs Negative for all downstream subclades.
> ...



what are all the orange block ancient samples from in YFull ? ..................all different papers or only what you have commented on ?

----------


## kingjohn

> _what are all the orange block ancient samples from in YFull_ ? ..................all different papers or only what you have commented on ?


Yes
The orange blocks= are ancient samples :Good Job: 
I think they are from other dna papers
All this post is from forum molgen 
P.s
I guess the yfull links are for branches in yfull
Who are close to the branches of y haplogroup found in the bacho kiro cave :Thinking: 
The y calls of those ancient done by pribislav
You can use the anthrogenica link ( i personaly don't have acces to anthrogenica but in my work computer i have access)

To be more presice the haplogroups are:
Pre-C-m130
Pre-C-m130
Pre-F-y27277
F-M89
Pre-P-226

----------


## thejkhan

> Yes
> To be more presice the haplogroups are:
> Pre-C-m130
> Pre-C-m130
> Pre-F-y27277
> F-M89
> Pre-P-226


Also, the pre-P-P226 (or pre-R) sample is about 10,000 years younger than the rest.

----------


## etrusco

> Also, the pre-P-P226 (or pre-R) sample is about 10,000 years younger than the rest.


true. But I think that if it came from Siberia this sample would be overpacked with Tiunyan ancestry ( Yana without west eurasian). On the contrary this sample shows no more level of east asian than other gravettians samples ( neglegible to nihil ) What conclusion can we draw from that?

----------


## thejkhan

> true. But I think that if it came from Siberia this sample would be overpacked with Tiunyan ancestry ( Yana without west eurasian). On the contrary this sample shows no more level of east asian than other gravettians samples ( neglegible to nihil ) What conclusion can we draw from that?



So basically in the 35-40k ybp time frame there's branches of P in far east of Siberia [EDIT: correction, Yana samples are 31k years old] and a branch of P (closer to ancestor of R) in the Balkans. I don't know what conclusion we can draw from that. Did the most ancestral P originate in the West and very early splits moved to the East? Someone in another forum mentioned BK-1653 lived 2500-3000 years after Yana [EDIT: correction, Yana samples are younger than BK-1653], so did one branch of P move all the way from Siberia to Balkans within a 2500-3000 period? 

For now, maybe we can discredit the theory that P-P226, the ancestor of Q and R, came from South East Asia? However still all the most basal branches of P are found among SE Asians (Andamanese, Philippines, Malaysia).

----------


## etrusco

> So basically in the 35-40k ybp time frame there's branches of P in far east of Siberia and a branch of P (closer to ancestor of R) in the Balkans. I don't know what conclusion we can draw from that. Did the most ancestral P originate in the West and very early splits moved to the East? Someone in another forum mentioned BK-1653 lived 2500-3000 years after Yana, so did one branch of P move all the way from Siberia to Balkans within a 2500-3000 period? 
> 
> For now, maybe we can discredit the theory that P-P226, the ancestor of Q and R, came from South East Asia? However still all the most basal branches of P are found among SE Asians (Andamanese, Philippines, Malaysia).


On anthrogenica they mentioned that BK-1653 lived 2500/3000 years before Yana. And Yana has 75% WE

----------


## kingjohn

> On anthrogenica they mentioned that BK-1653 lived 2500/3000 years before Yana. And Yana has 75% WE


Since i understand you have access to anthrogenica :Smile: 
Can you share what mtdna types were found in the caves ? ( the usuall mtdna U)

P.s
Thanks the jkhan :Good Job: 
it is significant that the pre-p individual
Is 10,000 years younger from the others :Thinking:

----------


## etrusco

> Since i understand you have access to anthrogenica
> Can you share what mtdna types were found in the caves ? ( the usuall mtdna U)
> P.s
> Thanks the jkhan
> it is significant that the pre-p individual
> Is 10,000 years younger from the others


mtdna
2 x M
2 x N
1 x R
1 X U8

----------


## thejkhan

> On anthrogenica they mentioned that BK-1653 lived 2500/3000 years before Yana. And Yana has 75% WE


Ok, my bad, the Yana samples are around 31k years old and so are younger than BK-1653.

