Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77

Thread: Non-ANE component of IRN_N/CHG?

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,660
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    MixedEuroNAfrArabAndalusi
    aDNA Match (1st)
    Muslim Andalusi Sharqi Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I12514_AD_1096_Cov_43.70%_Dist:0.03148322

    Islamic Conference European Union African Union Arab League Ottoman Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by Billyh View Post


    Iran_N/CHG rich pops such as Georgians, Iranians, Punjabis, seem to show not very much ANA compared to Natufian-rich pops (and remember, all these Iran_N related pops also have some Levant_PPNB already)

    Heterogeneity in Palaeolithic Population Continuity and Neolithic Expansion in North Africa
    "Population structure and ancestry components were determined by ADMIXTURE (Figures 1B and S2). The lowest cross-validation errors were found in the range between K = 4 and K = 7, which depicts North African ancestry as a mosaic of components that are consistently conserved across different values of K (Figure 1C): (1) a sub-Saharan component derived from trans-Saharan gene flow (black); (2) European and Anatolian Neolithic component (white); (3) an ancient Middle Eastern component, prevalent in Natufian and Levant Neolithic and also present in current Levantine populations, particularly in Bedouin groups (blue); (4) a component coming from Caucasus hunter-gatherers and Iran Neolithic (purple); and, (5) a North African autochthonous Epipalaeolithic component prevalent in the Moroccan Epipalaeolithic from Taforalt and Early Neolithic samples (orange), observed at low proportions in Moroccan Late Neolithic, Guanches, and in current Canary Islanders. The North African autochthonous component is absent in any other population outside North Africa from K = 7 onward, while its presence for lower K in sub-Saharan population values might be explained by the presence of a sub-Saharan ancestral component in North African Palaeolithic populations, as pointed out by [8]."
    يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَـٰكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍۢ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ شُعُوبًۭا وَقَبَآئِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَىٰكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌۭ
    [ الحجرات: 13]

    G25 distance to modern pops
    23andMe
    Closest:0.02643477 Spanish_CanariasLa_Palma

    Ancestry
    Closest:0.02788822 Spanish_CanariasTenerife

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Aben Aboo For This Useful Post:

     Gentica277282 (02-06-2023)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    353
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a
    mtDNA (M)
    H47

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyh View Post


    Iran_N/CHG rich pops such as Georgians, Iranians, Punjabis, seem to show not very much ANA compared to Natufian-rich pops (and remember, all these Iran_N related pops also have some Levant_PPNB already)

    Because they’re mixes of mixes
    These sort of analyses ^ aren’t going to reveal the deep affinities of IranN itself
    Last edited by Kunig; 02-06-2023 at 10:46 PM.

  4. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,172
    Sex

    We need more Mesolithic genomes from the Caucasus as well even though I know that they already had ANE admixture by then.

  5. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    397
    Sex
    Location
    Northeastern U.S.
    Ethnicity
    Sub-Mediterrenean
    Nationality
    U.S.A.
    aDNA Match (1st)
    France_IA_ERS88
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    French_Provence
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    SZ27_Hungary_Langobard_1475_ybp
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 > Z8

    Ireland County Galway Scotland Italy 1861-1946 Austria Prussia United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by Aben Aboo View Post
    Heterogeneity in Palaeolithic Population Continuity and Neolithic Expansion in North Africa
    "Population structure and ancestry components were determined by ADMIXTURE (Figures 1B and S2). The lowest cross-validation errors were found in the range between K = 4 and K = 7, which depicts North African ancestry as a mosaic of components that are consistently conserved across different values of K (Figure 1C): (1) a sub-Saharan component derived from trans-Saharan gene flow (black); (2) European and Anatolian Neolithic component (white); (3) an ancient Middle Eastern component, prevalent in Natufian and Levant Neolithic and also present in current Levantine populations, particularly in Bedouin groups (blue); (4) a component coming from Caucasus hunter-gatherers and Iran Neolithic (purple); and, (5) a North African autochthonous Epipalaeolithic component prevalent in the Moroccan Epipalaeolithic from Taforalt and Early Neolithic samples (orange), observed at low proportions in Moroccan Late Neolithic, Guanches, and in current Canary Islanders. The North African autochthonous component is absent in any other population outside North Africa from K = 7 onward, while its presence for lower K in sub-Saharan population values might be explained by the presence of a sub-Saharan ancestral component in North African Palaeolithic populations, as pointed out by [8]."
    Are you trying to say that ANA is not present at all in West Eurasians? I think it is nonexistent after K=7 because Natufian just turns into its own component. Or are you saying to look at K=4 to K=7? Because there you can see Levant/Natufian has noticeably more Taforalt than Iran_N

