An attempt at deep West Eurasian phylogeny

[TanTin]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ... Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

[old europe]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

I can’t wait to hear from you ad soon as possible

[Kale]

I haven't really abandoned it, just out of ideas as to what next. Feels like I've tried everything with the samples currently available.

[kolompar]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

[Kale]

Don't forget the Hoabinhian on the BK/Kostenki branch, just to make things even more entertaining

[Desdonas]

Don't forget the Hoabinhian on the BK/Kostenki branch, just to make things even more entertaining

The recently published Ranis paper does not seem to mention the relevant Y haplogroups and autosomes. Therefore, I still maintain an open attitude towards the legends of early Eurasian Y haplogroups.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-0...3-7#MOESM1

There is currently no precise consensus on the early chronology. For example, 23mofang adjusts the age of K2* to 47.3 kya, while Yfull adjusts the ages of C1* and C1b* to 47.2 kya, both earlier than FTdna. So when these haplogroups formed, they may still be bidirectional. Subsequently, specific subclades (K2a1, K2b, C1b2, the ancestors of modern C1b1, etc.) entered the East Eurasian genepool.

However, regarding mtdna-M, I would agree with Kolompar's view that these M samples represent geneflows from East Eurasia, and they may all come from populations related to Bacho Kiro. In fact, in addition to the "West=East+Basal" model in this thread, a previous paper also has "East/Goyet=West+Extreme East", and the proportion is different. In the latter hypothesis, mt-M may come from "Extreme East", and I speculate that Bacho Kiro may not be entirely "Extreme East".

[Enki]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

[Kale]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

One factor might be level of bottlenecking. Hoabinhians, Onge, AASI, etc. are not a monolithic population. Even the Laotian and Malaysian Hoabinhian barely share any drift with each other. Australasians and Northeast Asians on the other hand are significantly bottlenecked, and probably lost much uniparental diversity as such.

[Enki]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

One factor might be level of bottlenecking. Hoabinhians, Onge, AASI, etc. are not a monolithic population. Even the Laotian and Malaysian Hoabinhian barely share any drift with each other. Australasians and Northeast Asians on the other hand are significantly bottlenecked, and probably lost much uniparental diversity as such.

I agree on the northeast asian part, but aborigines have very high Y dna diversity with many deep clades going back to the peopling of the region, more than what we have found among hoabinhian so far. Papuans too have M and S both splitting from each other 42,000 years ago and still among the same population.

[Desdonas]

We will need to continue on this topic... I don't know why Kale abandoned it. I have some great news, but not ready to share ...  Still working on it, to make sure my calculations are correct.

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

One factor might be level of bottlenecking. Hoabinhians, Onge, AASI, etc. are not a monolithic population. Even the Laotian and Malaysian Hoabinhian barely share any drift with each other. Australasians and Northeast Asians on the other hand are significantly bottlenecked, and probably lost much uniparental diversity as such.

I agree on the northeast asian part, but aborigines have very high Y dna diversity with many deep clades going back to the peopling of the region, more than what we have found among hoabinhian so far. Papuans too have M and S both splitting from each other 42,000 years ago and still among the same population.

However, even so, the uniparent diversity of Papuans and Australians is still significantly lower than that of Hoabinhian/Sundaland. They lost K2b2, C1b1, K2a1, F2, and D.

Perhaps the Australasian bottleneck occurred when their ancestor crossed Wallacea? If the population size is not so large, the drift time will not be so long, perhaps 45,000-42,000 BP. Agta, whose autosomal lineage is outgroup of Papuans and Australians, but downstream of Onge/Hoabinhian, K2b2 is retained.

[Enki]

Yeah, sorry my models left everyone speechless.

