An attempt at deep West Eurasian phylogeny

[Kale]

Yes, but if we take australasians and maritime southeast asia as a whole, it for the most part "de-bottlenecks" them and they are still lacking this, same thing with AASI who would not be as bottlenecked. This F and specific C1b seem to be restricted to hoabinhian in particular. Would you happen to know the genomic relationship between hoabinhian to AASI? They seem to be interconnected somehow.

pre-F2'4 and C1b-FT409300 were both found in BachoKiro. It would be quite bizarre to pose a specific Hoabinhian-BachoKiro relation, so presumably those lineages were both present in the proto-East-Eurasian genepool and were lost in various subgroups. There is no particular relationship between Hoabinhians and 'AASI' (in general), though AASI is probably not a monolithic phenomenon, and I would hesitate to say that NO 'AASI' subgroup has a Hoabinhian connection.

I just find it interesting how the hoabinhian group retained these lineages entirely while they are absent elsewhere despite the high diversity in maritime southeast asia. I was just opening the possibility of hoabinhian being a separate migration while related in origin to other ENA groups, since the earliest hoabinhian type lithics are found 40kya. Based on that I think it's plausible that there would be some sort of specific connection, since it would have to be an extreme sampling bias that is very improbable to have both subclades found in bacho kiro and hoabinhian with low sample sizes while all the other groups with much higher sample sizes lack it. It could very well just be that bias but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. I would hesitate to jump and declare all ENA and all UP periods to have the same pool of Y-DNA during their migrations, as we are seeing increasingly more stratification and diversification among these groups as we get more data.

Also there is the K2a in Ust-Ishim and Oase. K2a is abundant in Northeast Asians, absent from Oceania, maybe Hoabinhians will have the K-K14963 variety.
Tianyuan was K2b, and despite his ~25% autosomal contribution to Northeast-Asians, they do not have his K2b lineage.
The more really old samples we get, I think our collection of 'abnormal' lineages in these samples will actually be the norm.
Can't wait to see if Ranis turns up any y-lines.

[TanTin]

Hoabinhians , Maori, Tianyuan, Andaman all of them have very little of the Papuan components, which seems to be a separate migration wave.
Papuans and Melanesians should be considered as separate group, any admix with them happened at later time.



PMCID: PMC3991479NIHMSID: NIHMS467162PMID: 21940856
An Aboriginal Australian Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia
Morten Rasmussen,1

Abstract
We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%. We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa.

[Kale]

They don't have any 'Papuan' components, because Papuans, Melanesians, Australians, etc. are bottlenecked, and there was no major backflow to the mainland. Oceanians are basically a bottlenecked subset of the Hoabinhian/Andaman phylogenic region (plus the Denisovan of course).

[Enki]

Yes, but if we take australasians and maritime southeast asia as a whole, it for the most part "de-bottlenecks" them and they are still lacking this, same thing with AASI who would not be as bottlenecked. This F and specific C1b seem to be restricted to hoabinhian in particular. Would you happen to know the genomic relationship between hoabinhian to AASI? They seem to be interconnected somehow.

pre-F2'4 and C1b-FT409300 were both found in BachoKiro. It would be quite bizarre to pose a specific Hoabinhian-BachoKiro relation, so presumably those lineages were both present in the proto-East-Eurasian genepool and were lost in various subgroups. There is no particular relationship between Hoabinhians and 'AASI' (in general), though AASI is probably not a monolithic phenomenon, and I would hesitate to say that NO 'AASI' subgroup has a Hoabinhian connection.

I just find it interesting how the hoabinhian group retained these lineages entirely while they are absent elsewhere despite the high diversity in maritime southeast asia. I was just opening the possibility of hoabinhian being a separate migration while related in origin to other ENA groups, since the earliest hoabinhian type lithics are found 40kya. Based on that I think it's plausible that there would be some sort of specific connection, since it would have to be an extreme sampling bias that is very improbable to have both subclades found in bacho kiro and hoabinhian with low sample sizes while all the other groups with much higher sample sizes lack it. It could very well just be that bias but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. I would hesitate to jump and declare all ENA and all UP periods to have the same pool of Y-DNA during their migrations, as we are seeing increasingly more stratification and diversification among these groups as we get more data.

Also there is the K2a in Ust-Ishim and Oase. K2a is abundant in Northeast Asians, absent from Oceania, maybe Hoabinhians will have the K-K14963 variety.
Tianyuan was K2b, and despite his ~25% autosomal contribution to Northeast-Asians, they do not have his K2b lineage.
The more really old samples we get, I think our collection of 'abnormal' lineages in these samples will actually be the norm.
Can't wait to see if Ranis turns up any y-lines.