----------


## Jack Johnson

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Tianyuan has no Denisovan ancestry, and neither does Yana or Mal’ta making the origins of their paternal lineage in SEA quite unlikely.

----------


## Jack Johnson

Sorry had a accidental double post

----------


## bicicleur 2

just before the Aurignacian, there were many regional cultures in Europe
the first ones popped up around 48 ka
they lasted only a few thousand years
first Aurignacians arrived 43,5 ka
they spread all over Europe 39 ka
they were C1a2 and they whiped out all other modern humans and the Neadnerthals in Europe

so, I'm not surprised there were so many different clades between 48 ka and 39 ka

----------


## thejkhan

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Tianyuan has no Denisovan ancestry, and neither does Yana or Mal’ta making the origins of their paternal lineage in SEA quite unlikely.


You are wrong, a study found both Tianyuan and Salkhit have Denisovan ancestry, but they got this from a (northern) Denisovan population that's very different from the (southern) Denisovans who contributed archaic ancestry to SE Asians.Most modern SE Asians, South Asians, East Asians and Oceanians have trace ancestry from the southern Denisovans, which is elevated among Oceanians due to further admixture events. On the other hand modern East Asians have trace ancestry from the northern Denisovans which is absent in other Eastern Non-Africans.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> just before the Aurignacian, there were many regional cultures in Europe
> the first ones popped up around 48 ka
> they lasted only a few thousand years
> first Aurignacians arrived 43,5 ka
> they spread all over Europe 39 ka
> they were C1a2 and they whiped out all other modern humans and the Neadnerthals in Europe
> 
> so, I'm not surprised there were so many different clades between 48 ka and 39 ka


Why do you assume the C1a2 folks killed all other modern Humans and Neanderthals in Europe. The evidence suggest that the Neanderthals admixed with early Europeans and were more likely absorbed.

----------


## Angela

I was under the impression that the admixture with Neanderthal took place mostly in the Middle East.

Ed. No, wait, there was a mixed Neanderthal child somewhere in the Balkans, yes? Mixed with AMH?

Still, some admixture doesn't mean the men weren't killed or "eliminated" from the breeding pool in other ways, as seems to be the pattern in a lot of history. There isn't much, if any, C1a2 in Europe left. Of course, there weren't many of them to start off.

----------


## kingjohn

I wonder where was D 
E was still in africa till late mesolithic
But some branches of D are old 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
Maybe D was later southern costal route that skipped west asia  :Thinking:

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Some clarification to my own post 17. I have read the paper by Bergstrom, Stringer, Hajdinjak, Scerri adn Skoglund (2021) entitled "Origins of modern human Ancestry" just published in Nature. It is a really, really, really good read. I am not on Twitter, but I read a set of comments on Skoglund's twitter that were posted and I think he has provided a link which allows someone to get the full copy of the article on his Twitter account. 

So with respect to my post, Bergstrom et al 2020 (p.230) in their discussion on Gene flow from Neanderthals conclude that section by stating "Thus, we cannot presently rule out an assimilation scenario in which Neanderthals were absorbed into a larger expanding modern human population." However, I agree that is also possible that war/conflict between the two groups resulted in Neanderthals being killed off. So I think both hypotheses are valid and I guess archeological evidence will be needed to support one and reject the other. So any assumptions that I may have had regarding Neanderthals and AMH sort of were reset after reading the paper.

So my take on the paper is that some of the maintained models that have been around might have to be revisited. Bergstrom et al 2021 in the Section of the paper entitled "The Last Common Ancestor of modern and Archaic humans" discuss who are possible candidates and who should be ruled out, but they close that section with, in my view, is a statement that challenges much of the maintained assumptions with respect to AMH. From the paper and I quote"

"Although it is commonly assumed that our ancestors would have lived in Africa before 500 ka, it is still too soon to exclude that they could have lived in Eurasia. A Eurasian origin during this period would also require fewer migrations between Africa and Eurasia to explain currently understood relationships between modern human, Neanderthal, Denisovan and the super-archaic ancestries88. Proteomic data from European H. antecessor165, which shows the potential of ancient protein preservation in the deep past, suggests that it might have been closely related to the common ancestor, but the ancestry information provided by dental enamel proteins is still of low resolution. In any case, with the earliest generally accepted evidence of hominins outside of Africa at around 2 Ma166, the fossil record strongly suggests that all human ancestors before this point, until the common ancestor with chimpanzees, lived in Africa."

