An attempt at deep West Eurasian phylogeny

[Kale]

What do you make of these stats
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_UP_Gravettian    0.00439 0.000649  6.77 1.31e-11
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Austria_Krems1_1      0.00596 0.000636  9.37 7.60e-21
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Austria_KremsWA3      0.00534 0.000843  6.34 2.30e-10
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice5      0.00436 0.000652  6.69 2.26e-11
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice6      0.00427 0.000668  6.40 1.60e-10
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice16      0.00514 0.000662  7.77 8.07e-15
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_South_HG_Ostuni1 0.00708 0.000736  9.62 6.75e-22

Nothing relevatory or unexpected.
- BK1653's affinity for Italian and Central European Gravettians is a known quantity. BK1653 + Sunghir = Gravettians.

Kale that's not BK1653 that's the IUP samples having an affinity for Gravettians without East Eurasians having any affinity for them. And we all know that Aurignacians have East Eurasian affinity too on top of Bacho Kiro IUP affinity.

Count me as skeptical...
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_IUP    Kostenki14 Gravettian_KremsVestonice 0.00073 1.51 957712
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_IUP    Kostenki14 Gravettian_Italy          0.00101  1.85 726976
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_BK1653 Kostenki14 Gravettian_KremsVestonice 0.00410  6.01 902095
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_BK1653 Kostenki14 Gravettian_Italy          0.00490  6.36 694370

One thing I find interesting is that Onge seemingly has ZERO Neanderthal.
Could you verify this?

1 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG China_Han.DG -0.00012 -0.58 1075583
2 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG China_Han.SG -0.00045 -2.13 1075580
3 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG -0.00023 -1.04 1075337
4 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG China_Han.DG 0.00073 4.10 1096241
5 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG China_Han.SG 0.00041 2.16 1096832
6 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00062 3.01 1096498
7 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.DG -0.00019 -0.77 1084868
8 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.SG -0.00054 -2.16 1085402
9 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG -0.00033 -1.26 1085224

It's all over the place, it's got to be artifacts. But look at when Mbuti is used as an outgroup, and only same format (.DG, .SG or ancient.SG) versions are compared.
1 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG China_Han.DG -0.00017 -0.64 1120065
2 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG China_Han.SG -0.00050 -1.84 1120065
3 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00026 0.89 1119755
4 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG China_Han.DG 0.00007 0.32 1141684
5 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG China_Han.SG -0.00023 -0.94 1141815
6 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00051 1.93 1141401
7 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.DG -0.00035 -1.13 1131546
8 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.SG -0.00069 -2.29 1131658
9 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00006 0.17 1131432

Also the affinity for Gravettian only appears when Bacho Kiro IUP is in a single population not when looked at individually. I think this might be some weird artefact so I suggest separating the samples perhaps.

What are the settings you are using to generate the f4 stats? I remember setting maxmiss=0 and afprod=FALSE produced very wonky results.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

What do you make of these stats
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_UP_Gravettian    0.00439 0.000649  6.77 1.31e-11
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Austria_Krems1_1      0.00596 0.000636  9.37 7.60e-21
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Austria_KremsWA3      0.00534 0.000843  6.34 2.30e-10
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice5      0.00436 0.000652  6.69 2.26e-11
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice6      0.00427 0.000668  6.40 1.60e-10
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice16      0.00514 0.000662  7.77 8.07e-15
Chimp.REF Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_South_HG_Ostuni1 0.00708 0.000736  9.62 6.75e-22

Nothing relevatory or unexpected.
- BK1653's affinity for Italian and Central European Gravettians is a known quantity. BK1653 + Sunghir = Gravettians.

Kale that's not BK1653 that's the IUP samples having an affinity for Gravettians without East Eurasians having any affinity for them. And we all know that Aurignacians have East Eurasian affinity too on top of Bacho Kiro IUP affinity.

Count me as skeptical...
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_IUP    Kostenki14 Gravettian_KremsVestonice 0.00073 1.51 957712
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_IUP    Kostenki14 Gravettian_Italy          0.00101  1.85 726976
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_BK1653 Kostenki14 Gravettian_KremsVestonice 0.00410  6.01 902095
Chimp.REF BachoKiro_BK1653 Kostenki14 Gravettian_Italy          0.00490  6.36 694370

One thing I find interesting is that Onge seemingly has ZERO Neanderthal.
Could you verify this?

1 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          China_Han.DG                  -0.00012 -0.58 1075583
2 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          China_Han.SG                  -0.00045 -2.13  1075580
3 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG -0.00023 -1.04  1075337
4 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          China_Han.DG                  0.00073  4.10  1096241
5 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          China_Han.SG                  0.00041 2.16  1096832
6 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG  0.00062 3.01  1096498
7 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.DG                  -0.00019  -0.77 1084868
8 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.SG                  -0.00054 -2.16  1085402
9 Chimp.REF Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG -0.00033 -1.26 1085224

It's all over the place, it's got to be artifacts. But look at when Mbuti is used as an outgroup, and only same format (.DG, .SG or ancient.SG) versions are compared.
1 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          China_Han.DG                  -0.00017  -0.64 1120065
2 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          China_Han.SG                  -0.00050  -1.84  1120065
3 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.DG          RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG  0.00026  0.89  1119755
4 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          China_Han.DG                  0.00007 0.32 1141684
5 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          China_Han.SG                  -0.00023  -0.94 1141815
6 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Onge.SG          RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG  0.00051  1.93  1141401
7 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.DG                  -0.00035  -1.13 1131546
8 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG China_Han.SG                  -0.00069  -2.29  1131658
9 Congo_Mbuti.DG Neanderthal_Altai.DG Andaman_100BP.SG RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG  0.00006 0.17 1131432

Also the affinity for Gravettian only appears when Bacho Kiro IUP is in a single population not when looked at individually. I think this might be some weird artefact so I suggest separating the samples perhaps.

What are the settings you are using to generate the f4 stats? I remember setting maxmiss=0 and afprod=FALSE produced very wonky results.

I am using f2_from_geno with maxmiss=1, I think the default of it is afprod=FALSE too. I'll look into that I guess, might make my graphs more consistent as well if I do.

[crashdoc]

Code:

result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  Jarawa.SG  Mbuti.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Mbuti.DG    0.007949    0.003366      2.361  1091313
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Andaman_100BP.SG  Mbuti.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Mbuti.DG    0.021845    0.003915      5.580  1091064
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Onge.SG  Mbuti.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Mbuti.DG    0.008316    0.003242      2.565  1091005

From these qpF4ratio results, Onge and Jarawa have ~0.8% Neandertal but Andaman_100BP has ~2.2%, which I find strange.

[DNA archi]

1. Kotias _Up and Dzudzuana specficially were reproductively unsuccesful and became locally extinct, which is perfecty reasonable, but groups like them from the broader region contributed to later West Asians, WHG, EHG, etc

2. The entire proposal that groups like them ^ are not in fact relevant for later West Asians, despite suggestions from literature & from independent qpGraphs such as Kales (and what Ive seen from mine)

Kotias_UP/Dzudzuana really look like near-direct ancestors of WHG.

DZUDZUANA_UP and KOTIAS_KLDE_UP do not have anything to do with the WHG, and even likely to anyone. They do not even look like WHG, it is most likely just the mestizos of the Gravettian population and the Middle Eastern upper paleolithic. It’s just that the metis who did not leave any descendants, this population simply died out and this is a fact. It does not give any shift to the WHG, in the WHG there are 0% of them, the fact is that when the Gravettian components, which shows formal statistics, are mestizos with the Gravettians. Formal statistics simply sees the Gravettian component in Dzudzuana/Kotias.

Here are the calculations - they show great accuracy for the case when ancestor populations are 10,000 or more, for the WHG, in general, such tests give just that they are 100% Gravettian with indecently low accuracy.

Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
Distance: 2.8923% / 0.02892280
35.8 Gravettian_BEL
18.4 Levant_PPNB
17.0 Gravettian_Iberia
14.0 CZE_UP
9.4 TUR_Barcin_N
5.4 RUS_Sunghir_UP

Target: GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
Distance: 3.0253% / 0.03025347
32.0 Gravettian_Iberia
18.2 CZE_Krems_UP
17.4 TUR_Barcin_N
14.0 Levant_PPNB
12.6 CZE_UP
5.8 Gravettian_BEL


Target: ITA_Villabruna_LUP:Villabruna
Distance: 26.6647% / 0.26664662
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: LUX_Loschbour_WHG:I0001
Distance: 29.4814% / 0.29481415
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:Rochedane
Distance: 26.2148% / 0.26214776
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:I1875
Distance: 26.5466% / 0.26546579
100.0 Gravettian_BEL
0.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
0.0 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
....

This is how it can be seen on the PCA, it is clearly visible on it that Dzudzuana/Kotias has no shift for WHG, they are simply located between the Gravettian and the Middle East.



The Caucasus was always a zone of death, everyone had died out to the Holocene population, and very few people lived there during the stolf, and it was very behind. In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic. Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

There is a small opportunity that Dzudzuana/Kotias is the remainder of the ancestral population for the Gravettian, that is, they were those whose distant ancestors penetrated into Europe and formed a Gravettian culture, but in any case it has nothing to do with WHG and EHG.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

1. Kotias _Up and Dzudzuana specficially were reproductively unsuccesful and became locally extinct, which is perfecty reasonable, but groups like them from the broader region contributed to later West Asians, WHG, EHG, etc

2. The entire proposal that groups like them ^ are not in fact relevant for later West Asians, despite suggestions from literature & from independent qpGraphs such as Kales (and what Ive seen from mine)

Kotias_UP/Dzudzuana really look like near-direct ancestors of WHG.

DZUDZUANA_UP and KOTIAS_KLDE_UP do not have anything to do with the WHG, and even likely to anyone. They do not even look like WHG, it is most likely just the mestizos of the Gravettian population and the Middle Eastern upper paleolithic. It’s just that the metis who did not leave any descendants, this population simply died out and this is a fact. It does not give any shift to the WHG, in the WHG there are 0% of them, the fact is that when the Gravettian components, which shows formal statistics, are mestizos with the Gravettians. Formal statistics simply sees the Gravettian component in Dzudzuana/Kotias.

Here are the calculations - they show great accuracy for the case when ancestor populations are 10,000 or more, for the WHG, in general, such tests give just that they are 100% Gravettian with indecently low accuracy.

Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
Distance: 2.8923% / 0.02892280
35.8 Gravettian_BEL
18.4 Levant_PPNB
17.0 Gravettian_Iberia
14.0 CZE_UP
9.4 TUR_Barcin_N
5.4 RUS_Sunghir_UP

Target: GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
Distance: 3.0253% / 0.03025347
32.0 Gravettian_Iberia
18.2 CZE_Krems_UP
17.4 TUR_Barcin_N
14.0 Levant_PPNB
12.6 CZE_UP
5.8 Gravettian_BEL


Target: ITA_Villabruna_LUP:Villabruna
Distance: 26.6647% / 0.26664662
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: LUX_Loschbour_WHG:I0001
Distance: 29.4814% / 0.29481415
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:Rochedane
Distance: 26.2148% / 0.26214776
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:I1875
Distance: 26.5466% / 0.26546579
100.0 Gravettian_BEL
0.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
0.0 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
....

This is how it can be seen on the PCA, it is clearly visible on it that Dzudzuana/Kotias has no shift for WHG, they are simply located between the Gravettian and the Middle East.



The Caucasus was always a zone of death, everyone had died out to the Holocene population, and very few people lived there during the stolf, and it was very behind. In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic. Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

There is a small opportunity that Dzudzuana/Kotias is the remainder of the ancestral population for the Gravettian, that is, they were those whose distant ancestors penetrated into Europe and formed a Gravettian culture, but in any case it has nothing to do with WHG and EHG.

That is an artefact of G25 and the fact that Dzudzuana/NEO283 have Basal Eurasian or something that pulls them away from WHG. I don't think They're purely West Eurasian as Kale's model shows but they may have weird affinities. From what I have noticed Dzudzuana has some affinity to Gravettians but they also have a lot of ancestry from a clade that splits before Bacho Kiro MUP and Kostenki do.

[DNA archi]

1. Kotias _Up and Dzudzuana specficially were reproductively unsuccesful and became locally extinct, which is perfecty reasonable, but groups like them from the broader region contributed to later West Asians, WHG, EHG, etc

2. The entire proposal that groups like them ^ are not in fact relevant for later West Asians, despite suggestions from literature & from independent qpGraphs such as Kales (and what Ive seen from mine)

Kotias_UP/Dzudzuana really look like near-direct ancestors of WHG.

DZUDZUANA_UP and KOTIAS_KLDE_UP do not have anything to do with the WHG, and even likely to anyone. They do not even look like WHG, it is most likely just the mestizos of the Gravettian population and the Middle Eastern upper paleolithic. It’s just that the metis who did not leave any descendants, this population simply died out and this is a fact. It does not give any shift to the WHG, in the WHG there are 0% of them, the fact is that when the Gravettian components, which shows formal statistics, are mestizos with the Gravettians. Formal statistics simply sees the Gravettian component in Dzudzuana/Kotias.

Here are the calculations - they show great accuracy for the case when ancestor populations are 10,000 or more, for the WHG, in general, such tests give just that they are 100% Gravettian with indecently low accuracy.

Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
Distance: 2.8923% / 0.02892280
35.8 Gravettian_BEL
18.4 Levant_PPNB
17.0 Gravettian_Iberia
14.0 CZE_UP
9.4 TUR_Barcin_N
5.4 RUS_Sunghir_UP

Target: GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
Distance: 3.0253% / 0.03025347
32.0 Gravettian_Iberia
18.2 CZE_Krems_UP
17.4 TUR_Barcin_N
14.0 Levant_PPNB
12.6 CZE_UP
5.8 Gravettian_BEL


Target: ITA_Villabruna_LUP:Villabruna
Distance: 26.6647% / 0.26664662
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: LUX_Loschbour_WHG:I0001
Distance: 29.4814% / 0.29481415
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:Rochedane
Distance: 26.2148% / 0.26214776
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:I1875
Distance: 26.5466% / 0.26546579
100.0 Gravettian_BEL
0.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
0.0 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
....

This is how it can be seen on the PCA, it is clearly visible on it that Dzudzuana/Kotias has no shift for WHG, they are simply located between the Gravettian and the Middle East.



The Caucasus was always a zone of death, everyone had died out to the Holocene population, and very few people lived there during the stolf, and it was very behind. In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic. Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

There is a small opportunity that Dzudzuana/Kotias is the remainder of the ancestral population for the Gravettian, that is, they were those whose distant ancestors penetrated into Europe and formed a Gravettian culture, but in any case it has nothing to do with WHG and EHG.

That is an artefact of G25 and the fact that Dzudzuana/NEO283 have Basal Eurasian or something that pulls them away from WHG. I don't think They're purely West Eurasian as Kale's model shows but they may have weird affinities. From what I have noticed Dzudzuana has some affinity to Gravettians but they also have a lot of ancestry from a clade that splits before Bacho Kiro MUP and Kostenki do.

This is not an artifact G25. CZE_UP belongs to the Early Upper Paleolithic and belongs to this cluster Bacho Kiro IUP and Ust-Ishim, which was before Bacho Kiro MUP, which has nothing to do with it.

But the assumption that Dzudzuana / Neo283 was the ancestor of the WHG is an artifact of a wrongly made model in which there are simply very few populations by mistake. Dzudzuna / Neo283 has no ancestrality at the WHG , even indirect, simply there and there there is a common Gravettian component.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

1. Kotias _Up and Dzudzuana specficially were reproductively unsuccesful and became locally extinct, which is perfecty reasonable, but groups like them from the broader region contributed to later West Asians, WHG, EHG, etc

2. The entire proposal that groups like them ^ are not in fact relevant for later West Asians, despite suggestions from literature & from independent qpGraphs such as Kales (and what Ive seen from mine)

Kotias_UP/Dzudzuana really look like near-direct ancestors of WHG.

DZUDZUANA_UP and KOTIAS_KLDE_UP do not have anything to do with the WHG, and even likely to anyone. They do not even look like WHG, it is most likely just the mestizos of the Gravettian population and the Middle Eastern upper paleolithic. It’s just that the metis who did not leave any descendants, this population simply died out and this is a fact. It does not give any shift to the WHG, in the WHG there are 0% of them, the fact is that when the Gravettian components, which shows formal statistics, are mestizos with the Gravettians. Formal statistics simply sees the Gravettian component in Dzudzuana/Kotias.

Here are the calculations - they show great accuracy for the case when ancestor populations are 10,000 or more, for the WHG, in general, such tests give just that they are 100% Gravettian with indecently low accuracy.

Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
Distance: 2.8923% / 0.02892280
35.8 Gravettian_BEL
18.4 Levant_PPNB
17.0 Gravettian_Iberia
14.0 CZE_UP
9.4 TUR_Barcin_N
5.4 RUS_Sunghir_UP

Target: GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
Distance: 3.0253% / 0.03025347
32.0 Gravettian_Iberia
18.2 CZE_Krems_UP
17.4 TUR_Barcin_N
14.0 Levant_PPNB
12.6 CZE_UP
5.8 Gravettian_BEL


Target: ITA_Villabruna_LUP:Villabruna
Distance: 26.6647% / 0.26664662
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: LUX_Loschbour_WHG:I0001
Distance: 29.4814% / 0.29481415
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:Rochedane
Distance: 26.2148% / 0.26214776
100.0 Gravettian_BEL

Target: WHG:I1875
Distance: 26.5466% / 0.26546579
100.0 Gravettian_BEL
0.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP:NEO283__BC_23685
0.0 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
....

This is how it can be seen on the PCA, it is clearly visible on it that Dzudzuana/Kotias has no shift for WHG, they are simply located between the Gravettian and the Middle East.



The Caucasus was always a zone of death, everyone had died out to the Holocene population, and very few people lived there during the stolf, and it was very behind. In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic. Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

There is a small opportunity that Dzudzuana/Kotias is the remainder of the ancestral population for the Gravettian, that is, they were those whose distant ancestors penetrated into Europe and formed a Gravettian culture, but in any case it has nothing to do with WHG and EHG.

That is an artefact of G25 and the fact that Dzudzuana/NEO283 have Basal Eurasian or something that pulls them away from WHG. I don't think They're purely West Eurasian as Kale's model shows but they may have weird affinities. From what I have noticed Dzudzuana has some affinity to Gravettians but they also have a lot of ancestry from a clade that splits before Bacho Kiro MUP and Kostenki do.

This is not an artifact G25. CZE_UP belongs to the Early Upper Paleolithic and belongs to this cluster Bacho Kiro IUP and Ust-Ishim, which was before Bacho Kiro MUP, which has nothing to do with it.

But the assumption that Dzudzuana / Neo283 was the ancestor of the WHG is an artifact of a wrongly made model in which there are simply very few populations by mistake. Dzudzuna / Neo283 has no ancestrality at the WHG , even indirect, simply there and there there is a common Gravettian component.

They aren't direct ancestors but they certainly share some ancestry with WHG
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Italy_Mesolithic.SG Russia_Sunghir3.SG -0.00476 0.000633 -7.52 5.29e-14
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic -0.00461 0.000683 -6.75 1.52e-11
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Czech_Vestonice16 0.00103 0.000800 1.29 0.198
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Russia_Kostenki14 -0.000439 0.000760 -0.578 0.563
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Russia_Kostenki14 -0.00287 0.000732 -3.92 0.0000903
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Czech_Vestonice16 0.00202 0.000731 2.77 0.00568

[DNA archi]

They aren't direct ancestors but they certainly share some ancestry with WHG
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Italy_Mesolithic.SG Russia_Sunghir3.SG -0.00476 0.000633 -7.52 5.29e-14
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic -0.00461 0.000683 -6.75 1.52e-11
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Czech_Vestonice16 0.00103 0.000800  1.29 0.198
Chimp.REF Georgia_Kotias_UP Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Russia_Kostenki14 -0.000439 0.000760 -0.578 0.563
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Russia_Kostenki14 -0.00287 0.000732 -3.92 0.0000903
Chimp.REF Italy_Mesolithic.SG Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleolithic Czech_Vestonice16 0.00202 0.000731  2.77 0.00568