That is true, but this K2a is on a different branch than the one modern people have, aside from a couple telugus and that kashmiri guy on ftdna. While the Bacho Kiro C1bs and Fs are on the exact same clade as the Hoabs. And I am excited for future Ranis samples as well as that cave in Poland, it would be very interesting to recover some LRJ culture Ys.

[Tomenable]

They don't have any 'Papuan' components, because Papuans, Melanesians, Australians, etc. are bottlenecked, and there was no major backflow to the mainland. Oceanians are basically a bottlenecked subset of the Hoabinhian/Andaman phylogenic region (plus the Denisovan of course).

What do you think about this paper, has this been confirmed by other studies?:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211927110

[Desdonas]

Yes, but if we take australasians and maritime southeast asia as a whole, it for the most part "de-bottlenecks" them and they are still lacking this, same thing with AASI who would not be as bottlenecked. This F and specific C1b seem to be restricted to hoabinhian in particular. Would you happen to know the genomic relationship between hoabinhian to AASI? They seem to be interconnected somehow.

pre-F2'4 and C1b-FT409300 were both found in BachoKiro. It would be quite bizarre to pose a specific Hoabinhian-BachoKiro relation, so presumably those lineages were both present in the proto-East-Eurasian genepool and were lost in various subgroups. There is no particular relationship between Hoabinhians and 'AASI' (in general), though AASI is probably not a monolithic phenomenon, and I would hesitate to say that NO 'AASI' subgroup has a Hoabinhian connection.

I just find it interesting how the hoabinhian group retained these lineages entirely while they are absent elsewhere despite the high diversity in maritime southeast asia. I was just opening the possibility of hoabinhian being a separate migration while related in origin to other ENA groups, since the earliest hoabinhian type lithics are found 40kya. Based on that I think it's plausible that there would be some sort of specific connection, since it would have to be an extreme sampling bias that is very improbable to have both subclades found in bacho kiro and hoabinhian with low sample sizes while all the other groups with much higher sample sizes lack it. It could very well just be that bias but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. I would hesitate to jump and declare all ENA and all UP periods to have the same pool of Y-DNA during their migrations, as we are seeing increasingly more stratification and diversification among these groups as we get more data.

Also there is the K2a in Ust-Ishim and Oase. K2a is abundant in Northeast Asians, absent from Oceania, maybe Hoabinhians will have the K-K14963 variety.
Tianyuan was K2b, and despite his ~25% autosomal contribution to Northeast-Asians, they do not have his K2b lineage.
The more really old samples we get, I think our collection of 'abnormal' lineages in these samples will actually be the norm.
Can't wait to see if Ranis turns up any y-lines.

That is true, but this K2a is on a different branch than the one modern people have, aside from a couple telugus and that kashmiri guy on ftdna. While the Bacho Kiro C1bs and Fs are on the exact same clade as the Hoabs. And I am excited for future Ranis samples as well as that cave in Poland, it would be very interesting to recover some LRJ culture Ys.

However, C1b-FT409300 also exists in Kostenki 14. Therefore, it is hard to say that it formed on the Tianyuan-Onge meta branch, let alone Hoabinhian-proper. More likely, FT409300 had already formed in Crown Eurasians or "very early East Eurasians".

Regarding F2, I remember that the Bacho Kiro sample is ancestral in FT90068 and FT278667, so he is basal to all modern F2s. Considering this basal position, it is also hard to determine a special uniparental link between BKC and Hoabinhian.

Last, I am also looking forward to getting the Ranis Y results.

[Kale]

They don't have any 'Papuan' components, because Papuans, Melanesians, Australians, etc. are bottlenecked, and there was no major backflow to the mainland. Oceanians are basically a bottlenecked subset of the Hoabinhian/Andaman phylogenic region (plus the Denisovan of course).

What do you think about this paper, has this been confirmed by other studies?:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211927110

I'm not convinced. If there was a widespread mixture 4,230 years ago, I'd expect there to be a number of South-Asian haplogroups among Australian aborigines. To my knowledge there are none?

