African phylogeny (beginning...)

[IjustlikeHistory]

You said "While populations hypothesized of having Ancestral North African are closer to Sub Saharan Africans relatively? Which means Ancestral North African did not go through the Out of Africa bottleneck while Basal Eurasian did."

If there was gene flow exclusively from ANA to SSA in the early stages of the UP, 10-15k years after the separation of ANA from all other Eurasians, wouldn't it register as closer genetic links between ANA and SSA, even though ANA were part of the same original OOA migration?

That would only be the case if every single African had over 50% ANA ancestry which obviously is not the case. ANA was more related to Sub Saharan Africans even with 0% ANA. What separates Eurasians and Africans is the big bottleneck. ANA split before the bottleneck. Keep in mind that im talking about the 45% African admix in Taforalt and 12% in Natufians. I don't know if they received Aterian admix like Kale said but whatever they were the Ancestral North African admix in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans.

[Riverman]

That would only be the case if every single African had over 50% ANA ancestry which obviously is not the case. ANA was more related to Sub Saharan Africans even with 0% ANA. What separates Eurasians and Africans is the big bottleneck. ANA split before the bottleneck. Keep in mind that im talking about the 45% African admix in Taforalt and 12% in Natufians. I don't know if they received Aterian admix like Kale said but whatever they were the Ancestral North African admix in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans.

We first have to look at which African populations were present, as far as we can tell at this point.

We have modern archaic humans which split from Denisovans and Neandertals, possibly also other archaic humans, like Iwo Eleru in SSA.
The earliest moderns split from the old Africans in West and Central Africa, which contributed mainly to SSA moderns and are a crucial ingredient of their mix, especially in West and Central Africa.

The next split is from old South Africans, then East African ancients, which are already closer to ANA and ANA itself, which is the closest African regional, older component to Eurasians.
So we have multiple splits and layers.

Similar to some West Eurasian old components, ANA doesn't exist in an unmixed form. All the other ancient components are mixed as well.
Therefore on all continents, the old an ancestral components can't be just equated with the modern ones.

[Gentica277282]

That would only be the case if every single African had over 50% ANA ancestry which obviously is not the case. ANA was more related to Sub Saharan Africans even with 0% ANA. What separates Eurasians and Africans is the big bottleneck. ANA split before the bottleneck. Keep in mind that im talking about the 45% African admix in Taforalt and 12% in Natufians. I don't know if they received Aterian admix like Kale said but whatever they were the Ancestral North African admix in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans.

These sub Saharan Africans who have 0 percent ana which populations are they?

[Woozler]

E coalesces ~15kbp after is splits from D, and E being signature of most SSA and ANA you would think that 15k years would accrue some drift, but we don't see it.
A simple explanation in my view is that ANA absorbed a deeper lineage that distanced them from their nearest relatives. Good placement and timing for candidates would be remnant Aterians.

But Aterians are extremely old, far older than hg E (the Aterian starts around 150-130k ybp). Plus, I think there's a gap of something like 10,000 years between the last Middle Stone Age sites and initial Upper Paleolithic cultures everywhere in N Africa, including Egypt and the Maghreb. Plus, craniometrically, the Aterians seem to be quite distinct from any later population:



Wouldn't all of this suggest that the likelier scenario is that the Aterians went extinct without making a significant contribution to any later population, probably like the Skhul/Qafzeh early modern humans in present-day Israel, who were probably related to the Aterians?

Or, alternatively, they played a far bigger role in the peopling of both Africa and Eurasia than is currently thought.