There is nothing to do with , even indirect, it has all this, it is all just Gravettian samples. You do not look at the texts at all, that is, when the word Fatyanovo was directly written in the text, you said that there is no Fatyanovo in the text. So here, you do not look at what kind of samples are, and they only relate to Gravettian, which was the whole post that GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP was 70% Gravettian. WHG also partially comes from Gravettian.

You have absolutely incorrect tests, of which you can’t even compose to whom GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP , because it shows only that GEO_Kotias_Klde_UP is close to Gravettian, and far from PRE Gravettian, but does not show its attitude to WHG, you deliberately excluded it.

[Kale]

I am using f2_from_geno with maxmiss=1, I think the default of it is afprod=FALSE too. I'll look into that I guess, might make my graphs more consistent as well if I do.

Sorry I always get maxmiss mixed up. Maxmiss = 1 is equivalent to allsnps=YES. So it is maxmiss=1 and afprod=FALSE that produces odd results.

Also: Out of courtesy, can ya'll please not quote gigantic blocks of text and images repeatedly, especially when it is something that wasn't worth posting once...

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

Ah that makes more sense.
If I use maxmiss=0 I have to exclude a lot of SNPs for some of the samples.
But I think the trick was the afprod=FALSE as I no longer see Bacho Kiro IUP having any affinity to Gravettians

As for WHG and Kotias UP, the latter barely has any affinity to Gravettians. But WHG has a lot of it. Kotias UP prefers WHG over every population, meaning that the WHG are a mixture of something that is present in Kotias UP and Gravettians.

[Woz]

In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic.

Um.. the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, which covered most of the Caucasus, was definitely (e-)neolithic, and fairly advanced for its time period.

Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

You are confusing Trialetian with Kura-Araxes. The rest of this sentence is utter nonsense as well.

There is a small opportunity that Dzudzuana/Kotias is the remainder of the ancestral population for the Gravettian, that is, they were those whose distant ancestors penetrated into Europe and formed a Gravettian culture, but in any case it has nothing to do with WHG and EHG.

Dzudzuana was usually presented as the ancestor to Anatolian HG's, not WHG's. And Anatolian HG's, while quite distant genetically from Dzudzuana, still are closer to it than to any other UP sample to date.

[DNA archi]

In the Caucasus, there was still a Mesolithic when the Black Sea-Caspian steppes was already an Eneolitic.

Um.. the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, which covered most of the Caucasus, was definitely (e-)neolithic, and fairly advanced for its time period.

Only with the arrival of new people from the Middle East in search of copper and bronze, it immediately entered the Eneolitic and before everyone else in the Bronze age, because there was literally on the surface there, two cultures - rush - Maykop and Trialet culture arose, and then he Again became a completely backward region.

You are confusing Trialetian with Kura-Araxes. The rest of this sentence is utter nonsense as well.

I do not confuse anything, you confuse. You wrote a nonsense, you write about the South Caucasus. I'm talking about the North Caucasus - the territory of Georgia, it is it that is being discussed here. Kuro-Araxes culture is an Eneolitic and this is the South Caucasus, it arose 4000BC, that is, when the Maykop culture, which was already a culture of the Bronze Age, has already arisen at the same time. Only at the very end of its existence did the Kura- Araxes culture go into the Bronze Age after a hole in a Yamnaya culture. Sredny Stog-Khvalynsk cultures 5200-4150 BC were Eneolitics.

Dzudzuana was usually presented as the ancestor to Anatolian HG's, not WHG's. And Anatolian HG's, while quite distant genetically from Dzudzuana, still are closer to it than to any other UP sample to date.

To whom it doesn’t matter, it seems to everyone here that Dzudzuana is the ancestor to the WHG, while it only seems to them, but they defend it.
None of this it turns out in calculations.

