Is it correct that the main component that makes up both iberomaurusian and natufian is dzudzuana? Also can you break down what dzudzuana actually is? Is it ANE+UHG?
Are Iberomaurusian and Natufian for the most part dzudzuana-like?
- Thread starter land owner
- Start date
The alchemist
VIP
a) Conservative. b) Speculative.
AG3 is a group genetically similar to ANE.
Villabruna is a mainland European cluster. Members of that cluster are also called WHG and were the main pre-agricultural Europeans.
"The proportion of ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry."
Dzudzuana is a mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage. Natufians and Taforalt can both be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
@land owner
AG3 is a group genetically similar to ANE.
Villabruna is a mainland European cluster. Members of that cluster are also called WHG and were the main pre-agricultural Europeans.
"The proportion of ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry."
Dzudzuana is a mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage. Natufians and Taforalt can both be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
@land owner
Is MA1 suppose to be ANE? It shows it being pretty much 3/4th’s west eurasian and 1/4th tianyuan. I thought ANE descended from Ancient south eurasian
Do you think basal eurasian could’ve been an offshoot of ANA rather than a basal human offshoot?
The alchemist
VIP
Yes, and Ma-1 was related to the ancestral Ancient North Siberians, such as the Yana individuals found in northeastern Siberia.
Previously, most of the information gathered about the ghost populations was inferred by statistical probability, through indirect scattered information with correlating groups, but later substantiated with human remains. Still, the paleolithic Siberian demographic processes are mostly unknown.
They were distantly related to early Western Eurasian hunter-gatherers and subsequently got some gene flow from early East Asians not long after divergence.
That would make us at least 85% African when you add up the nilote, paleo HG and ANA
What is a dzudzuana? Where did they come from
Not fond of G25 - so just a heads up on that. These G25 runs are just getting at things I usually get from other modeling - I strongly prefer formal stats then situating how situating coords work out with each other.
I was curious trying to model IBM, I'll post despite the very bad stats just to get a conversation moving/
Target: MAR_Taforalt:TAF009
Distance: 29.8965% / 0.29896525
62.6 RUS_Kostenki14
37.4 Hadza
This is the best I could get from UP and Mesolithic European input. It prefers Kostenski/Sunghir than Goyet, and Goyet than Villabruna-related.
I did predict that it would prefer Kostenski and Gravettian and Goyet-related than Villabruna-cluster though, like here -
Target: MAR_Taforalt:TAF009
Distance: 30.5712% / 0.30571186
59.4 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
40.6 Hadza
So it just doesn't seem to prefer any Villabruna over the Sunghir-related UP Europeans, which can be confusing to some here, seeing as it was not Gravettian in the Levant. But as I expected, Epigravettians are clearly carrying something else, more related to Natufians. And a lot if not the majority of Somali Eurasian input is clearly not Natufian or Levantine-like, but predates it and seems archaic west Eurasian in nature and lacks the Eastern non-African admix pervasive throughout all modern west Eurasian populations.
I am to get ahold of the recent Sicillian Mesolithic HG as they are one of the most extremely situated WHG I've seen. I think this means they peak in the non-Eastern non-Africa West Eurasian ancestry that makes WHG so unique. But I instead had to just deal with the Villanova and Villabruna WHG samples from to get a very good basal WHG sample, and this was what I got:
Here I see if there is a preference for Anatolia which is Dzudzuana-like over WHG, and it favors Anatolia-like -
Now let's check Anatolia vs Kostenski UP-related.
In these models, it is split between Kostenski-like and Anatolia-like. I think a mid-ground between the two is approximating Dzudzuana type ancestry.
Kostenski will represent the Gravettian component which has a weak association with mtdna U6 and M1 and mtdna N1b2 like some Somalis. Kostenski and the Gravettians have significant archeological similarities with the culture of the Dzudzuana samples.
I then checked if it prefers Anatolia Neolithic over Anatolia HG, and as expected the cline in the Natufian-shift in the Anatolia samples may have made it prefer Barcin over the Boncuklu samples, and Pinarbasi over Barcin, despite IBM admix in the latter.
But it clearly looks like there is something more shifted towards what I expect to be UP Dzudzuana, so I checked with Kostenski seeing as my inclusion of it made the prior model to this have a slightly better fit.
In these models, it is split between Kostenski-like and Anatolia-like. I think a mid-ground between the two is approximating Dzudzuana
Compare to Barcin + Kostenski:
Let me see later what I get with qpadm.
And obvs Dinka has IBM-like input. I can't get a good fit with Hadza, as I expect with G25. I think formal stats/qpAdm will better get that edge fit in like the Taforalt paper.
I always thought Basal was straight cap. It peaks in areas that tend to have soaked up the deepest African influences.
Basal Eurasian is constantly revised and lowered, the Anatolians and Natufians went from almost deriving half to almost relatively nothing from Basal Eurasian with the arrival of the IBM and Dzudzuana papers.
I predict that all Europeans have some degree of low-level but consistent IBM ancestry via IBM-> Natufian/Levant Neolithic -> Anatolian neolithic migrants.
I actually saw this in the Dzudzuana paper:
This insane denial of ancient Dinka- and Somali-like admix in Eurasia is insane, and people were resorting to even making up things like peri-Eurasian, para-Eurasian, all which by definition the bulk of non-Eurasian ancestry in Somalis and Dinka qualifies.
I expect a cline of IBM ancestry in Europe, highest in southern Euros and West Asians, and lower in areas with higher Meso Euro and Eastern non-African ancestry towards Northeast Europe and Anatolia
I was curious trying to model IBM, I'll post despite the very bad stats just to get a conversation moving/
Target: MAR_Taforalt:TAF009
Distance: 29.8965% / 0.29896525
62.6 RUS_Kostenki14
37.4 Hadza
This is the best I could get from UP and Mesolithic European input. It prefers Kostenski/Sunghir than Goyet, and Goyet than Villabruna-related.
I did predict that it would prefer Kostenski and Gravettian and Goyet-related than Villabruna-cluster though, like here -
Target: MAR_Taforalt:TAF009
Distance: 30.5712% / 0.30571186
59.4 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
40.6 Hadza
So it just doesn't seem to prefer any Villabruna over the Sunghir-related UP Europeans, which can be confusing to some here, seeing as it was not Gravettian in the Levant. But as I expected, Epigravettians are clearly carrying something else, more related to Natufians. And a lot if not the majority of Somali Eurasian input is clearly not Natufian or Levantine-like, but predates it and seems archaic west Eurasian in nature and lacks the Eastern non-African admix pervasive throughout all modern west Eurasian populations.
I am to get ahold of the recent Sicillian Mesolithic HG as they are one of the most extremely situated WHG I've seen. I think this means they peak in the non-Eastern non-Africa West Eurasian ancestry that makes WHG so unique. But I instead had to just deal with the Villanova and Villabruna WHG samples from to get a very good basal WHG sample, and this was what I got:
Here I see if there is a preference for Anatolia which is Dzudzuana-like over WHG, and it favors Anatolia-like -
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Now let's check Anatolia vs Kostenski UP-related.
In these models, it is split between Kostenski-like and Anatolia-like. I think a mid-ground between the two is approximating Dzudzuana type ancestry.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Kostenski will represent the Gravettian component which has a weak association with mtdna U6 and M1 and mtdna N1b2 like some Somalis. Kostenski and the Gravettians have significant archeological similarities with the culture of the Dzudzuana samples.
I then checked if it prefers Anatolia Neolithic over Anatolia HG, and as expected the cline in the Natufian-shift in the Anatolia samples may have made it prefer Barcin over the Boncuklu samples, and Pinarbasi over Barcin, despite IBM admix in the latter.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
But it clearly looks like there is something more shifted towards what I expect to be UP Dzudzuana, so I checked with Kostenski seeing as my inclusion of it made the prior model to this have a slightly better fit.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
In these models, it is split between Kostenski-like and Anatolia-like. I think a mid-ground between the two is approximating Dzudzuana
Compare to Barcin + Kostenski:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Let me see later what I get with qpadm.
And obvs Dinka has IBM-like input. I can't get a good fit with Hadza, as I expect with G25. I think formal stats/qpAdm will better get that edge fit in like the Taforalt paper.
I always thought Basal was straight cap. It peaks in areas that tend to have soaked up the deepest African influences.
Basal Eurasian is constantly revised and lowered, the Anatolians and Natufians went from almost deriving half to almost relatively nothing from Basal Eurasian with the arrival of the IBM and Dzudzuana papers.
I predict that all Europeans have some degree of low-level but consistent IBM ancestry via IBM-> Natufian/Levant Neolithic -> Anatolian neolithic migrants.
I actually saw this in the Dzudzuana paper:
This insane denial of ancient Dinka- and Somali-like admix in Eurasia is insane, and people were resorting to even making up things like peri-Eurasian, para-Eurasian, all which by definition the bulk of non-Eurasian ancestry in Somalis and Dinka qualifies.
I expect a cline of IBM ancestry in Europe, highest in southern Euros and West Asians, and lower in areas with higher Meso Euro and Eastern non-African ancestry towards Northeast Europe and Anatolia
Where did these dzudzuana people come from? We’re they ancient Georgian people? I googled it and found a Georgian cave