Some more, here's theytree's interpretation of the haplogroups from the Fournol cluster paper:
https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...-gatherers

These are the mt-M samples, some very East Eurasian haplogroups, don't know how much they can be trusted.
https://www.theytree.com/sample/a5b2371a...b2142.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/30ce3a62...e9477.html
https://www.theytree.com/sample/2ec79c5b...beeea.html

And remember Kostenki's Oceanian related C? Apparently it's shared with one of the Bacho Kiro guys. Surely that's as good evidence as you can get that "West Eurasians" are actually a mix of the earlier Europeans and some kind of Caucasus/Middle East population.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...9300/story

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

One factor might be level of bottlenecking. Hoabinhians, Onge, AASI, etc. are not a monolithic population. Even the Laotian and Malaysian Hoabinhian barely share any drift with each other. Australasians and Northeast Asians on the other hand are significantly bottlenecked, and probably lost much uniparental diversity as such.

I agree on the northeast asian part, but aborigines have very high Y dna diversity with many deep clades going back to the peopling of the region, more than what we have found among hoabinhian so far. Papuans too have M and S both splitting from each other 42,000 years ago and still among the same population.

However, even so, the uniparent diversity of Papuans and Australians is still significantly lower than that of Hoabinhian/Sundaland. They lost K2b2, C1b1, K2a1, F2, and D.

Perhaps the Australasian bottleneck occurred when their ancestor crossed Wallacea? If the population size is not so large, the drift time will not be so long, perhaps 45,000-42,000 BP. Agta, whose autosomal lineage is outgroup of Papuans and Australians, but downstream of Onge/Hoabinhian, K2b2 is retained.

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.

[Desdonas]

The IUP bacho kiro F clade is also found in a hoabinhian. I'm perplexed as why the IUP C1b and F only appear in hoabinhians though, and do not appear in northeast asians or australasians/papuans. It seems to me like AASI and hoabinhian retain some very old stuff that is absent among the australasians, who are likely a different wave, they have C1bs on a different branch and then various K2bs (M, S, P1, P2 etc)

One factor might be level of bottlenecking. Hoabinhians, Onge, AASI, etc. are not a monolithic population. Even the Laotian and Malaysian Hoabinhian barely share any drift with each other. Australasians and Northeast Asians on the other hand are significantly bottlenecked, and probably lost much uniparental diversity as such.

I agree on the northeast asian part, but aborigines have very high Y dna diversity with many deep clades going back to the peopling of the region, more than what we have found among hoabinhian so far. Papuans too have M and S both splitting from each other 42,000 years ago and still among the same population.

However, even so, the uniparent diversity of Papuans and Australians is still significantly lower than that of Hoabinhian/Sundaland. They lost K2b2, C1b1, K2a1, F2, and D.

Perhaps the Australasian bottleneck occurred when their ancestor crossed Wallacea? If the population size is not so large, the drift time will not be so long, perhaps 45,000-42,000 BP. Agta, whose autosomal lineage is outgroup of Papuans and Australians, but downstream of Onge/Hoabinhian, K2b2 is retained.

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.

Oh, I'm not very sure about this. Yang Melinda 2022 and Wikipedia suggest that Hoabinhian forms a meta-branch with Tianyuan and East Asians, excluding AASI and Australasians. In a 2023 paper about the Tibetan Plateau, which Yang participated, it was found that East Asians are indeed an even admixture of Hoabinhian/Onge and Tianyuan, leaving the Ancient Tibetan as a third East Eurasian branch. Unfortunately, AASI and Australasians are not studied.

Combining other aspects, I believe that Tianyuan is still an early offshoot of East Eurasians. Subsequently, the Hoabinhian-related population was divided into Hoabinhian-proper, Onge, AASI, Australasians, and the non-Tianyuan part of East Asians. Australasians got 3-4% Denisova and possibly 1% "xOoA", while AASI got some more generic Eurasian geneflow related to H1-M2826. H1 has not yet been found in IUP and northern Eurasia, so it is indeed possible that it represents an independent migration.

[TanTin]

Lazaridis in his Twitter (X) posted a new diagram (which could be and old one from the previous publication).

Here is my attempt to summarize European population history. It's messy! Some events are unknown and some admixtures are protracted processes. It captures a lot of what I think happened but caveat lector!
(IL)

[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.

[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.