[DNA archi]

As for WHG and Kotias UP, the latter barely has any affinity to Gravettians. But WHG has a lot of it. Kotias UP prefers WHG over every population, meaning that the WHG are a mixture of something that is present in Kotias UP and Gravettians.

You always write one lie and only errors. You have a whole message from one untruth and documentary untruth that directly distorts the previous text. You always think incorrectly, not confirmed by calculations and directly cited text. Kotias Up has no one in the descendants. Reflections are illusions.

[TanTin]

This is not an artifact G25. CZE_UP belongs to the Early Upper Paleolithic and belongs to this cluster Bacho Kiro IUP and Ust-Ishim, which was before Bacho Kiro MUP, which has nothing to do with it.

But the assumption that Dzudzuana / Neo283 was the ancestor of the WHG is an artifact of a wrongly made model in which there are simply very few populations by mistake. Dzudzuna / Neo283 has no ancestrality at the WHG , even indirect, simply there and there there is a common Gravettian component.

Dzudzuana is with  another branch. It start and it is connected to ZlatyKun / BK.
What we call "WHG" would appear a lot later.  We may clearly see who are the ancestors of WHG. There is a line connecting ZlatyKun to WHG. The line from ZK through  Dzudzuana is going to Anatholia and to Ancient Balkan and Central European populations. (EEF and Anatholian HG) .

[DNA archi]

Of all the erroneous porridge here from solid errors that did not have to publish one at all there is the only right message and then from another forum, before my messages.

user Enki's post on genarchivist.freeforums pointed this out. Copy-pasting it here in case it was missed. 

The only issue I can see with this is the archaic affinities not lining up. Given how early the admixture between neanderthals and Bacho Kiro was, you would certainly see this in Ust-Ishim/Tianyuan had he been ancestral to them. However, the neanderthal affinities in BK are much closer to Vindija neanderthals than Altai neanderthals which was present in Tianyuan, Ust-Ishim having only "basal" neanderthal from the near east that we all have. While these Vindija affinities are absent in early east eurasians where you see altai neanderthal and denisova alleles popping up in ANE and Tianyuan, this would signify BK/Oase being a dead branch of IUP in Europe rather than ancestral to east eurasians. There was a common ancestor likely somewhere in central asia/iran who knows that contributed to the "northern" part of tianyuan and to Ust-Ishim. Now given the fact that Vindija was a relatively recently derived branch of neanderthal, these affinities would be very unique. I will make a larger post on the genarchivist proper site for the thread you made.


We find that Bacho Kiro individuals share significantly more derived alleles with Neandertals than with the Denisovan individual (Z-score < -26.27, Fig. S7.15 and S7.16). Furthermore, the three IUP Bacho Kiro individuals and BK1653 share significantly more derived alleles with Chagyrskaya and Vindija than they do with the Altai Neandertal (-14225.08 < Z-score < -2.77, Fig. S7.15, and -5.03 < Z-score < -3.01, Fig. S7.16), similar to what has been previously observed for other ancient and present-day humans,11,17.1424

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03335-3

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05283-y

It is completely true. This has long been well shown, and everyone saw that the migration vector went from Ust-Ishim to Europe in Bacho Kiro, and not vice versa. I will give old PCA only the ancient samples on which the vectors of genetic drifts showed, the first four drifts from Ust-Ishim perfectly show how humanity was differentiated initially, the last two drifts from ANE and the late Gravetians (its direction is visible in the Magdalens) shook in the cluster of Villabrunes. This is not just a metisation of ANE and the Gravetians, these are precisely the essential genetic drifts from the ANE towards EHG and the Gravetians towards the Magdalenians.




The Middle East is not there in any form, humanity went through the Persian bay of which in those days was not and quickly appeared in the Altai and Baikal area than in Europe. There were Homo sapiens more than 50 thousand years ago (C14) at Baikal, there are appropriate archaeological sites of the initial upper Paleolithic, especially those closest to the Aurignacian culture, and from there it went to the west to Europe, and there were no people in Anatolia before the start of the Еpipaleolitic, there was not a single site lot of an ancient person, only Rare Aurignacians penetrated along the coast brought the Levantine Aurignacian from Europe.