Basal Eurasian discussion

[TanTin]

Short video: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXOyVG-LNoA

[TanTin]

According to Arun and Sriram the split of the archaic ghost population happened near 625 kY and the introgression happened
near 43 kY. These are estimates only. 
More important is the percentage estimation:  they provided a number of 11%.  This is a lot more than the Neanderthal or Denisovan  introgression . And also what we see here is the blue region for the Modern Humans. 
This introgression should be not only for Africans, but for all humans.

[AimSmall]

"This introgression should be not only for Africans, but for all humans."

I didn't interpret his analysis this way. I took it as they mated with Africans (West Africans IIRC). His blue arrow of ~43K is pointing at the Africa branch, not the base of all Modern Humans.

That's my understanding at least. Always willing to learn.

[TanTin]

"This introgression should be not only for Africans, but for all humans."

I didn't interpret his analysis this way.  I took it as they mated with Africans (West Africans IIRC).  His blue arrow of ~43K is pointing at the Africa branch, not the base of all Modern Humans.

That's my understanding at least.  Always willing to learn.

The autors do not claim the existance of such Ghost Archaic in all Humans. The autors concentrate their research only for some African populations.
However with their results and with other more recent results we may conclude such  Ghost Archaic contributed to all other modern Homo Sapiens.

The real question is who are the real Homo Sapiens: those from Africa, who mixed with  Ghost Archaic ?   Or  Ghost Archaic were the real Homo Sapience and they mixed with some Africans or Denisova/Neanderthals.  We may talk about 2 major components in the formation of HS..   This unknown  Ghost Archaic  is in fact one such  major component .  We may find traces of this  Ghost Archaic in Europe and Asia as well.

[TanTin]

The Unknown Archaic Hominin ( UAH) has a huge impact for the appearance of Modern Humans.
Technically we all carry some percentage of this UAH.
What we call the "Basal" populations have more UAH  than non-Basal.
The reason for this is in Denisova-Neanderthals.  non-Basal have more Neanderthal components.
"Basal" are low on  Neanderthal components. Because UAH branches from others before  Denisova-Neanderthals.

[Mnemonics]

The affinity for Zlaty Kun in Iranian HG's is likely from their Baradostian ancestry, which we don't have samples of, and which is not Zlaty Kun, just some early branch of Eurasians. Perhaps this is what those early researchers called "Basal Eurasian": a mixture of Baradostian (admixture calculators go for Zlaty Kun as a proxy in the absence of actual Baradostian samples) and "ANA" (quite possibly Emiran). Zlaty Kun had Neanderthal ancestry though, and probably so did Baradostian.

If I recall, even Iberomaurusians had higher than average Neanderthal ancestry, which doesn't make a lot of sense if operating under the assumption that ANA is really some sort of genuinely African type ancestry. I'm skeptical that the ANA-side of IBM is really some deeply rooted local Aterian relict and not just some very old Egyptian or Levantine (Emiran as you mentioned) reflux.

I've seen this claim a lot but Taforalt and Morocco_EN both have incredibly depressed neanderthal levels. They're significantly less neanderthal than most Northeast African populations (although South African/Mota ancestry may be elevating the signal due to shared ancestry in Neanderthal from a population that forms a cline with ZAF_2000BP).

Code:

result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Han.DG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.025169    0.003388      7.429  1022457
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  French.DG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.021191    0.002849      7.439  1021713
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF BedouinB.DG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.020192    0.002991      6.751  1022998
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  Yoruba.DG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.003808    0.001805      2.110  1023339
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Somali  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.011265    0.002811      4.008  1027044
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Morocco_EN.SG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.008465    0.003093      2.737  1027944
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  Taforalt  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.009594    0.002947      3.256  1019705
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Sudan_EarlyChristian_S  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.014460    0.001949      7.420  1015202
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Mota.SG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.004263    0.003028      1.408  1029059
result: Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF South_Africa_HG.SG  Dinka.DG  : Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.012393    0.002484      4.990  1027991
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Han.DG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.021137    0.003277      6.450  1014074
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  French.DG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.017611    0.002786      6.322  1013082
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF BedouinB.DG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.018285    0.002884      6.341  1014849
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  Yoruba.DG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.002877    0.001820      1.581  1015640
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Somali  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.010028    0.002794      3.590  1019797
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Morocco_EN.SG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.006537    0.003037      2.152  1020732
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF  Taforalt  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.008147    0.002855      2.854  1009496
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Sudan_EarlyChristian_S  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.012842    0.001890      6.797  1006807
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF    Mota.SG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.004625    0.002998      1.543  1018855
result: Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF South_Africa_HG.SG  Dinka.DG  : Altai_Neanderthal.DG  Chimp.REF Vindija_Neanderthal.DG  Dinka.DG    0.011399    0.002453      4.647  1017767

