Not to put too much faith in g25 models for Ice Age samples, but Gravettians look largely like a mixture of Yana_UP and WHG in varying proportions, with some Middle East thrown in for good measure.
Without Yana_UP, the Gravettians just go for elevated Salkhit ancestry, which is unlikely to have entered the European gene pool on its own. It was probably pre-ANE Siberians mixing with proto-WHG's somewhere in European Russia.. or elsewhere
I think you got it the wrong way. It is ANE /ANS that has Aurignacian/gravettian ancestry
This is obvious looking at uniparentals.
Mostly female dna from Europe (75%) mixed with P rich siberian populations east of the urals.
...
I doubt that the Yana-ANS U2'3'4'7'8'9, MA1-ANE Ux2'3'4'7'8'9x5x1x6 is downstream of any U found in Europe.
(03-08-2024, 01:44 AM)TanTin Wrote: Proto ANE are very OLD.. They could be somewhere between 100 - 200k . ANE are the source of what is called "basal" . There is a clear signal for such old layer. And there is also archeology from Asia to support it. So better to avoid mixing the late ANE like Mal'Ta with the real ANE who are very ancient.
Never heard something like that in any scientific paper. Sources of your statement?
I am still not sure if my statement is true or false.
There is some archeology to back it up.
However from the genetics point of view it doesn't hold.
I still test it.
Because if it is true: there were HS OOA before the famous OOA ..
But it goes into contradiction with the Y-chromosomes tree, that we have already..
So it is safer to say that HS migrated OOA later than 100k before now .. But there were some kind of monkeys , hominoid etc. outside of Africa already. So we can't exclude the eventual mixture somewhere.
03-14-2024, 01:30 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2024, 01:42 AM by TanTin.)
If we are talking about "Mal'Ta" - OK. But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE"?
"Proto-ANE" may be a recent migrant from Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. Or it could be an older population already established in Asia for a long time.
The current definition of ANE is about 24,000 BP.
But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE" - it could go in any direction and for an unknown number of years or thousands of years.
The real question would be: how old is the "Basal".
I don't know what your idea of "Basal" is? To me, ANE are descendants of "Basal". They are still in question, so let's see what the answer is.
(03-14-2024, 01:30 AM)TanTin Wrote: If we are talking about "Mal'Ta" - OK. But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE"?
"Proto-ANE" may be a recent migrant from Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. Or it could be an older population already established in Asia for a long time.
The current definition of ANE is about 24,000 BP.
But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE" - it could go in any direction and for an unknown number of years or thousands of years.
The real question would be: how old is the "Basal".
I don't know what your idea of "Basal" is? To me, ANE are descendants of "Basal". They are still in question, so let's see what the answer is.
ANE are not descendants of Basal by definition.
Basal is early split of OoA - Basal on one side and non-Basal on the other (ancestors of AASI, ANE, WHG, etc.) that some have entitled 'crown' Eurasian.
(03-14-2024, 01:30 AM)TanTin Wrote: If we are talking about "Mal'Ta" - OK. But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE"?
"Proto-ANE" may be a recent migrant from Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. Or it could be an older population already established in Asia for a long time.
The current definition of ANE is about 24,000 BP.
But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE" - it could go in any direction and for an unknown number of years or thousands of years.
The real question would be: how old is the "Basal".
I don't know what your idea of "Basal" is? To me, ANE are descendants of "Basal". They are still in question, so let's see what the answer is.
ANE are not descendants of Basal by definition.
Basal is early split of OoA - Basal on one side and non-Basal on the other (ancestors of AASI, ANE, WHG, etc.) that some have entitled 'crown' Eurasian.
Who do you think Basal Eurasian are ? Who is keeping the maximum of the Basal components?
This is how Lazaridis tested it:
Quote:Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11. To test for Basal Eurasian ancestry, we computed the statistic
f4(Test, Han; Ust’- Ishim, Chimp)
Han are used as a baseline . ( they are considered as "0" -line . )
That doesn't mean the Chinese and Han don't have any "Basal" . Just on opposite. Some Chinese may have more basal, some may have less.
But in general Lazaridis took them as a reference point to compare the amount of the Basal components.
Some Chinese may still have significant amount of "Basal" . Other could be negative. However the average level is taken as the 0-line to compare with other populations.
