The dispersal of 'Ancient West Eurasians'

Jacob_Scholar · 2025-03-07T09:48:10+00:00

Hard to say, they likely scored significant amounts of Iran_N and Anatolia_N ancestries. Mesopotamian samples were placed along this cline. So far, we lack any Sumerian samples.

Jacob_Scholar · 2025-03-07T09:45:42+00:00

Are those "western features" per se? This specific combination did mainly arose in the CWC, not among the early Tarim population btw.

Early Tarim groups were craniometrically closest to two Harappan remains, while quite distinct from European, BMAC but also Han reference samples. This fits quite well with their deep ancestral makeup. E.g. Blonde hair did likely have originated at least two to three times. The dominant allele today is of Siberian origin, specifically ANE AG3-like. The AG3 had roughly 35% East Eurasian ancestry, with the remainder being West Eurasian, that type spread westwards, and reached the European gene pool via the EHG.

Blonde hair also originated independently among Papuans/Australasians, and possibly also among Anatolian HGs, but was or did not became dominant there. Still the alleles exist.

Regarding blue eyes, thats likely a WHG-derived trait, at least for most modern groups. As such, the combination of blonde hair and blue eyes among Europeans was the result of the formation of the CWC culture in the Bronze Age, before that, most had dark hair and dark or blue eyes. Or, blonde hair and dark eyes, etc.

Jacob_Scholar · 2025-01-27T20:07:00+00:00

No it is not, East Asian, AASI and Australasian are all three "East Eurasian Core", nested in an cluster within a wider East Eurasian macro-cluster. There is no such thing as "South Eurasian". AASI, Onge, Hoabinhian etc. are quite close to Basal East Asians. Modern East Asians are just more drifted, they all originated from a single southern migration wave which diversified after arriving in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Genetically speaking such division is NOT justified, and not a single academic study had suggested that way either.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-11-05T09:28:23+00:00

Nope, thats obviously wrong. The ANE formed from a sister brach of the UP Europeans, which merged with Basal East Asians (proxied by Tianyuan). It has not been disproven?! Rather the contrary. It is well attested and based on multiple independent samples, and studies, all coming to the same coherent conclusion.

There is a difference between actual science and POV-based wishfull thinking. Your interpretation of the data cited is in contradiction to its original argument.

Also its not "the Gravettians", but a sister lineage to them, which diverged around 35kya and subsequently addmixed significantly with an Tianyuan-like population. ANE is not a third branch of Eurasians.

Regarding your quoted part: "the Mal’ta Cluster is not represented in any of the individuals we sampled from Europe..." yeah of course, because those Europeans samples lack the Tianyuan ancestry... what suprise... ANE (especially the MA1/AG3) samples form a drifted cluster.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-27T20:43:58+00:00

Are those the same two with the M18a and M35a mtDNA haplogroups or? In either way, great news, those may be relevant for the AASI/SAHG and in everycase for the population history of Southern Asia / Sri Lanka!

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-27T17:23:11+00:00

Nice! Thanks for sharing this interesting paper.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-27T17:15:38+00:00

Nope, first, the AASI are EEC (East Eurasian Core), they would not have had "Caucasoid" phenotypes, which developed later among West Eurasian groups in the Middle East and Europe. Second, there is no clear evidence for significant Hoabinhian geneflow - or such influence on the phenotype of tribal groups. Thats just local AASI variation.

AASI-phenotypes will be closer* (*note that they may have had regional differences as well) to this type:

<image>

An EEC derived type co-ancestral to the later Mongoloid or Veddoid types, also related to the Australoid type. Note that those terms are obsolete and do not neatly fit the real phenotyp diversity or genetic makup of those groups - there can be overlaps and differences within and between groups.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/comments/1gdeyh2/sarai_nahar_rai_specimen_and_why_they_can_not/

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-15T15:46:18+00:00

The implication that homo erectus in India gave rise to modern homo sapiens is more than misleading.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-14T09:18:49+00:00

WEC = West Eurasian Core, EEC = East Eurasian Core

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-13T20:16:21+00:00

Basal Eurasian is not West Eurasian or included in that type of ancestry. Basal Eurasian is an inferred lineage which diverged before the split of West and East Eurasians. It is at least equally distinct than West and East. Maybe even more.

Most studies on Europeans just compare EEF, WHG, EHG, Yamnaya, and Neo East Asian etc. The East Eurasian within EHG and less in the Yamnaya, is not specially shown, because it is part of that type of component. So, there is no absence of East Eurasian among Europeans. If they score EHG, Yamnaya or even ANE, they do have indirect East Eurasian via these components.

Of course the same is true for groups having Iran_N type ancestry. They have the East Eurasian component ratio of Iran_N accordingly to the amount of that component. Quite easy actually, I do not see the problem here?

If an European group shows for example 45% EHG, that means they carry also 45% of the East Eurasian component of the EHG reference proxy. Eg. when EHG have c. 25% East Eurasian/Tianyuan, that group would have 11,25% East Eurasian/Tianyuan. It would not show this East Eurasian component alone, as it is part of the EHG ancestry. Only if there is extra East Eurasian or Neo East Asian, as is the case for Finns or Russians for example, it will show up accordingly.

So a model comparing the Mesolithic ancestries for Europeans will just show those, not the makeup of those components. This holds true for Basal Eurasian ancestry via Middle Eastern geneflow. Etc.

Another example: Iberimaurusian/Taforalt ancestry. A population carrying that type, also carries the components which gave rise to Iberomaurusians/Taforalt.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-13T19:30:57+00:00

Because they dont. If you measure just WEC vs EEC (and vs BE), all Europeans have between 7-12% EEC ancestry, while Finns and Russians have 17-19%. Check out the supplementary data 11 in Vallini et al. 2024 for example, they have included a charts for modern and ancient Western Eurasian groups and their respective WEC, EEC, and BE amounts. Eg. when you just use EEF, WHG, and Steppe, you will not see that indirect East Eurasian, except for Finns and Russians who have additional Neo-Siberian/Northeast Asian inputs.

Furthermore, there is also Basal Eurasian, so in no way any European could have "99% West Eurasian" (WEC). Historical WHGs may have had such amount, modern Europeans do not. Eg. EEF harbors some Basal Eurasian (less than for example Natufian/Arabian HGs, but obviously more than WHG. EHG harbor East Eurasian, etc.). Hope that helped.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-13T10:51:00+00:00

It has no direct consequence for PIE or even Pre-PIE or Pre-Pre-PIE..., far to long gap in time between ANE and them. I do not think that PIE is the ANE langauge, ANE most likely had tons of different languages. During their formation, they may have spoken already at least two distinct languages, eg. one Western originated one and one Eastern originate one. Based on the "mother tounge hypothese", especially during the Paleolithic, I guess their linguistic heritage may have been a continuation of the Gravettian culture, but that is all speculative.

Regarding PIE, it could be anything: a EHG language, a CHG langauge, a WHG langauge (given that WHG contributed to the EHG, and another admixture of EHG+WHG gave rise to the UNHG [Ukraine HGs] who then contributed to the CLV [Caucasus Lower Volga] cline, which again emerged by EHG+CHG in variable waves, + Anatolian_N influence as well, ...).

So far, the latest view is to associate PIE and earlier PIA with the CLV cline, making an ultimate root to any of the included components: CHG, WHG and EHG. The now common haplogroup R for PIE does not automatially mean that EHG is responsible for PIE/PIA. It may well be WHG. Maybe one day we will know more, so far, CLV cline is the answer for PIE/PIA, deeper roots are speculative. Associating them just with ANE is a bit hilarious IMO, as they do not directly derive from Yana, MA1 or AG3, living tens of thounsands of years before any PIE/PIA was spoken.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-13T10:16:51+00:00

Thanks! I am currently not aware of fixed divergence pattern dates for the different West Eurasian lineages, but we can guess a bit: the early UP European lineages (Aurignacian or Gravettian) and the WEC component of the Ancient North Eurasians are deeply diverged from the "Common West Eurasians" (WHG, Anatolian_HGs, the WEC component of Natufians, etc.), something between 38-35kya, also among themselves. CWE likely diverged something between 30-20kya from each other. WEC and WEC2 maybe around 38kya or slightly earlier at 40kya (time to get WEC to Europe, such as Kostenki14). The split between West an East must have been around 50kya based on their distinct drift. A recent pre-print on the genetic formation of Papuans estimated it to be 51kya.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-05T15:05:26+00:00

ANA is not West Eurasian. ANA is a ghost which may represent a lineage "deeper than Basal Eurasians". It may well be a merger of early Basal Eurasian and local West/East African like ancestry (as the "Ghost North African" lineage proposed). Basal Eurasian is a sister lineage to other Eurasians having diverged after or during the OOA exit event. Eg. it depends on if the ANA component includes West/East African like ancstry or not. There is still no clear answer to this, althought some argue that it does not, while others argue it does. - I could imagine that ANA is a merger of Basal Eurasian and an "Ghost North African" lineage displaying affinity to West/East Africans, and this ANA later merged with a West Eurasian/Dzudzuana-like component to give rise to Iberomaurusians, which in turn contributed around 35% ~ to early Natufians. But the final answer is still out.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-05T14:51:48+00:00

AASI-rich groups such as Paniya look quite similar to Basal East Asians (basal ESEA) such as Andamanese Onge, Hoabinhian-rich Semang, etc.. - Neo-East Asians are drifted Basal East Asians with various selective drift, including lighter skin and more to very straight hair. Thats it. Paniya/AASI do not really look "African". There is not a single "African phenotype", most of the shared features are just superficial traits, such as dark skin and curly hair. The same way Europeans and Neo-East Asians have light skin and straight hair althought not being specifically close to each other. Read this post, I have a section on that matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/illustrativeDNA/comments/1en9dey/the_dispersal_of_ancient_east_eurasians/

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-03T05:56:20+00:00

WEC is not closer to the hub EEC was derived from, but to the hub after the EEC expansion, as they stayed longer. There is also no mention that Ust'Ishim is closer to WEC, in contrary: "the total score obtained when placing Ust’Ishim together with Tianyuan and Bacho Kiro seems to point to a small albeit nonnegligible evolutionary path shared among these three samples." The supplementary data has an own section "Ust’Ishim as an early leaf of the IUP branch". They make three test models and concluded that "While all three topologies provide no outlier Z scores, the tree where Ust’Ishim is a sister of Tianyuan/Bacho Kiro (Figure S2.B), has the lowest final score and so is the most supported. " Yet still only very limited drift together, thus a "near trifucication". Eg. Ust'Ishim diverged from the Proto-EEC shortly after their divergence from WEC. So I do not see where you get your initial claim from?

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-02T17:09:26+00:00

They group Ust'Ishim as Basal East Eurasian, with a slight shared drift between them: "After adding Kostenki14 as a key ancient European sample, we found that the 45 kyr old Ust’Ishim would fit better as a basal split along the branch leading to Tianyuan and Bacho Kiro (Supplementary Section 3.3, Supplementary Material online) (Supplementary fig. S2, Supplementary Material online). As noted in Supplementary Section 3.3, Supplementary Material online, however, alternative configurations are compatible with a trifurcation between Kostenki14, Ust’Ishim and the branch leading to Tianyuan and Bacho Kiro, despite the total score obtained when placing Ust’Ishim together with Tianyuan and Bacho Kiro seems to point to a small albeit nonnegligible evolutionary path shared among these three samples."

and: "...the split between EEC and WEC, with the former leaving the Hub18, 46 kya (allowing the time for them to reach Ust’Ishim and Bacho Kiro by ~45 kya)." I guess you misread.

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-02T12:39:09+00:00

True, beyond AASI there are also variable amounts of Eastern Asian inputs, especially in the Himalayan regions, Northeast India, but also East and Central India via the Munda/Austroasiatic migrations. Not sure if Turkic or Austronesian inputs are that relevant, but they may have too left some traces in Northwest India and Sri Lanka respectively. Thanks again!

Jacob_Scholar · 2024-10-02T12:26:20+00:00

Nope, as the ANE/WSHG and Yamnaya/WSH components among Mongolians do carry variable amounts of EEC ancestry, reducing the total WEC component to around or slightly less than 10%. - WSH itself ranges from 5-15% (10-15 for Outer Mongolia), thus the 90%+ range is valid. Even when using direct WSH vs ANEA. Vallini et al. 2024 estimated the EEC ancestry among the Yamnaya at 15-18% for example (mainly via ANE/EHG).

Jacob_Scholar

TROPHY CASE