[Typic]

"This introgression should be not only for Africans, but for all humans."
I didn't interpret his analysis this way.  I took it as they mated with Africans (West Africans IIRC).  His blue arrow of ~43K is pointing at the Africa branch, not the base of all Modern Humans.
That's my understanding at least.  Always willing to learn.

The autors do not claim the existance of such Ghost Archaic in all Humans. The autors concentrate their research only for some African populations.
However with their results and with other more recent results we may conclude such  Ghost Archaic contributed to all other modern Homo Sapiens.
The real question is who are the real Homo Sapiens: those from Africa, who mixed with  Ghost Archaic ?   Or  Ghost Archaic were the real Homo Sapience and they mixed with some Africans or Denisova/Neanderthals.  We may talk about 2 major components in the formation of HS..   This unknown  Ghost Archaic  is in fact one such  major component .  We may find traces of this  Ghost Archaic in Europe and Asia as well.

Isn't the "ghost archaic" ancestry negligible/relatively minor? I don't think such subtle influences meet the condition to define the deep classification applied to all people on a broad-scale level of what Homo Sapiens is or not. To my knowledge, trace-ancestry usually has a minor effect on general heritage. Sometimes, it can bear disproportional legacies but never a predominant role -- unless it is a major component.

Maybe what you mean by the "ghost" is different from my reference -- namely, the rough +2% shown in Lipson et al. (2020) attributed to the deep West African lineage/s.

Granted, 'ghost,' similar to basal Eurasian are vague terms that lack clear parameters, certainly not enough precise qualitative discernment outside macro-time scale drift perspective. That is why the Shum Laka paper separates ghost modern, which is an internal non-archaic attribution from the ghost archaic, a clear older and generally not a major component in any of the extant groups, regardless if it shows an increasing presence among the West African variation.

I would think that if we were that differentiated, it would show itself in our haplogroups. Somehow we all conveniently belong to one deep lineage tree on the paternal and maternal with no archaic distinct uniparentals in the current human diversity.

[Jerome]

The problem with these examples is that Z is below 3.. Many people will not accept this examples as statistically significant.  The requirement is to have Z> 3.

No, that's the point, there are several East Eurasian populations which don't have significantly more Neanderthal than Iran, so there's no need for a lower Neanderthal Basal, as long as you don't force high Neanderthal Europeans into them. And from those stats I would also guess that the Anatolian/Natufian parent population does actually have some European admixture.

I was skeptical of Basal Eurasian for a while, and decided I would be convinced of it's existence if a sample was found meeting the following criteria.
1) Equally related to East-Eurasians, Paleolithic Europeans, and Ust-Ishim
2) Less related to all of the above than they are to each other
3) More related to hypothesized Basal Eurasian carrying populations

ZlatyKun checks boxes 1 and 2, and gets partial credit on 3. She is not more related to ancient Near Easterners, but... ancient Near Easterners are equally related to her and Ust-Ishim, and that is despite the majority of their ancestry being derived from populations with significant preference for Ust-Ishim, meaning, the 'Basal' portion has to be more ZlatyKun related to counterbalance.

What's going on with IBM is probably a separate phenomenon than BE. However, there is the matter that ZlatyKun is more related to Ust-Ishim than Iran_N are, meaning Iran_N is more 'Basal'. There are 2 simple ways of resolving that. Either 1) ZK = BE + some undifferentiated 'crown Eurasian', or 2) Iran_N has ZK-like BE, plus something even more Basal (which could be IBM-related).

