The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

[Riverman]

Fairly new from where exactly? And how is "New" defined in age?

Good question. The where is quite likely Near East and/or North East Africa, but when is more difficult to answer. But I'd guess, just a guess, it wasn't there for longer than 10.000 BP.

[beyoku]

Good question. The where is quite likely Near East and/or North East Africa, but when is more difficult to answer. But I'd guess, just a guess, it wasn't there for longer than 10.000 BP.

You should take into consideration that He was Mtdna L3x quite localized to the HOA and M329 also pretty local.
Both being about 35-40 thousand years old. He also contained high altitude genetic adaptation to the Ethiopian highlands.

None of these facts support in North African southern migration and most definitely not a Near Eastern one.
Then again, perhaps it is very possibly that Mota type ancestry is autochthonous to North East Africa and the Near East.

[Riverman]

You should take into consideration that He was Mtdna L3x quite localized to the HOA and M329 also pretty local.
Both being about 35-40 thousand years old. He also contained high altitude genetic adaptation to the Ethiopian highlands.

Local today, but the adaptations are an argument indeed. However, Mota is no "pure newcomer", but a locally admixed one after a couple of thousands years in place. The origin is of course not directly from the Near East, but with a stopover in North East Africa, if not being from there directly.

[blackflash16]

Good question. The where is quite likely Near East and/or North East Africa, but when is more difficult to answer. But I'd guess, just a guess, it wasn't there for longer than 10.000 BP.

That seems unlikely. The Malawi HG (~8000BP) from Skoglund 2017 have nearly half their ancestry from a Mota-like population and no evidence of recent admixture.

Are you associating ANA/Neo-African-like ancestry exclusively with E/L3? BT/L3'4'6 seem like better candidates to me (maybe L2 as well and to a lesser extent L5). Most L3 lineages are deeply rooted in the horn/Rift-Valley, as are almost all L4 and L6 lineages, so any theory involving a "new" introduction would have to allow enough time for these lineages to diversify into what we see today, certainly much longer than 10,000 years.

[Ryukendo]

Some quick comments about the OoA bottleneck and facts about the phylogenetic relationships of IBM that are clear as of now:

Both the length of divergence and the size of the bottleneck probably had some role to play in the accumulation of drift among Eurasians vs Africans, the bottleneck was severe enough as to reduce heterozygosity in a single step among all Eurasians vis-a-vis Africans (i.e. serial founder effects post-OoA still matter somewhat but nothing mattered more than the original founder effect) and enriched weakly deleterious mutations throughout all Eurasians vs Africans, and Africans have by far the most population-specific variants, but its also true that the population divergence is very old and probably on par with divergences within Africa (i.e. there are also some private Eurasian-specific variants); the fact that its not clear exactly which African population best preserves an element closely related to the OoA expansion should also tell us as much.

The original paper introducing Taforalt had a very clever and clean graphic which was incredibly illuminating even on its own:

We know that all populations in Eurasia have their relationship with IBM increase monotonically as their relationship with Natufians increase. I.e. we have no indication that its possible for Eurasians to get closer to Natufian without getting closer to IBM. However, this isn't the case for Sub-Saharan Africans: within them there is no such linear relationship. I.e., it is actually possible for a SSA group to increase in affinity to IBM without increasing their affinity to Natufian. This rules out purely IBM --> SSA (its either IBM<-->SSA or IBM<--SSA). As it is, we know at least some of the ancestry of IBM (and probably quite a lot) forms a clade with the bulk of the ancestry of some groups of present-day Africans to the exclusion of Natufian and also characterizes those present-day Africans to the exclusion of other Africans, i.e. among modern populations this ancestry is characteristic first and foremost of a subgroup of present-day Africans. Secondly, from this we at least know that the distribution of this ancestry in Africa is not perfectly correlated with Natufian ancestry or IBM ancestry, i.e. the "African" side of IBM has its own admixture history among the populations of Africa independent of whatever IBM and Natufian went through.

[Echo]

Some Africans, the bottleneck was severe enough as to reduce the some private Eurasian-specific variants); the fact that its not clear exactly which African population best preserves an element closely related to the OoA expansion should also tell us as much.

We know that all populations in Eurasia have their relationship with IBM increase monotonically as their relationship with Natufians increase. I.e. we have no indication that its possible for Eurasians to get closer to Natufian without getting closer to IBM. However, this isn't the case for Sub-Saharan Africans: within them there is no such linear relationship. I.e., it is actually possible for a SSA group to increase in affinity to IBM without increasing their affinity to Natufian. This rules out purely IBM --> SSA (its either IBM<-->SSA or IBM<--SSA). As it is, we know at least some of the ancestry of IBM (and probably quite a lot) forms a clade with some groups of present-day Africans to the exclusion of Natufian and also characterizes those present-day Africans to the exclusion of other Africans, i.e. among modern populations this ancestry is characteristic first and foremost of a subgroup of present-day Africans. Secondly, from this we at least know that the distribution of this ancestry in Africa is not perfectly correlated with Natufian ancestry or IBM ancestry, i.e. the "African" side of IBM has its own admixture history among the populations of Africa independent of whatever IBM and Natufian went through.

I would say West Africans have some IBM ancestry, this is constently showed up by positive Neanderthal alleles, but it has little do with the ANA within IBM and Natufian groups.

And that the fact modern SSA populations have some sizeable admixture from neo-clades, clades closer to ANA and Eurasians than deeper and divergent clades they also carry, has little to do with proper IBM gene flow and later post-Neolithic Eurasian gene flow in SSA populations.

So we should separate things clearly when arguing over this.

If we take East Africa for example, the situation is more complicated than in West Africa. East Africa and South Africa has thousands of groups of different lifestyle with various post-Neolithic Eurasian ancestries that range from Khoisans in Namibia to Maasais in Kenya.

[Ryukendo]

deleted.

[maroco]

I would say West Africans have some IBM ancestry, this is constently showed up by positive Neanderthal alleles, but it has little do with the ANA within IBM and Natufian groups.

And that the fact modern SSA populations have some sizeable admixture from neo-clades, clades closer to ANA and Eurasians than deeper and divergent clades they also carry, has little to do with proper IBM gene flow and later post-Neolithic Eurasian gene flow in SSA populations.

So we should separate things clearly when arguing over this.

If we take East Africa for example, the situation is more complicated than in West Africa. East Africa and South Africa has thousands of groups of different lifestyle with various post-Neolithic Eurasian ancestries that range from Khoisans in Namibia to Maasais in Kenya.

West Africans do have ibm, around 12 to 13 percent

[Mnemonics]

Out of curiosity, how much IBM do modern North Africans have using qpAdm?

The Mozabites seem to be in the 30-18 range. It seems to fluctuate pretty wildly depending on which populations I use for the models. This is excluding all the Iberomaurusian in Levantine populations. I don't we will be able to get a clearer picture until we can get a more pristinely ANA sample.

[Echo]

The Mozabites seem to be in the 30-18 range. It seems to fluctuate pretty wildly depending on which populations I use for the models. This is excluding all the Iberomaurusian in Levantine populations. I don't we will be able to get a clearer picture until we can get a more pristinely ANA sample.

It's not that easy to model them indeed but yeah they are most likely within this ballpark.

G25 spreedsheet.

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01255
Distance: 2.6122% / 0.02612177
37.4 Iberia_N
19.2 MAR_Taforalt
15.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
13.4 Yoruba
13.2 Levant_PPNB
1.0 Levant_Natufian

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01255
Distance: 4.2356% / 0.04235623
45.2 TUR_Barcin_N
22.8 MAR_Taforalt
16.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
11.6 Yoruba
4.4 Levant_Natufian

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01254
Distance: 4.3738% / 0.04373845
37.4 TUR_Barcin_N
32.0 MAR_Taforalt
11.4 Levant_Natufian
10.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.2 Yoruba

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01253
Distance: 3.0094% / 0.03009409
45.6 TUR_Barcin_N
36.2 MAR_Taforalt
9.0 Yoruba
7.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.0 Levant_Natufian
1.0 Levant_PPNB

Guanches.

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun008
Distance: 2.9125% / 0.02912505
36.4 Iberia_N
25.4 MAR_Taforalt
13.8 Levant_Natufian
11.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.6 Yoruba
5.2 Levant_PPNB
1.4 Dinka

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 4.5027% / 0.04502681
35.6 TUR_Barcin_N
32.6 MAR_Taforalt
13.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
12.8 Levant_PPNB
5.6 Yoruba

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 4.3767% / 0.04376697
36.6 Iberia_N
24.2 MAR_Taforalt
15.0 Levant_Natufian
14.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.0 Yoruba
1.8 Levant_PPNB
1.6 Dinka

Replacing Yamnaya by Bell Beaker Iberia/Bell Beaker Italy and Iran N by Bronze Age Levant.

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01255
Distance: 2.8386% / 0.02838608
32.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
22.8 MAR_Taforalt
21.8 TUR_Barcin_N
12.6 Yoruba
8.6 Levant_PPNB
2.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: Mozabite:HGDP01255
Distance: 2.4991% / 0.02499064
34.2 Bell_Beaker_ITA
21.2 MAR_Taforalt
19.2 Iberia_N
12.2 Yoruba
9.8 Levant_JOR_EBA
3.4 Levant_PPNB

Guanches.

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 3.9952% / 0.03995161
26.8 MAR_Taforalt
23.0 Iberia_N
16.8 Levant_PPNB
22.4 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
6.2 Yoruba
3.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 3.4849% / 0.03484882
29.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
27.2 MAR_Taforalt
16.5 Levant_PPNB
13.6 TUR_Barcin_N
6.8 Yoruba
1.4 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.8 Levant_Natufian

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 2.9671% / 0.02967083
43.2 Bell_Beaker_ITA
29.0 MAR_Taforalt
9.2 Iberia_N
6.6 Levant_PPNB
5.4 Levant_JOR_EBA
5.0 Yoruba
1.6 Dinka

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 2.9704% / 0.02970405
28.0 MAR_Taforalt
25.4 TUR_Barcin_N
22.0 Bell_Beaker_NLD
17.4 Levant_PPNB
5.2 Yoruba
1.0 Dinka

Replacing Iran_N with Minoan_Lasithi.

Target: Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005
Distance: 3.6871% / 0.03687070
27.0 Bell_Beaker_Iberia
26.0 MAR_Taforalt
18.0 Iberian_N
12.4 Levant_Natufian
10.2 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
6.4 Yoruba

Tried to keep the lowest fits.