Chinese can not become 0- line if they were only from NON-Basal. To become 0-line Chinese must have merged with some "Basal".
This is the result of continuous homogenization.
(03-14-2024, 01:30 AM)TanTin Wrote: If we are talking about "Mal'Ta" - OK. But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE"?
"Proto-ANE" may be a recent migrant from Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. Or it could be an older population already established in Asia for a long time.
The current definition of ANE is about 24,000 BP.
But if we are talking about "Proto-ANE" - it could go in any direction and for an unknown number of years or thousands of years.
The real question would be: how old is the "Basal".
I don't know what your idea of "Basal" is? To me, ANE are descendants of "Basal". They are still in question, so let's see what the answer is.
ANE are not descendants of Basal by definition.
Basal is early split of OoA - Basal on one side and non-Basal on the other (ancestors of AASI, ANE, WHG, etc.) that some have entitled 'crown' Eurasian.
Who do you think Basal Eurasian are ? Who is keeping the maximum of the Basal components?
This is how Lazaridis tested it:
Quote:Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11. To test for Basal Eurasian ancestry, we computed the statistic
f4(Test, Han; Ust’- Ishim, Chimp)
Han are used as a baseline . ( they are considered as "0" -line . )
That doesn't mean the Chinese and Han don't have any "Basal" . Just on opposite. Some Chinese may have more basal, some may have less.
But in general Lazaridis took them as a reference point to compare the amount of the Basal components.
Some Chinese may still have significant amount of "Basal" . Other could be negative. However the average level is taken as the 0-line to compare with other populations.
Chinese can not become 0- line if they were only from NON-Basal. To become 0-line Chinese must have merged with some "Basal".
This is the result of continuous homogenization.
Yes that is what I am saying too. Basal as a construct is an early split, which means by definition the non-Basal prong, say Ust Ishim, has no Basal.
In the same paper: "Basal Eurasian ancestry is not necessary for European hunter-gatherer populations or MA1"
Whether we will find a real Basal only population, I'm not sure, but Lazaridis feels that it is population that possibly did not come into contact with Neandertals - "allele sharing with Neanderthals is inversely correlated with the amount of Basal Eurasian ancestry."
03-21-2024, 06:29 AM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2024, 07:22 AM by old europe.)
a very good explanation of formation of ANS/ANE
Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) and their origin
Jacob Harringer
Jacob Harringer
·
Feb 22, 2024
In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) is the name given to an ancestral component that represents the lineage of the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (c. 24,000 BP) and populations closely related to them, such as the Upper Paleolithic individuals from Afontova Gora in Siberia, and to two earlier specimens from the Yana Culture (c. 32,000 BP), collectively referred to as Ancient North Siberians (ANS).
The Ancient North Eurasians represent a distinct cluster of genetic diversity within the larger Eurasian gene pool.
Origins and contribution to later populations
The formation of the Ancient North Eurasian/Siberian (ANS/ANE) gene pool likely occurred during the Upper Paleolithic period, by the merger of an ‘Early West Eurasian’ Upper Paleolithic (UP) lineage, deeply related to ‘European hunter-gatherers’, migrating along the “Northern route” into Siberia via Europe or the Caucasus, and an ‘Early East Eurasian’ Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) lineage, basal to contemporary East and Southeast Asian populations, and best represented by the c. 40,000 year old Tianyuan specimen from Northern China.
The ANS/ANE lineage derived between 32% to 40% of their ancestry from the Basal East Asian Tianyuan lineage, and between 60% to 68% from the Early West Eurasian Kostenki14/Sunghir lineage. Accordingly, the ANS/ANE samples carried the Y-chromosome haplogroups belonging or downstream to P-M45 (P1 and Q/R) and the Mt-chromosome U.
ANCIENT NORTH EURASIAN Distance: 4.6414 / 0.04641380 Sources: 2 / Cycles: 1/ Time 0.004 s
ANS/ANE ancestry has spread throughout Eurasia and the Americas in various migrations since the Upper Paleolithic, and around half of the world’s modern population derives between 5% to 41% of their genomes from the Ancient North Eurasians. Significant ANE ancestry can be found in Native Americans, as well as in regions of northern Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Siberia. Modern East/Southeast Asian populations were found to lack ANE-related admixture, suggesting “resistance of those groups to the incoming UP population movements”, or alternatively a subsequent reexpansion from a genetically East Asian-like population reservoir.
Below we can see the formation of the ANS/ANE associated “Siberia UP” lineage, deriving around 35% from an Ancient East Asian-like population and 65% from an Ancient European-like population:
Siberia_UP represents the Ancient North Siberian/Eurasian (ANS/ANE) lineage, which contributed to multiple later Eurasian populations.
Genomic studies by Raghavan et al. (2014) and Fu et al. (2016) suggested that the ANE (represented by the genome of the Mal’ta boy) may have had brown eyes, and relatively dark hair and dark skin, while cautioning that this analysis was based on an extremely low coverage of DNA that might not give an accurate prediction of pigmentation. Mathieson, et al. (2018) could not determine if the Mal’ta 1 boy carried the derived allele associated with blond hair in certain later ANE-derived descendants, as they could obtain no coverage for this SNP.
Kozintsev (2020) argues that “as the geography and chronology of the ANE component show, it is misleading to describe it as Western Eurasian and associate it solely with ancient Caucasoids. To all appearances, it emerged before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split.” He continues to call the Ancient North Eurasians and their closest relatives as possessing a distinct craniometric phenotype, which he dubbed “Americanoid”, and which represents the variation of the first humans in Siberia.
Their associated paternal haplogroup P-M45 (P1 or P1a) can be associated with their Ancient Eastern Asian Tianyuan-like autosomal component, while their maternal haplogroup U can be associated with their Ancient Western Eurasian Kostenki/Sunghir-like autosomal component. This does not mean that there was an Eastern male/Western female admixture event, but rather it is likely that there was a later selection/bottleneck favouring P clade carrying males, while the initial Western paternal haplogroup C1 (or maybe IJ) decreased or went extinct.
In this regard it is significant that P clades are exclusively found among IUP/Eastern Eurasian populations, specifically among Basal East Asian Tianyuan/Hoabinhian-associated groups, such as Andamanese or Semang (Jehai). The most basal P clade has been found among a Jehai male from Mainland Southeast Asia, specifically from the more isolated regions of the Malay peninsula. Furthermore, based on the analysed SNPs of the Tianyuan man, he carried an upstream clade of P, specifically K2b (K-YSC0000186). The P-P226 (Q/R*) clade has been found among a 33,000 year old specimen from Mongolia (but afaik no autosomal study has been made on that sample; I have read it may be the Amur33K sample, but this sample was likely female and thus did not carry a Y-chromosome… maybe someone knows which 33kya sample this is).
Tianyuan:
In comparison Sunghir/EUP:
Today, the highest amounts of ANE-like ancestry is found among Native Americans. They derive around 40% from an ANE-like population and around 60% from an Neo-East Asian population which expanded northwards, best represented by the Amur19K sample (a 19,000 year old samples from the Amur Basin). The closely related Paleo-Siberians had around 30% ANE-like ancestry and 70% East Asian.
In Europe, the Eastern Hunter-gatherers formed via admixture between primarily Western hunter-gatherers and ANE-derived geneflow:
The EHG were among the few European groups which displayed an increased affinity to the Basal East Asian Tianyuan specimen, which is suggested to be explained by their high ANE ancestry. The ‘Basal East Asian’ (Tianyuan-like) ancestry among EHGs has been estimated to be around 13%.
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal’ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
Via these groups, the ANE legacy lives on among modern populations. Eg. the EHG contributed around 50% to the later Yamnaya people, which are regarded as Proto-Indo-Europeans, while Paleo-Siberians, such as the Yeniseians may have played an important role among the Xiongnu and Huns.
Conclusion
The Ancient North Eurasians can be described as forming their own cluster of early Eurasian diversity. They formed from around 32–40% Basal East Asian and 60–68% Early European ancestry, and contributed through various layers to modern populations, with a maximum peak among modern Native Americans.
The link between upper paleolithic european and Afontova Gora seems even stronger
Afontova Gora looks like is made up almost entirely by Krems ancestry which is strongly tied to Vestonice/Paglicci 133
but also it can work with another aurignacian sample ( Kostenki and Goyet are both aurignacians)
03-21-2024, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2024, 02:21 PM by Desdonas.)