What kind of lame Basal Eurasian is that if it's not more related to populations with Basal Eurasian?
It is basal in a way, just not what we're looking for, more like the undifferentiated early Eurasian Ust'-Ishim was thought to be.
So rerunning the Basal f-stats with it:

Code:

pop1    pop2    pop3    pop4    est    se    z    p    n
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    -0.011211485    0.000727954    -15.40135625    1.60E-53    495040
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Israel_Natufian_contam    -0.00307463    0.000854294    -3.599028348    0.000319408    254448
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    -0.000292403    0.000792452    -0.368985631    0.712138435    417232
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001805539    0.000624155    -2.892772527    0.003818577    493867
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Kostenki14    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    -0.010603615    0.000751687    -14.10643125    3.47E-45    519216
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Kostenki14    Israel_Natufian_contam    -0.00248992    0.000899673    -2.767583596    0.005647356    262659
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Kostenki14    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    0.000303433    0.000800846    0.378890575    0.704769124    435022
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Kostenki14    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001247553    0.000687364    -1.814981966    0.069526681    518137
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    -0.011393172    0.000830525    -13.71802839    7.92E-43    256781
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Israel_Natufian_contam    -0.002366398    0.001081062    -2.188957071    0.02859996    133818
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    0.000301645    0.000968891    0.311330156    0.755549645    215485
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001449651    0.000767333    -1.889207001    0.058864097    256042
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    -0.011627461    0.000782028    -14.86835158    5.29E-50    521997
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Israel_Natufian_contam    -0.003146805    0.000936899    -3.358746331    0.000782969    263124
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    -0.000272478    0.000874841    -0.311459822    0.755451083    436733
Cameroon_SMA    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.002167952    0.00075457    -2.873095032    0.004064718    520831

Iberomaurusian and Natufian are obvious, Pinarbasi is ~0. Iran is very close to significant, as expected if it was just a slightly earlier split, with maybe a bit of Natufian admixture?
To keep some hopes alive, with closer, haplogroup E outgroups:

Code:

Ethiopia_4500BP    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.002500162    0.000634907    -3.937837842    8.22E-05    594160
Ethiopia_4500BP    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.002554129    0.000744764    -3.429445081    0.000604817    391027
Ethiopia_4500BP    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001986818    0.000725395    -2.738948336    0.006163606    293441
Ethiopia_4500BP    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001940386    0.000767471    -2.528286968    0.011462062    622948
Yoruba.DG    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001964273    0.000556041    -3.532604444    0.000411488    927135
Yoruba.DG    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.002474731    0.000630034    -3.927932564    8.57E-05    520514
Yoruba.DG    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001540393    0.000554349    -2.778744424    0.005456944    514578
Yoruba.DG    Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG    Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    -0.001452546    0.000653141    -2.223941437    0.026152385    1024983

Some significant Z but looks more like just Zlaty Kun connection with Europeans.

Can you run these stats with chg (zlaty,Bacho,chg) included as a control for iran_n?

Also, couldn't slight SSA in iran_n be skewing the results?

I think basal was the Egyptian upper paleolithic people like nazlet khater and the early ahmarian people.

Egypt was in Africa and E could split from there and spread in both Africa and Levant.
It would also explain E in iberomaurisian.

And why Natufians show more diverse clades than iberomaurisians.

[Jerome]

What kind of lame Basal Eurasian is that if it's not more related to populations with Basal Eurasian?

What I was trying to illustrate regarding point 3 was this.
Congo_Mbuti.DG Sunghir.SG      ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00278  4.44  1127764
Congo_Mbuti.DG MA1.SG          ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00285  3.89  791393
Congo_Mbuti.DG Andaman_100BP.SG ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00289  4.22  1111692
Congo_Mbuti.DG Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG -0.00048 -0.75 1126449

If Iran_N is ~60% of it's ancestry from something in the neighborhood of Sunghir/MA1/Andaman, and there is no connection between ZlatyKun and Iran_N, shouldn't that last stat have 60% of the d-value of the first 3?

OK. But does AHG and Zlaty Kun show a certain connection like this? If that's the case, ZK (and possibly Ranis) may enter Europe through Anatolia. If not, then ZK may come from the Caucasus.

Anyway, Ust Ishim is likely to originate from Sistan or northwestern South Asia and migrated northward through Central Asia. The TMRCA difference of K2a and K2a1 is only a few hundred years, while K2a1 has a epicenter on the southern route, and all these below is a rapid process.

K2a-M2308
    K2a*  Ust Ishim
    K2a*  Oase
    K2a1-M2335
        "K2a1b"-Y28394
            K-Y28299  South Asia
            K-F14963  SE Asia
        "K2a1a"-M2311
            K-MF106925  SE Asia
            NO  East Asia

Last, Kolompar mentioned that some East Eurasian populations do not have significantly more Neanderthal than Iran. Maybe Onge/Oceanians? In this case, there may be some independent Neanderthal geneflow that enter East Asia through the northern route, leading to higher Neanderthal level in East Asians?

Ust ishim probably originated from the region you mentioned,there's lot of connection between UP central Asia(kalbulkian) and UP Siberia/North Asia(Kara-Bom and Ust ishim).

K1(LT) in iran_n probably hints to this too,that K diversified in somewhere around that region early on.

Also,what do you think about Haplo G in iran_n?
Dosent that mean the entire epicenter of GHIJK diversification was somewhere around that region?

Couldnt badarositan/Iran_n be some early kind of west Eurasian in this case(which could also explain the skewed statistics).

I mean IJK splits just 2000 years after G does from GHIJK and Iran_n has all G,J,K1

[Jerome]

 suspect that Kulbulakian might also be linked through Zagros Aurignacian but my hot take is that it was actually one of many Ancient North Eurasian cultures as it allegedly gave rise to the ANE heavy Tutkaulian culture during the Neolithic.

Thing is that tutkaulian gets extinct around mid LGM and the later stages show linkage to zarzian(post LGM iran) and then suddenly before the Holocene you start seeing ANE influence.

Whatever tutkaulian was likely died out and the area was repopulated by zarzian,which later mixed with ANE who came late before Holocene.

The early migrations of Ane to iran likely didn't affect the entire area,they likely moved west of aral sea

[Desdonas]

What I was trying to illustrate regarding point 3 was this.
Congo_Mbuti.DG Sunghir.SG      ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00278  4.44  1127764
Congo_Mbuti.DG MA1.SG          ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00285  3.89  791393
Congo_Mbuti.DG Andaman_100BP.SG ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG  0.00289  4.22  1111692
Congo_Mbuti.DG Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG ZlatyKun.SG Ust_Ishim.DG -0.00048 -0.75 1126449

If Iran_N is ~60% of it's ancestry from something in the neighborhood of Sunghir/MA1/Andaman, and there is no connection between ZlatyKun and Iran_N, shouldn't that last stat have 60% of the d-value of the first 3?

OK. But does AHG and Zlaty Kun show a certain connection like this? If that's the case, ZK (and possibly Ranis) may enter Europe through Anatolia. If not, then ZK may come from the Caucasus.

Anyway, Ust Ishim is likely to originate from Sistan or northwestern South Asia and migrated northward through Central Asia. The TMRCA difference of K2a and K2a1 is only a few hundred years, while K2a1 has a epicenter on the southern route, and all these below is a rapid process.

K2a-M2308
    K2a*  Ust Ishim
    K2a*  Oase
    K2a1-M2335
        "K2a1b"-Y28394
            K-Y28299  South Asia
            K-F14963  SE Asia
        "K2a1a"-M2311
            K-MF106925  SE Asia
            NO  East Asia

Last, Kolompar mentioned that some East Eurasian populations do not have significantly more Neanderthal than Iran. Maybe Onge/Oceanians? In this case, there may be some independent Neanderthal geneflow that enter East Asia through the northern route, leading to higher Neanderthal level in East Asians?

Ust ishim probably originated from the region you mentioned,there's lot of connection between UP central Asia(kalbulkian) and UP Siberia/North Asia(Kara-Bom and Ust ishim).

K1(LT) in iran_n probably hints to this too,that K diversified in somewhere around that region early on.

Also,what do you think about Haplo G in iran_n?
Dosent that mean the entire epicenter of GHIJK diversification was somewhere around that region?

