(04-13-2024, 08:19 AM)Jerome Wrote: So, iran_n has as much Neanderthal affinity/basal as UST ishim and JPT.SG does?
If the latter two(UstIshim,JPT.SG) have low Neanderthal but don't need basal,why does iran_n need it?
Seems pretty strange.
If we want to see the Neanderthal components, I have to run another test.
"F4 ( Denisova.DG Vindija_Neanderthal.DG Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG TEST )"
This will allow me to see who has more Denisova and who has more Neanderthal.
In general all the groups are far from Neanderthals, except some small amounts found in few groups. I will show it.
The reason we see South Africans and some other populations as "Denisovans" is because they are grouped as more "Archaic" together. So Chimp, Denisova, Gorilla etc are on one side. Only the Neanderthals will be separated as Outgroup on the other side. And the software will calculate who has more Neanderthal / who has more Denisovan ( other archaic)..
If I add Bacho Kiro in this list - BK will go up, but not much. About 5-6 % more than Ust Ishim. Same with Oase.
You may notice also that Loschbour has some Neanderthal, but less than BK.
So, iran_n has as much Neanderthal affinity/basal as UST ishim and JPT.SG does?
If the latter two(UstIshim,JPT.SG) have low Neanderthal but don't need basal,why does iran_n need it?
Basal Eurasian isn't about Neanderthal, it is about relationships between Eurasian groups. Basically if you can model Iran N with lots of Basal Eurasian it means Iran N is not as close to mainstream East and West Eurasians as it should be if it were derived just from them.
(04-10-2024, 11:02 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: I don't know if there's a reason for this but couldn't the hub have been Emiran?
That seems to be where Homo Sapiens really first settled in Eurasia for a long time. It would also make more sense from the stuff we do have since eastern Oman and UAE hardly have any material evidence of settlement. Honestly I am very skeptical of the Coastal Migration theory going through Southern Arabia considering how inhospitable it was. I think going through Iran would be more feasible.
And even so I don't think all Eurasians even mgirated through the same route. I think the easiest way West Eurasians, LRJ and Bacho Kiro get to Europe is by simply going through Anatolia or the Caucasus from the Levant without having to go through Southern Arabia and Iran at all.
Well the hard sweep paper posted earlier was going on about how there's so much archeological evidence in Arabia during MIS 5. Two separate routes would be a nice solution but I don't think either has much support from archeology and we might not get any evidence ever. The way I see it OoA was such a rare event, it could have been something like just a good month where everything aligned. It's around 2000 km to cross Arabia, for East Africans that's just 200 half-hour runs.
(04-11-2024, 01:22 AM)Desdonas Wrote: OK, I think the idea of a rapid OoA may be correct. The OoA bottleneck alleles in ancient Near Easterns may be a backflow from CWE (U-derived mtdnas, Anatolian C1a2, etc.) or also the H2/K1 population, since all sampled Near Eastern populations are widely mixed rather than 100% basal. Many of the "Arabian Standstill" alleles may form in the "CDHK" meta-population in somewhere close to South Asia, rather than the earliest "GIJ" population of the Near East. If the "CDHK population" has only a history of 46-45kya, and the rapid OoA occured at 55kya, then this period of time (about 10k) may be enough for this selection. Therefore, only one final problem remains: Had pre-C, pre-F and pre-D1 in Africa been completely replaced by the E population? Or perhaps the ancestor of Eurasians once had a leader who guided almost the entire meta-population to migrate out of Africa.
Regarding Levant, although its cultures such as Emiran and Ahmarian do have archaeological connections with European industry, while Vallini's paper mentions that its population capacity is relatively low. LRJ/ZK and other elements more basal than CDHK/Crown can directly come from the Near East/Levant, and the qpgraph on the previous page of this thread also proposes some link between BK and ZK. But I believe that C, K2a, mt-M, and part of N/R-derived mtdnas in UP Europe mainly came from the northwestward migration of the "CDHK" meta-population of the East.
TMRCA for F is around 46k BC, 45k BC for C and 44k BC for Eurasian D so there can't be that much difference between GIJ and CDHK. It could be the first split in a 46k BC OoA population.
I would forget the sweeps study if that's what you're going by, for the dating they simply put a linear function for the number of sweeps in West Eurasian populations, but they detected way more sweeps in them, like Villabruna is on 28 while moder East Asians are aroun 12. So not just they would get a completely different dating on different populations but also their detection of sweeps might not be reliable.
(04-11-2024, 03:55 AM)TanTin Wrote: "Basal" is not a Theory and not a geographic location.
"Basal" is a huge component and we register such components in all humans, including in Africans.
However this is in my definition for "Basal". And I think this was the initial idea of Lazaridis when he introduced this term.
Quote:Basal Eurasian is a proposed lineage of anatomically modern humans with reduced, or zero, archaic hominin (Neanderthal) admixture compared to other ancient non-Africans.
The definition given by Lazaridis doesn't work also, because there are many kind of "archaic".
So the Basal could be low on Archaic Neanderthal, but they could be rich on other type of "archaic" hominin.