I think Chad's terminology was quite accurate before ANA became the go to term, he called it 'para-Eurasian'. OOA and 'para-Eurasian' at 65-80kbp would be the same population, mt-L3, y-CF and DE.
OOA = L3 subclades M and N, y-CF and D1'2
Para-Eurasian = other L3 subclades, y-D0 and E

I'm just wondering how defensible from genetic evidence is the theory that the OoA event occurred around 85-75 kya, earlier than is currently generally thought, and that "ANA" thus represents an early split of this population, characterized by the DE Y-DNA hg. Presumably, they would be living somewhere in the Middle East around 50-60 kya (the Levant or the currently submerged areas of the Persian Gulf?) and that Taforalt, like the Natufians, are thus just a mixture of that "ANA" (really, UP Middle Eastern) population admixed with the "Aurignacian" (West Eurasian) element that was probably intrusive into the Middle East, appearing first around 35k ybp. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any human fossils from most of the UP in the Middle East.

[Kale]

But Aterians are extremely old, far older than hg E (the Aterian starts around 150-130k ybp). Plus, I think there's a gap of something like 10,000 years between the last Middle Stone Age sites and initial Upper Paleolithic cultures everywhere in N Africa, including Egypt and the Maghreb. Plus, craniometrically, the Aterians seem to be quite distinct from any later population:

Maybe Aterians were the culprit of A00. Not thinking they made a huge contribution to Taforalt, single digit percentage-wise.

[IjustlikeHistory]

We first have to look at which African populations were present, as far as we can tell at this point.

We have modern archaic humans which split from Denisovans and Neandertals, possibly also other archaic humans, like Iwo Eleru in SSA.
The earliest moderns split from the old Africans in West and Central Africa, which contributed mainly to SSA moderns and are a crucial ingredient of their mix, especially in West and Central Africa.

The next split is from old South Africans, then East African ancients, which are already closer to ANA and ANA itself, which is the closest African regional, older component to Eurasians.
So we have multiple splits and layers.

Similar to some West Eurasian old components, ANA doesn't exist in an unmixed form. All the other ancient components are mixed as well.
Therefore on all continents, the old an ancestral components can't be just equated with the modern ones.

The point was that the 45% ghost ANA ancestry in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans than Eurasians while Basal Eurasian is not. We can tell by how much populations with that ancestry shift towards Africa compared to Gravettians etc. It basically belongs to the African cluster. Basal Eurasian must be vastly different than Ancestral North African. People often confuse them as being related because they appear the closest on the qpGraph tree splits.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

The point was that the 45% ghost ANA ancestry in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans than Eurasians while Basal Eurasian is not. We can tell by how much populations with that ancestry shift towards Africa compared to Gravettians etc. It basically belongs to the African cluster. Basal Eurasian must be vastly different than Ancestral North African. People often confuse them as being related because they appear the closest on the qpGraph tree splits.

Theoretically assuming Mbuti and South Africans are African with no Eurasian ancestry, the f4 stat Mbuti/South African Chimp target Zlaty Kun should tell if the population has African ancestry. The f4 stat Zlaty Kun Chimp Mbuti/South African target tells if the population has Eurasian ancestry.

[Riverman]

The point was that the 45% ghost ANA ancestry in Taforalt is definitely more related to Sub Saharan Africans than Eurasians while Basal Eurasian is not. We can tell by how much populations with that ancestry shift towards Africa compared to Gravettians etc. It basically belongs to the African cluster. Basal Eurasian must be vastly different than Ancestral North African. People often confuse them as being related because they appear the closest on the qpGraph tree splits.

They are closer by distance to each other and Eurasians than to older layers of inhabitants in SS Africa though. Because they split much later from each other.

[Kale]

Theoretically assuming Mbuti and South Africans are African with no Eurasian ancestry, the f4 stat Mbuti/South African Chimp target Zlaty Kun should tell if the population has African ancestry. The f4 stat Zlaty Kun Chimp Mbuti/South African target tells if the population has Eurasian ancestry.

Such a stat will show all populations having African ancestry due to ZlatyKun's age and/or higher archaic levels.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

Such a stat will show all populations having African ancestry due to ZlatyKun's age and/or higher archaic levels.

I don't think the age itself should affect the stat that much and the Neanderthal ancestry could be accounted for by say plotting the stat Chimp Neanderthal African target alongside it