(03-21-2024, 06:29 AM)old europe Wrote: a very good explanation of formation of ANS/ANE
Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) and their origin
Jacob Harringer
Jacob Harringer
·
Feb 22, 2024
In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) is the name given to an ancestral component that represents the lineage of the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (c. 24,000 BP) and populations closely related to them, such as the Upper Paleolithic individuals from Afontova Gora in Siberia, and to two earlier specimens from the Yana Culture (c. 32,000 BP), collectively referred to as Ancient North Siberians (ANS).
The Ancient North Eurasians represent a distinct cluster of genetic diversity within the larger Eurasian gene pool.
Origins and contribution to later populations
The formation of the Ancient North Eurasian/Siberian (ANS/ANE) gene pool likely occurred during the Upper Paleolithic period, by the merger of an ‘Early West Eurasian’ Upper Paleolithic (UP) lineage, deeply related to ‘European hunter-gatherers’, migrating along the “Northern route” into Siberia via Europe or the Caucasus, and an ‘Early East Eurasian’ Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) lineage, basal to contemporary East and Southeast Asian populations, and best represented by the c. 40,000 year old Tianyuan specimen from Northern China.
The ANS/ANE lineage derived between 32% to 40% of their ancestry from the Basal East Asian Tianyuan lineage, and between 60% to 68% from the Early West Eurasian Kostenki14/Sunghir lineage. Accordingly, the ANS/ANE samples carried the Y-chromosome haplogroups belonging or downstream to P-M45 (P1 and Q/R) and the Mt-chromosome U.
ANCIENT NORTH EURASIAN Distance: 4.6414 / 0.04641380 Sources: 2 / Cycles: 1/ Time 0.004 s
ANS/ANE ancestry has spread throughout Eurasia and the Americas in various migrations since the Upper Paleolithic, and around half of the world’s modern population derives between 5% to 41% of their genomes from the Ancient North Eurasians. Significant ANE ancestry can be found in Native Americans, as well as in regions of northern Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Siberia. Modern East/Southeast Asian populations were found to lack ANE-related admixture, suggesting “resistance of those groups to the incoming UP population movements”, or alternatively a subsequent reexpansion from a genetically East Asian-like population reservoir.
Below we can see the formation of the ANS/ANE associated “Siberia UP” lineage, deriving around 35% from an Ancient East Asian-like population and 65% from an Ancient European-like population:
Siberia_UP represents the Ancient North Siberian/Eurasian (ANS/ANE) lineage, which contributed to multiple later Eurasian populations.
Genomic studies by Raghavan et al. (2014) and Fu et al. (2016) suggested that the ANE (represented by the genome of the Mal’ta boy) may have had brown eyes, and relatively dark hair and dark skin, while cautioning that this analysis was based on an extremely low coverage of DNA that might not give an accurate prediction of pigmentation. Mathieson, et al. (2018) could not determine if the Mal’ta 1 boy carried the derived allele associated with blond hair in certain later ANE-derived descendants, as they could obtain no coverage for this SNP.
Kozintsev (2020) argues that “as the geography and chronology of the ANE component show, it is misleading to describe it as Western Eurasian and associate it solely with ancient Caucasoids. To all appearances, it emerged before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split.” He continues to call the Ancient North Eurasians and their closest relatives as possessing a distinct craniometric phenotype, which he dubbed “Americanoid”, and which represents the variation of the first humans in Siberia.
Their associated paternal haplogroup P-M45 (P1 or P1a) can be associated with their Ancient Eastern Asian Tianyuan-like autosomal component, while their maternal haplogroup U can be associated with their Ancient Western Eurasian Kostenki/Sunghir-like autosomal component. This does not mean that there was an Eastern male/Western female admixture event, but rather it is likely that there was a later selection/bottleneck favouring P clade carrying males, while the initial Western paternal haplogroup C1 (or maybe IJ) decreased or went extinct.