[kolompar]

EAA abstract on Buran Kaya, they are not beating around the bush
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/re...tract=3640

Early Upper Paleolithic genomes of Crimea show migration and admixture dynamics of the first modern European ancestries

Populations migrated from the Middle East through the Caucasus since the beginning of the Pleistocene. Our analysis of the genomes of 37-36,000 year-old skeletal remains from Buran Kaya III in Crimea revealed that these individuals were among the earliest to migrate into Europe after a major climatic crisis, the Heinrich Event 4 and the Campanian Ignimbrite volcanic super-eruption around 40,000 years ago. Their genomes also contained traces of the genomes of the earliest sapiens populations living in Europe and associated with the Initial Upper Paleolithic. This demonstrated that the newer migrants did not simply replace the earlier inhabitants of Europe, but some intermixing between the groups did occur. The genomes of the individuals from Buran Kaya III further revealed strong genetic relationships with pre- and post-Glacial populations from the Caucasus in agreement with archaeological evidence pointing to extended social contacts from the Zagros to the Carpathian mountains...

So is anyone going to have an attempt at deep East Eurasian phylogeny, should we have a separate thread for that?
Shahr-I-Sokhta BA2 is a straightforward mix with some kind of AASI, as are a lot of modern Indians, we have all kinds of Oceanians, Andamanese, Jomon, Amur River, Chinese ancients, one of the Hoabinhians is good quality, maybe Longlin can be made to work too.

[old europe]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

[TanTin]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Yes, I have the whole picture now. At least this is a completely different picture. And I have a difficulty where to start to publish about it. Too many new terminology to introduce. Attention will go to new groups and new individuals. And all this takes time.. At the same time I continue to do new verifications and to improve my models..  Very interesting news about basal groups. ( more than one).  Unfortunately I don't have any publication so far, so that's another challenge how I  can publish my results. I want it to be fully scientific,  to include the proofs etc, not just some basic observations.  And I have too many new things to share. Doing this alone is too much. And I have to do my regular daily work to support myself.  But it is all there now. Too much excitement.  Especially with  the archaic hominins. (We can not get the picture without including them. )

[TanTin]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians

->ZK is mixed

Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet


BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
-> almost the same as ZK
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
-> special case
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
-> Do you think China and ANE are BASAL Unmixed ?

'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
-> Basal Eurasians are not one and only group.. There are Basal Unmixed and Basal -Mixed. (that's new).

Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian
-> this we will need to check on them later. First we need to make clear who are the Basal.

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
-- > this will also wait for later.  The picture is more complex.

ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
--> It seems that ANE are the main reservoir for Basal Unmixed.. The very first OOA.

BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE
 --> these 3 all for later

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE


Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
--> there is some Basal going to Georgia, but it is not Unmixed. It was already mixed when it went there. 

They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
- >Iran is a special case of mix

EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Added some notes above.

[Horatio McCallister]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Yes, I have the whole picture now. At least this is a completely different picture. And I have a difficulty where to start to publish about it. Too many new terminology to introduce. Attention will go to new groups and new individuals. And all this takes time.. At the same time I continue to do new verifications and to improve my models..  Very interesting news about basal groups. ( more than one).  Unfortunately I don't have any publication so far, so that's another challenge how I  can publish my results. I want it to be fully scientific,  to include the proofs etc, not just some basic observations.  And I have too many new things to share. Doing this alone is too much. And I have to do my regular daily work to support myself.  But it is all there now. Too much excitement.  Especially with  the archaic hominins. (We can not get the picture without including them. )

In a general sense, when you mention multiple distinct basal groups, are all these groups more or less the same level of basal-ness as each other, or are some more deeper branching splits than the others, and if so how do you distinguish them from just being more or less essentially African?

[TanTin]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Yes, I have the whole picture now. At least this is a completely different picture. And I have a difficulty where to start to publish about it. Too many new terminology to introduce. Attention will go to new groups and new individuals. And all this takes time.. At the same time I continue to do new verifications and to improve my models..  Very interesting news about basal groups. ( more than one).  Unfortunately I don't have any publication so far, so that's another challenge how I  can publish my results. I want it to be fully scientific,  to include the proofs etc, not just some basic observations.  And I have too many new things to share. Doing this alone is too much. And I have to do my regular daily work to support myself.  But it is all there now. Too much excitement.  Especially with  the archaic hominins. (We can not get the picture without including them. )

In a general sense, when you mention multiple distinct basal groups, are all these groups more or less the same level of basal-ness as each other, or are some more deeper branching splits than the others, and if so how do you distinguish them from just being more or less essentially African?

One will go OOA without mixing with the rest .. The other would stay longer in Africa and will get some mixture..  The second group will also leave Africa at some time and also the second group contribute to some Africans.