Couldnt badarositan/Iran_n be some early kind of west Eurasian in this case(which could also explain the skewed statistics).

I mean IJK splits just 2000 years after G does from GHIJK and Iran_n has all G,J,K1

Yes. The Vallini 2024 paper suggests that Iran Plateau is the Hub of OoA population. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46161-7

Also, I think that G ended up in a deep-basal rich autosomal pool (pre-G may be ZK-like/ZK-similar phylogenetic position first?). While J represents a back-migration from West Eurasians. Iran_N may have five components: WE, ANE, Onge-like, Zlaty-Kun like and some deeper BE.

Regarding WE, except the traditional "Basal-West & East" model, some models here are "West=para-East+Basal". In the latter scenario, Iran may be the source of some basal-like geneflow in ancient WE populations (especially K14 and Sunghir). But the major "para-East" component may come from another separate route, and had already in Central/West Europe before the CI event.

However, I don't know the gap between K1 and K2. Southeast Asia is known for its Y-dna diversity (C,D,F2,K2), but K1 is totally absent. Also, ancient Near East lacks any K2 except the ANE-derived R2. Here I suggests two possible explanations:

1. When K* formed, it is still bidirectional, while K2* entered the Eastern side.

2. Some Onge-like geneflow did enter the Near East, but long time of bottleneck erased the uniparental evidence.

[old europe]

OK. But does AHG and Zlaty Kun show a certain connection like this? If that's the case, ZK (and possibly Ranis) may enter Europe through Anatolia. If not, then ZK may come from the Caucasus.

Anyway, Ust Ishim is likely to originate from Sistan or northwestern South Asia and migrated northward through Central Asia. The TMRCA difference of K2a and K2a1 is only a few hundred years, while K2a1 has a epicenter on the southern route, and all these below is a rapid process.

K2a-M2308
    K2a*  Ust Ishim
    K2a*  Oase
    K2a1-M2335
        "K2a1b"-Y28394
            K-Y28299  South Asia
            K-F14963  SE Asia
        "K2a1a"-M2311
            K-MF106925  SE Asia
            NO  East Asia

Last, Kolompar mentioned that some East Eurasian populations do not have significantly more Neanderthal than Iran. Maybe Onge/Oceanians? In this case, there may be some independent Neanderthal geneflow that enter East Asia through the northern route, leading to higher Neanderthal level in East Asians?

Ust ishim probably originated from the region you mentioned,there's lot of connection between UP central Asia(kalbulkian) and UP Siberia/North Asia(Kara-Bom and Ust ishim).

K1(LT) in iran_n probably hints to this too,that K diversified in somewhere around that region early on.

Also,what do you think about Haplo G in iran_n?
Dosent that mean the entire epicenter of GHIJK diversification was somewhere around that region?

Couldnt badarositan/Iran_n be some early kind of west Eurasian in this case(which could also explain the skewed statistics).

I mean IJK splits just 2000 years after G does from GHIJK and Iran_n has all G,J,K1

Yes. The Vallini 2024 paper suggests that Iran Plateau is the Hub of OoA population. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46161-7

Also, I think that G ended up in a deep-basal rich autosomal pool (pre-G may be ZK-like/ZK-similar phylogenetic position first?). While J represents a back-migration from West Eurasians. Iran_N may have five components: WE, ANE, Onge-like, Zlaty-Kun like and some deeper BE.

Regarding WE, except the traditional "Basal-West & East" model, some models here are "West=para-East+Basal". In the latter scenario, Iran may be the source of some basal-like geneflow in ancient WE populations (especially K14 and Sunghir). But the major "para-East" component may come from another separate route, and had already in Central/West Europe before the CI event.