In this regard it is significant that P clades are exclusively found among IUP/Eastern Eurasian populations, specifically among Basal East Asian Tianyuan/Hoabinhian-associated groups, such as Andamanese or Semang (Jehai). The most basal P clade has been found among a Jehai male from Mainland Southeast Asia, specifically from the more isolated regions of the Malay peninsula. Furthermore, based on the analysed SNPs of the Tianyuan man, he carried an upstream clade of P, specifically K2b (K-YSC0000186). The P-P226 (Q/R*) clade has been found among a 33,000 year old specimen from Mongolia (but afaik no autosomal study has been made on that sample; I have read it may be the Amur33K sample, but this sample was likely female and thus did not carry a Y-chromosome… maybe someone knows which 33kya sample this is).
Tianyuan:
In comparison Sunghir/EUP:
Today, the highest amounts of ANE-like ancestry is found among Native Americans. They derive around 40% from an ANE-like population and around 60% from an Neo-East Asian population which expanded northwards, best represented by the Amur19K sample (a 19,000 year old samples from the Amur Basin). The closely related Paleo-Siberians had around 30% ANE-like ancestry and 70% East Asian.
In Europe, the Eastern Hunter-gatherers formed via admixture between primarily Western hunter-gatherers and ANE-derived geneflow:
The EHG were among the few European groups which displayed an increased affinity to the Basal East Asian Tianyuan specimen, which is suggested to be explained by their high ANE ancestry. The ‘Basal East Asian’ (Tianyuan-like) ancestry among EHGs has been estimated to be around 13%.
Currently, the strongest affinity to Tianyuan in Holocene European HGs was reported for Eastern European HGs (EHG). This is because the ancestry found in Mal’ta and Afontova Gora individuals (Ancient North Eurasian ancestry) received ancestry from UP East Asian/Southeast Asian populations54, who then contributed substantially to EHG55.
Via these groups, the ANE legacy lives on among modern populations. Eg. the EHG contributed around 50% to the later Yamnaya people, which are regarded as Proto-Indo-Europeans, while Paleo-Siberians, such as the Yeniseians may have played an important role among the Xiongnu and Huns.
Conclusion
The Ancient North Eurasians can be described as forming their own cluster of early Eurasian diversity. They formed from around 32–40% Basal East Asian and 60–68% Early European ancestry, and contributed through various layers to modern populations, with a maximum peak among modern Native Americans.
The link between upper paleolithic european and Afontova Gora seems even stronger
Afontova Gora looks like is made up almost entirely by Krems ancestry which is strongly tied to Vestonice/Paglicci 133
but also it can work with another aurignacian sample ( Kostenki and Goyet are both aurignacians)
Hello. Could you give me the link of the Jacob Harringer paper?
Also, this above seems to be from Wikipedia. The qpgraph on Wikipedia IIRC does not contain Tianyuan. Its East Eurasian side only contains Hoabinhian and Jomon, and the East Eurasian component in ANS/ANE is Jomon like. Last, unlike ANS, ANE later got 3% geneflow from West Asia.
This is another qpgraph on Wikipedia. Both graphs do not use Tianyuan.
East Asians (including Jomon and Devil's Gate) are significantly Onge-shifted than Tianyuan. So when studying the accurate phylogeny, Tianyuan, Onge, East Asians and Papuans should all considered. Last, ANE is more West-shifted than ANS, which indicates the difference of East-West proportion in ANS/ANE.
(03-21-2024, 11:08 AM)Desdonas Wrote: This is another qpgraph on Wikipedia. Both graphs do not use Tianyuan.
East Asians (including Jomon and Devil's Gate) are significantly Onge-shifted than Tianyuan. So when studying the accurate phylogeny, Tianyuan, Onge, East Asians and Papuans should all considered. Last, ANE is more West-shifted than ANS, which indicates the difference of East-West proportion in ANS/ANE.
(03-08-2024, 04:36 AM)old europe Wrote: If Yana dna was in Europe we would see many P and R1b and R1a even in the west part of the continent in the Ice Age which is not the case
Instead Yana is obviously
U from Europe
P from Asia
unless we find some K2b among aurignacians but that is unlikely
The thing is that all qpgraphs and admixtrees always calculate the west Eurasian side of ANE as splitting earlier than aurig/gravets, so I would say that aurigs are actually a mix of proto-ane like people who moved east into Europe from the (Caspian sea area?) and mixed with BK/crown Eurasian like people.