(04-12-2024, 04:04 AM)TanTin Wrote: Let me try to clarify again the main idea about "Basal" . Apparently my vision for "Basal" was opposite from the "officially" accepted meaning.
The technique for the calculation is explained in the Supplementary Information 13
Admixture proportions for Stuttgart
doi: 10.1038/nature13673 (Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans)
When they introduced it, there was nothing special about it:
"NE is plausibly a mixture of a West Eurasian element plus a basal Eurasian one"
So they just modelled Near East as a mixture between basal Eurasian + West Eurasian .
And they used some simple technics to calculate this pure "basal Eurasian " component.
In fact, this " basal Eurasian" component is a descendant of the pure African Modern Humans component . They just separate it from the Africans by a x10 thousands of years.
Basal Eurasians are supposed to be pure non-mixed descendants of OOA, somewhere in Near East.
Their direct ancestors should be populations like Mbuti and Biaka.
Yes, it's from all the way back when there were barely any ancient genomes sequenced, something like just Tianyuan, Kostenki, Villabruna, MA1, Ust'-Ishim. It was assumed that these would represent the earliest split, with Tianyuan-like East and Kostenki or maybe even WHG-like West and Ust' was from before their split as he was equally related to them. Modern Middle Easterners were more related to West but they also needed deeper ancestry, therefore Basal was invented to model them as Kostenki/WHG + Basal.
The picture should be much clearer now that we know "West Eurasian" was a later development so the increased Middle East affinity of "West" compared to earlier Europeans should be reconsidered, we also know about Iberomaurusians, Natufians and their Y-E connection which was another confounding factor. I don't know why people still cling to this theory, there hasn't been anything new to support it but a lot that goes against it.
Another issue shouldn't be ignored in the rapid OoA theory is that whether the ancestor of Eurasians once had some leaders during 65-55/50k. On one hand, there may be almost no communication between them and the E/D0 population during this period (OoA bottleneck), and on the other hand, at 55/50k, the leader had to guide the entire tribe out of Africa (with almost no C/F/D1 left).
Also, some studies show that modern human arrived at South Australia at around 49kya. Australasians could also be modeled as a mixture of minor "basal" OoA and a core East Eurasian population. From Arabia to South Australia, I think at least 3-5k is needed. So the latest chronology of OoA is 52-55k, rather than 48-50k. The current 23mofang tree also shows that the age of F, IJK and C is 52.1k, 50.6k and 50k (H and K are about 47.4-47.3k). So when GIJ left in West/Basal, pre-C may have headed to the east as a whole. Last, although different companies have different estimates, but the fact that the snps of C is more than F's reveals this.
04-16-2024, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 04-16-2024, 04:25 PM by Jerome.)
If CF is crown Eurasian then DE must be basal eurasian and their ancestors (proto-eurasians) should be CT.
The confusion regarding ANA and taforalt can be cleared with the fact that a)ANA wasn't African proper and instead seems to be an early split from the proto Eurasian group ,it should also be closer to proto eurasians than to east Africans like mota
B)ANA likely had mixed with back-migrating E carrying basal eurasians before the iberomaurusian profile formed.
So the E in IBM could be from the basal part,for all we know.
We need more samples to discern these things but still it's a plausible theory.
Considering that CF and D are almost fully Eurasian ,I find it too much of a stretching to say that CF and D left africa leaving only E rather than simply say CF and DE were born somewhere on the border of Eurasia and Africa (probably sinai,NW Saudi arabia) and then E stayed with the basal Eurasian group and later mixed with Africans while D went alongwith crown Eurasian groups.
The original African groups would be subclades of A0,A,BT and B and got E after basal Eurasian introgression around 50k BC(there was a study which mentioned that the minor Neanderthal alleles in modern Africans date to this period 50-40k BC).
This is the study http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012
This theory is supported by the fact that the most archaic Africans with early splits seem to be A and B like ju hoang and biaka while those near Eurasia/Nile Valley seem to be E (east Africans).
E in west Africans seems to be very recent with most TMRCA dating after LGM and mostly afterr Holocene.
Instead of searching for basal Eurasian in the Persian gulf which was surrounded by Neanderthals(shanidar,zarzi,warsawi,wezmeh) and where there are barely any sites in MIS-5/MIS-4 ,we should instead look for basal Eurasian on the border/periphery of Africa and Asia,that is,somewhere in Sinai,Nile valley,Libyan coast or NW Saudi arabia/upper hijaz where the basal split likely happened (if we consider that the emiran people of levant were crown Eurasian like,(emiran->bohunician°>bacho kiro ) ,then we would expect basal eurasians to be a bit westwards from the levant and probably in Nile valley,Libyan coast.
E in natufians could be from the basal Eurasian+ANA mixed Taforalt group or b)could be from the original basal Eurasian admixture in kebarans.
We need more samples to clarify this, especially from paleolithic levant/kebarans.
Epi paleolithic north levantines should work for this job too.
What do you think of India as a hub for early Eurasian population? I have seen that many haplogroup migration maps locate the origin of F in India, and India seems to have some unresolved F*. If this would be true, the main OoA bottleneck could be in there. IJ and G (west/basal) headed west first, then C, D1, F2, H and K stayed here and shared extra bottleneck for about 3,000 years. India is on a similar temperature zone of the Arabian peninsula, and the OoA allele selection may be possible.
However, if India is not the hub, then there may be some issues on the "Arabian Standstill". Do you agree that this selection/OoA bottleneck had already happened within Africa, and there was no real standstill after the exodus out of Africa (55-50kya)? If so, maybe all OoA related elements (pre-C, pre-F, pre-D1, etc.) were taken over by the E-population later.
Not sure how exactly this falls in to the debate, but I've always found it interesting that there is minimal Haplogroup DE among South Asian populations (despite being adjacent to geographical regions carrying Haplogroups D and E).
What do you think of India as a hub for early Eurasian population? I have seen that many haplogroup migration maps locate the origin of F in India, and India seems to have some unresolved F*. If this would be true, the main OoA bottleneck could be in there. IJ and G (west/basal) headed west first, then C, D1, F2, H and K stayed here and shared extra bottleneck for about 3,000 years. India is on a similar temperature zone of the Arabian peninsula, and the OoA allele selection may be possible.
However, if India is not the hub, then there may be some issues on the "Arabian Standstill". Do you agree that this selection/OoA bottleneck had already happened within Africa, and there was no real standstill after the exodus out of Africa (55-50kya)? If so, maybe all OoA related elements (pre-C, pre-F, pre-D1, etc.) were taken over by the E-population later.
Not sure how exactly this falls in to the debate, but I've always found it interesting that there is minimal Haplogroup DE among South Asian populations (despite being adjacent to geographical regions carrying Haplogroups D and E).
Oh. All OoA models I propose, from standstill to rapid expansion, illustrate that only C, F and D1 left Africa while E/D0 stayed in Africa. E1b1b in West Eurasia is an ANA geneflow, while the two main West Eurasian components in India are not E1b1b-rich.
About D1, it could be relatively rare in the initial OoA meta population, and only expanded during its migration into SE Asia. Alternatively, there may be some y-hg bottleneck in AASI just like Australasians, compared to the huge diversity of Hoabinhian/Sundaland.
Last, has the South Asian DE been confirmed? First, from various channels (Ftdna, Theytree) I haven't heard this. Also, even there was such information, it would be old researches without deep tests just like F1, F3, K2c and K2d.
What do you think of India as a hub for early Eurasian population? I have seen that many haplogroup migration maps locate the origin of F in India, and India seems to have some unresolved F*. If this would be true, the main OoA bottleneck could be in there. IJ and G (west/basal) headed west first, then C, D1, F2, H and K stayed here and shared extra bottleneck for about 3,000 years. India is on a similar temperature zone of the Arabian peninsula, and the OoA allele selection may be possible.
However, if India is not the hub, then there may be some issues on the "Arabian Standstill". Do you agree that this selection/OoA bottleneck had already happened within Africa, and there was no real standstill after the exodus out of Africa (55-50kya)? If so, maybe all OoA related elements (pre-C, pre-F, pre-D1, etc.) were taken over by the E-population later.
Not sure how exactly this falls in to the debate, but I've always found it interesting that there is minimal Haplogroup DE among South Asian populations (despite being adjacent to geographical regions carrying Haplogroups D and E).
Oh. All OoA models I propose, from standstill to rapid expansion, illustrate that only C, F and D1 left Africa while E/D0 stayed in Africa. E1b1b in West Eurasia is an ANA geneflow, while the two main West Eurasian components in India are not E1b1b-rich.
About D1, it could be relatively rare in the initial OoA meta population, and only expanded during its migration into SE Asia. Alternatively, there may be some y-hg bottleneck in AASI just like Australasians, compared to the huge diversity of Hoabinhian/Sundaland.
Last, has the South Asian DE been confirmed? First, from various channels (Ftdna, Theytree) I haven't heard this. Also, even there was such information, it would be old researches without deep tests just like F1, F3, K2c and K2d.
There's this Andaman D but nothing related to it has turned up yet in mainland India. But maybe something related to it was once part of AASI Y haplogroup pool.
Where do you think H1 diverged from H2? I guess Makran coast or lower Indus, with one headed Southeast while another West.
That looks much more plausible, I was of the opinion that founders H2 and H1H3 emerged in/near OOA core (considering their estimated formation date and TMRCA on yfull).
Btw,the cyprus PPNB and chalcolithic samples from southern arc are All H2 and they seem to be 40% pinarbasi+40%Levant_n+20% Mesopotamia_PPN(so,15% zarzian/Iran_HG).
Keep in mind this pinarbasi like Ancestry may not be from Anatolia proper,but from epipaleolithic north levant which is unsampled yet and the people there may be pinarbasi like with a shift towards natufian(makes sense since they were derived from kebarans but didn't receive much ANA ancestry as much as natufians did)
![[Image: Basal-Eurasian.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/855mvmmJ/Basal-Eurasian.png)
![[Image: FsLwdRcXwAER5RC?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsLwdRcXwAER5RC?format=jpg&name=large)