However, I don't know the gap between K1 and K2. Southeast Asia is known for its Y-dna diversity (C,D,F2,K2), but K1 is totally absent. Also, ancient Near East lacks any K2 except the ANE-derived R2. Here I suggests two possible explanations:

1. When K* formed, it is still bidirectional, while K2* entered the Eastern side.

2. Some Onge-like geneflow did enter the Near East, but long time of bottleneck erased the uniparental evidence.

If proto aurignacian are considered as the para east it is confirmed that they arrived very early in western europe. I think proto aurignacian would be Fournol/Goyet like

An early Aurignacian arrival in southwestern
Europe
Miguel Cortés-Sánchez1,2
, Francisco J. Jiménez-Espejo 3,4
*, María D. Simón-Vallejo1,2

Westernmost Europe constitutes a key location in determining the timing of the replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans (AMHs). In this study, the replacement of late Mousterian industries by Aurignacian ones at the siteof Bajondillo Cave (Málaga, southern Spain) is reported. On the basis of Bayesian analyses, a total of 26 radiocarbon dates,including 17 new ones, show that replacement at Bajondillo took place in the millennia centring on ~45–43 calibrated thousand years before the present (cal ka bp)—well before the onset of Heinrich event 4 (~40.2–38.3 cal ka bp). These dates indicate that the arrival of AMHs at the southernmost tip of Iberia was essentially synchronous with that recorded in other regions of Europe,and significantly increases the areal expansion reached by early AMHs at that time. In agreement with human dispersal scenarios on other continents, such rapid expansion points to coastal corridors as favoured routes for early AMH. The new radiocarbon dates align Iberian chronologies with AMH dispersal patterns in Eurasia.

[pelop]

Also,what do you think about Haplo G in iran_n?
Dosent that mean the entire epicenter of GHIJK diversification was somewhere around that region?

Couldnt badarositan/Iran_n be some early kind of west Eurasian in this case(which could also explain the skewed statistics).

I mean IJK splits just 2000 years after G does from GHIJK and Iran_n has all G,J,K1

There's now 3 samples on the basal G2 branch G-FTB166 (25k years TMRCA):

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-FTB166/tree

The Turkish sample is partly Kurdish (based on GEDmatch autosomal matches) so it's likely he comes from SE Anatolia and the sample with the Saudi flag is actually from eastern Syria, close to the border with Iraq. I don't know where the Iraqi sample comes from. I checked the FTDNA block tree, it seems like the Turkish and the Iraqi samples will probably form a younger branch. I'd say the upper Mesopotamia-SE Anatolia-Zagros region has a very strong case for being the area where G2 came from.

We also have Shanidar in Iraq with an early G2a1 sample and Wezmeh in Iran with a G2b. 

But G overall is bottlenecked compared to HIJK (which diversified ~45-40k years ago), only having a 25k BC TMRCA. Was there some particular Paleolithic industry/culture that expanded ~30k-25k years ago in that part of West Asia?

[Jerome]

Also,what do you think about Haplo G in iran_n?
Dosent that mean the entire epicenter of GHIJK diversification was somewhere around that region?

Couldnt badarositan/Iran_n be some early kind of west Eurasian in this case(which could also explain the skewed statistics).

I mean IJK splits just 2000 years after G does from GHIJK and Iran_n has all G,J,K1

There's now 3 samples on the basal G2 branch G-FTB166 (25k years TMRCA):

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-FTB166/tree

The Turkish sample is partly Kurdish (based on GEDmatch autosomal matches) so it's likely he comes from SE Anatolia and the sample with the Saudi flag is actually from eastern Syria, close to the border with Iraq. I don't know where the Iraqi sample comes from. I checked the FTDNA block tree, it seems like the Turkish and the Iraqi samples will probably form a younger branch. I'd say the upper Mesopotamia-SE Anatolia-Zagros region has a very strong case for being the area where G2 came from.

We also have Shanidar in Iraq with an early G2a1 sample and Wezmeh in Iran with a G2b. 

But G overall is bottlenecked compared to HIJK (which diversified ~45-40k years ago), only having a 25k BC TMRCA. Was there some particular Paleolithic industry/culture that expanded ~30k-25k years ago in that part of West Asia?

Seems like the start of LGM and transitional phase between badarositan->zarzian.

A late TMRCA means G formed much later?(Or did it rexpand much later)?

[Jerome]

BTW, lazaridis in his 2016 study actually explored the idea that iran_n might have some kind of Ancestry which split after ust ishim but before kostenki.
He mentioned that this might be having a conflation with basal eurasian and that this is a possible idea that needs to be explored.
   

I think this is interesting, considering that how it might relate to haplogroup G-M201 and badarostian culture