So again, great read, Cheers, PT

----------


## Regio X

> I wonder where was D 
> E was still in africa till late mesolithic
> But some branches of D are old 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
> Maybe D was later southern costal route that skipped west asia


It'd be nice to have the hg D0 on YFull tree. :)

A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa
https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421

----------


## kingjohn

> It'd be nice to have the hg D0 on YFull tree. :)
> A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa
> https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421


Interesting thanks  :Good Job: 
Here is the map who describe the process :Cool V: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapl..._migration.png

P.s
There is early bronze age individual called LJM25 from qijia culture central china who turn 
Y haplogroup D ...
https://i.imgur.com/EZLUjMO.png
Michael sager responsible for ftdna tree check his calls
(In specific paper was only identified with mtdna b)
And found he belonged to d branch called 
D-Y65054 that he share 
With modern tester from kazahstan...
https://i.imgur.com/ZOFSlca.png
I am telling this because before this individual 
Haplogroup D
Remains were only from japan and malasia
I know this from carlos quiles site and while
I know people here think is a joke still ancient remains results are based on papers and actual experts who checked the calls...
The chance that michael sager from ftdna did mistake in the calls is close to 0%

----------


## thejkhan

> It'd be nice to have the hg D0 on YFull tree. :)
> A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa


D0 (now renamed D2) is not African and I don't know why people keep saying that. I am posting here what I posted in another forum:




> Also I would not call the rare D2 as African D, because the three samples in the Nigerian D2a branch has a very young TMRCA of only 2600 ybp (if my memory serves me right). Basal to them, at more distant TMRCA, is a Saudi D2a. And D2b (last time I checked), is represented by a Syrian man. So it's more like a deeply rooted Middle Eastern lineage with some young branch found in SSA. I have not seen the FTDNA tree lately, there may be more samples now.

----------


## Regio X

> D0 (now renamed D2) is not African and I don't know why people keep saying that. I am posting here what I posted in another forum:


That's the title of the study.

As for the phylogeny, indeed:


https://dna-explained.com/2019/06/21...d-discoveries/

Thanks for pointing it out.

So it'd be nice to have D2 in YFull tree. :)

----------


## kingjohn

> D0 (now renamed D2) is not African and I don't know why people keep saying that. I am posting here what I posted in another forum:


The man from syria damascus 
His surname al-bitar D-FT75
Very likely has connection to this man :Thinking: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_al-Din_al-Bitar

P.s
It is a small world after all :Laughing:

----------


## MOESAN

> So basically in the 35-40k ybp time frame there's branches of P in far east of Siberia [EDIT: correction, Yana samples are 31k years old] and a branch of P (closer to ancestor of R) in the Balkans. I don't know what conclusion we can draw from that. Did the most ancestral P originate in the West and very early splits moved to the East? Someone in another forum mentioned BK-1653 lived 2500-3000 years after Yana [EDIT: correction, Yana samples are younger than BK-1653], so did one branch of P move all the way from Siberia to Balkans within a 2500-3000 period? 
> 
> For now, maybe we can discredit the theory that P-P226, the ancestor of Q and R, came from South East Asia? However still all the most basal branches of P are found among SE Asians (Andamanese, Philippines, Malaysia).


I have always thoughts the presence of older branches in a region do'nt prove this region is the cradle of all substream branches of the haplo. For me it could be the mark of a small sub-population stayed without great increase over time (so less mutations). It's the same question as the L23 in S-E Europe or South-Caucasus, for me. A Central Asian or South-central Asian origin of some of the Y-P's or at least of Y-R's seems to me more accurate than a true South-East Asian one.
Maybe a naive interpretation of mine?

----------