[Horatio McCallister]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Yes, I have the whole picture now. At least this is a completely different picture. And I have a difficulty where to start to publish about it. Too many new terminology to introduce. Attention will go to new groups and new individuals. And all this takes time.. At the same time I continue to do new verifications and to improve my models..  Very interesting news about basal groups. ( more than one).  Unfortunately I don't have any publication so far, so that's another challenge how I  can publish my results. I want it to be fully scientific,  to include the proofs etc, not just some basic observations.  And I have too many new things to share. Doing this alone is too much. And I have to do my regular daily work to support myself.  But it is all there now. Too much excitement.  Especially with  the archaic hominins. (We can not get the picture without including them. )

In a general sense, when you mention multiple distinct basal groups, are all these groups more or less the same level of basal-ness as each other, or are some more deeper branching splits than the others, and if so how do you distinguish them from just being more or less essentially African?

One will go OOA without mixing with the rest .. The other would stay longer in Africa and will get some mixture..  The second group will also leave Africa at some time and also the second group contribute to some Africans.

Obviously you must be referring to the "Ancestral North African" side of the Iberomaurusians. Can you say anything more about the magnitude of the admixture? How much African ancestry did it absorb, and how much did it contribute to other Africans?

[TanTin]

kale in December came out with this, wonder if he still working on that, and Tantin too was talking about new models we are still waiting for


Latest run. I'll try to give a pop-by-pop breakdown because these huge graphs can be a lot to look at.
ZlatyKun: Unadmixed, braches after ANA, before Crown-Eurasians
Ust-Ishim: Unadmixed, weakly clades with Goyet
BachoKiro_IUP: Early ENA + Archaic
Onge: Unadmixed, typifies 'Southern ENA'
China_UP: Unadmixed, typifies 'Northern ENA'
'Basal Eurasian': A mix of something specifically ZlatyKun and something that branches deeper, possibly even as deep as ANA.
Goyet: Unadmixed, typifies West Eurasian

At some point West and Basal meet in East Europe (call it Early East European? EEE). The fruit of that mixture is Kostenki, Sunghir, 'CWE'.
ANE: EEE + S-ENA (Yana gets some N-ENA also)
BK1653: Western source of EEE + proto-CWE
Muierii: BK1653 + Sunghir
Gravettian: BK1653 + Sunghir
WHG: CWE + Gravettian + ANE

Jomon & Primorsky_N: S-ENA + N-ENA + Yana
New-World: Primorsky_N + ANE

Georgia_UP: CWE + Basal (from the branch that mixed into EEE)
They are a dead end, CWE instead proliferates in Near-East through 'Levantine Aurignacian (LA)'
Taforalt: LA + ANA
'Zarzian': Basal + S-ENA
Pinarbasi: LA + Zarzian
South-Caspian? (SC): LA + ANE
Iran_N & CHG: SC + Zarzian
EHG: ANE + WHG + Pinarbasi + Primorsky_N

Yes, I have the whole picture now. At least this is a completely different picture. And I have a difficulty where to start to publish about it. Too many new terminology to introduce. Attention will go to new groups and new individuals. And all this takes time.. At the same time I continue to do new verifications and to improve my models..  Very interesting news about basal groups. ( more than one).  Unfortunately I don't have any publication so far, so that's another challenge how I  can publish my results. I want it to be fully scientific,  to include the proofs etc, not just some basic observations.  And I have too many new things to share. Doing this alone is too much. And I have to do my regular daily work to support myself.  But it is all there now. Too much excitement.  Especially with  the archaic hominins. (We can not get the picture without including them. )

In a general sense, when you mention multiple distinct basal groups, are all these groups more or less the same level of basal-ness as each other, or are some more deeper branching splits than the others, and if so how do you distinguish them from just being more or less essentially African?

One will go OOA without mixing with the rest .. The other would stay longer in Africa and will get some mixture..  The second group will also leave Africa at some time and also the second group contribute to some Africans.

Obviously you must be referring to the "Ancestral North African" side of the Iberomaurusians. Can you say anything more about the magnitude of the admixture? How much African ancestry did it absorb, and how much did it contribute to other Africans?

The nature of this mixture is just unbelievable ! And most surprisingly that it was successful. Or at least partially.  For sure not all of the descendants from this admixture survived it. However some of them did it.  And we see the results until our days.  Believe me , I am just scared to share it. No one would expect something like that. We can also go further with the estimation for the admix etc.  The final results seems to be 50/50 Basal to Non-Basal.   Iberomaurusians are very late in the time. ( If you mean TAF as an example) . There was a different population, much more different from  Iberomaurusians, TAF and what we see now. I still work on the model of the survivors of this admix and how they spread around the world.   I will need to validate if my model for these people is matching the  "Ancestral North African" as per the current deffinition,  it is quite possible.