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Billyh For This Useful Post:

     Aben Aboo (02-07-2023)

  7. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    79
    Sex
    Omitted

    On G25, Iran_N is modeled like this below:

    Target: Iran_N
    Distance: 26.2776% / 0.26277552
    40.0 Levant_N
    34.0 AG3
    15.0 Jarawa
    8.2 Anatolia_N
    2.8 African_Mesolithic

    They seem to have Levant and Anatolian (probably proxying for Dzuduana), along with Onge and ANE ancestries.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to varg9153 For This Useful Post:

     lg16 (02-07-2023)

  9. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    397
    Sex
    Location
    Northeastern U.S.
    Ethnicity
    Sub-Mediterrenean
    Nationality
    U.S.A.
    aDNA Match (1st)
    France_IA_ERS88
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    French_Provence
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    SZ27_Hungary_Langobard_1475_ybp
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 > Z8

    Ireland County Galway Scotland Italy 1861-1946 Austria Prussia United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by varg9153 View Post
    On G25, Iran_N is modeled like this below:

    Target: Iran_N
    Distance: 26.2776% / 0.26277552
    40.0 Levant_N
    34.0 AG3
    15.0 Jarawa
    8.2 Anatolia_N
    2.8 African_Mesolithic

    They seem to have Levant and Anatolian (probably proxying for Dzuduana), along with Onge and ANE ancestries.
    0.26 is very high distance for G25, even for modelling such old samples. Just for comparison's sake, Early Neolithic EEFs are 0.26 from modern Finns and Parsis.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Billyh For This Useful Post:

     desi (02-14-2023)

  11. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    397
    Sex
    Location
    Northeastern U.S.
    Ethnicity
    Sub-Mediterrenean
    Nationality
    U.S.A.
    aDNA Match (1st)
    France_IA_ERS88
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    French_Provence
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    SZ27_Hungary_Langobard_1475_ybp
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 > Z8

    Ireland County Galway Scotland Italy 1861-1946 Austria Prussia United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoran View Post
    Anatolians were found to generally have low ANE in comparison to the CHG-Iran_N cline. Iran_N shown to have Tian_Yuan like ancestry which is the main difference from its CHG relative.
    I have never heard of Iran_N having Tianyuan-like ancestry. I thought the only difference between IRN_N and CHG is that Iran_N is lower ANE compared to CHG?
    Last edited by Billyh; 02-14-2023 at 10:14 PM.

  12. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    113
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pahli Kurd
    aDNA Match (1st)
    Kurdish
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-BY45309
    mtDNA (M)
    L3d1-5

    AchaemenidEmpire1 Iran Sassanid Empire Kurdistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Billyh View Post
    I have never heard of Iran_N having Tianyuan-like ancestry. I thought the only difference between IRN_N and CHG is that Iran_N is lower ANE compared to CHG?
    The AASI component can somehow be modelled as Tian Yuan, but not precisely. Onges are closest to Tian Yuan in G25. I just assume.

    The real difference is that Iran_N has lower ANE and some AASI / Tian Yuan related ancestry. Mesolithic Iran almost has more ANE than CHG but still got AASI which puts it inbetween Iran_N and CHG.

    G25 with TianYuan and AASI, TianYuan seems to eat some of Iran_Meso and Iran_N's AASI and boost their ANE.

    Skærmbillede 2023-02-15 001104.png

    Skærmbillede 2023-02-15 001044.png
    Last edited by Zoran; 02-14-2023 at 11:15 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Zoran For This Useful Post:

     tantin (02-19-2023)

  14. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    209
    Sex

    If you model Basal as TUR_Barcin_N_-56%_WHG, this is what you get in g25:

    Target: Levant_Natufian_EpiP
    Distance: 13.5597% / 0.13559707
    31.2 MAR_Taforalt
    28.8 Basal
    25.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
    14.4 BGR_Bacho_Kiro_MUP

    Target: IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
    Distance: 18.9399% / 0.18939881
    53.4 RUS_MA1
    28.2 RUS_Kostenki14
    15.8 Basal
    2.6 KEN_LSA

    Target: GEO_CHG
    Distance: 23.2127% / 0.23212734
    43.4 RUS_MA1
    37.2 RUS_Kostenki14
    19.4 Basal

    Iran and CHG have a preference for Kostenki over WHG, and there may be archaeological evidence of a pre-LGM movement of Kostenki/Sunghir like people from the Russian plains to the Caucasus:

    Of particular note are the small stripe-beads with a hole, made from ivory, and having a geometric design in the form of dots arranged in line and traces of ocher (Figure 13: 11), a fragmented stripe-bead (Figure 13: 12), and a bead made of a tubular bone of a bird (Figure 13: 13) from the LUP layers in Mezmaiskaya. These artifacts have no analogues in the UP of the Caucasus but are similar to artifacts made from bone and ivory found at Sungir, on the Russian plain (Bader 1978: Figure 113). A needle case with tne geometric design found in the LUP layers at Mezmaiskaya is a unique find for the Caucasian UP, having no analogues (Figure 13: 14). The latest analyses of lithic and organic artifacts from the LUP Layers 1A2–1A1 (ca. 33/27–25 ka BP) at Mezmaiskaya cave point to new analogues between these layers and the UP sites on the Russian plain. These analogues include shouldered points with long tangs and short distal parts made from blades, and artifacts made from bone and mammoth tusk. These data may indicate either the intensification of contacts between the UP population of the NWC and the more northern UP populations of the Russian plain, or the spread of some Eastern Gravettian groups into the more southern regions before the LGM, dated ca. 25/24–20/19 ka BP in the Caucasus.

    https://www.academia.edu/78612566/Go...y_2022_P_52_81

    But then it makes no sense for Dzudzuana to be very much like Barcin_N.. We need a lot more UP samples.

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Woozler For This Useful Post:

     Kale (02-15-2023),  Kunig (02-14-2023),  tantin (02-19-2023),  Zoran (02-14-2023)

  16. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    353
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a
    mtDNA (M)
    H47

    Quote Originally Posted by Woozler View Post
    If you model Basal as TUR_Barcin_N_-56%_WHG, this is what you get in g25:

    Target: Levant_Natufian_EpiP
    Distance: 13.5597% / 0.13559707
    31.2 MAR_Taforalt
    28.8 Basal
    25.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
    14.4 BGR_Bacho_Kiro_MUP

    Target: IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
    Distance: 18.9399% / 0.18939881
    53.4 RUS_MA1
    28.2 RUS_Kostenki14
    15.8 Basal
    2.6 KEN_LSA

    Target: GEO_CHG
    Distance: 23.2127% / 0.23212734
    43.4 RUS_MA1
    37.2 RUS_Kostenki14
    19.4 Basal

    Iran and CHG have a preference for Kostenki over WHG, and there may be archaeological evidence of a pre-LGM movement of Kostenki/Sunghir like people from the Russian plains to the Caucasus:

    Of particular note are the small stripe-beads with a hole, made from ivory, and having a geometric design in the form of dots arranged in line and traces of ocher (Figure 13: 11), a fragmented stripe-bead (Figure 13: 12), and a bead made of a tubular bone of a bird (Figure 13: 13) from the LUP layers in Mezmaiskaya. These artifacts have no analogues in the UP of the Caucasus but are similar to artifacts made from bone and ivory found at Sungir, on the Russian plain (Bader 1978: Figure 113). A needle case with tne geometric design found in the LUP layers at Mezmaiskaya is a unique find for the Caucasian UP, having no analogues (Figure 13: 14). The latest analyses of lithic and organic artifacts from the LUP Layers 1A2–1A1 (ca. 33/27–25 ka BP) at Mezmaiskaya cave point to new analogues between these layers and the UP sites on the Russian plain. These analogues include shouldered points with long tangs and short distal parts made from blades, and artifacts made from bone and mammoth tusk. These data may indicate either the intensification of contacts between the UP population of the NWC and the more northern UP populations of the Russian plain, or the spread of some Eastern Gravettian groups into the more southern regions before the LGM, dated ca. 25/24–20/19 ka BP in the Caucasus.

    https://www.academia.edu/78612566/Go...y_2022_P_52_81

    But then it makes no sense for Dzudzuana to be very much like Barcin_N.. We need a lot more UP samples.
    Im skeptical of the claim that Barcin is homonymous with Dzudzuana
    It is historically non-plausible
    Last edited by Kunig; 02-14-2023 at 11:51 PM.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kunig For This Useful Post:

     Ahuwarhd (02-15-2023),  Gentica277282 (02-15-2023),  Zoran (02-15-2023)

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mystery component in Yamnaya
    By alan in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-10-2022, 07:08 PM
  2. Which ancient ancestral component do you think is...
    By Ellerbe in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-22-2019, 03:34 AM
  3. ANE, Mongoloid component?
    By MonkeyDLuffy in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 12-01-2015, 02:39 PM
  4. Mediterranean component in Near Easterners
    By Tsakhur in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-07-2015, 12:38 AM
  5. WHG Component in Neolithic Anatolia
    By J Man in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 03:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •