07-22-2024, 12:19 AM
Mota is a fossilized modern human male who was discovered in Mota Cave, Southwest Ethiopia. He is estimated to have lived 4,500 years ago and is most closely related to Aboriginal East Africans, such as the Hadza, the Sandawe, the Gumuz, etc. You can read about him in the article written by Llorente et al (2015).
However, the people that directly descend from him or his population are likely the Ari. Here is a quote from Llorente et al (2015).
However, the Ari are ironically genetically farther from Mota than the aforementioned Aboriginal East Africans.
The reason for this is the 15% to 18% of their genomes that derived from Eurasia; this can be seen in Table S5 of the aforementioned article's supplementary materials (page 32).
What's interesting about Mota is that he carries yDNA E-Y240395 and mtDNA L3x2a2b. These haplogroups are related to those that are carried by Eurasians. E-Y240395 descends from CT, as do the yDNA haplogroups of Eurasians; and L3x2a2b descends from L3, as do the mtDNA haplogroups of Eurasians.
Note that other "E" yDNA haplogroups (i.e. subclades of yDNA E-M96) and other subclades of L3 are very common among Aboriginal East Africans and Niger-Congo peoples.
Subsequently, there is disagreement in regard to the birthplace of CT, L3, and certain ancient subclades of theirs: CF, DE, C, F, D, & E.
According to the aforementioned table, Table S5, 2.12% of Mota's genome appears to be Eurasian, when the Yoruba and the Druze are used as unadmixed African and Eurasian sources, respectively.
And 1.84% of Mota's genome appears to be Eurasian, when the Yoruba and LBK (a Neolithic Farmer, AKA Stuttgart) are used as unadmixed African and Eurasian sources, respectively.
However, this small percentage-range of Mota's ancestry that appears to be Eurasian may not actually be so; rather, it may actually be ancestry that certain Aboriginal Africans and Eurasians have inherited from a common African source, before their lineages split.
This is implied by Vahaduo, when it's used to model Mota's ancestry (and those of other Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3). It will select Zlaty Kun woman, which is the oldest Eurasian sample that has been discovered, in order to model part of Mota's ancestry (and that of Aboriginal African populations that also carry subclades of E-M96 and L3).
Zlaty Kun woman was discovered in the Czech Republic and is estimated to be more than ~45,000 years old, due to her long segments of Neandertal DNA.
It's highly unlikely that Mota - and related African populations - carry DNA from Eurasians who lived ~45,000 years ago in the region that is now known as the Czech Republic. Therefore, in actuality, Vahaduo may be selecting this ancient Eurasian sample because it's the one that lived most closely - out of all samples available - to the split that occurred between the lineages of Aboriginal Africans and Eurasians, 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.
This is consistent with Figure 2 of Lazaridis et al (2018).
The figure models Mota's lineage as splitting from the common ancestors that he shared with Ancestral North Africans and Eurasians before the latter two split from each other; additionally, it doesn't model Mota's lineage as receiving any gene flow from the latter two.
Figure S3.17 of Lipson et al also models Mota as splitting from the common ancestors that he shared with Ancestral North Africans and Eurasians independently relative to the other two.
Therefore, it would not be consistent with these figures for Mota's yDNA and mtDNA to have derived from Ancestral North Africans or Eurasians; rather, it would be consistent for Mota's yDNA and mtDNA to have derived from the common ancestors that Mota shared with the latter two.
Based on the phylogenies of yDNA and mtDNA, as well as autosomal DNA, these common ancestors would have been African; all haplogroups that are older or equal in age to CT and L3 are Aboriginal African: A00, A0, A1b1, B-M60, L1, L5, L2, L6, and L4.
Additionally, as already implied, one of CT's major downstream subclades, E-M96, is carried predominantly by Aboriginal Africans. Furthermore, whereas two of L3's direct subclades - M & N - are primarily associated with Eurasians, five are primarily associated with Aboriginal Africans: L3a, L3b'c'd, L3e'i'k'x, L3f & L3h.
Therefore, CT & L3 likely originated in Africa.
Accordingly, there would have been a split between ancient carriers of CT and L3 - or carriers of ancient subclades of theirs - that would have been consistent with one group migrating out of Africa, one group remaining in North Africa, and another one migrating into sub-Saharan Africa.
The region that's most conducive to such a split is Northeast Africa. It's part of North Africa, where Ancestral North Africans would have resided; and it's between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, the latter of which is the terrestrial exit out of Africa.
Note that sub-Saharan Africa is home to most Aboriginal Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3.
Therefore, the common ancestors of Ancestral North Africans, Eurasians, and Aboriginal Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3 should be called Ancestral Northeast Africans, based on this hypothesis.
They would have originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where the relatives of CT and L3 - that is to say B-M60 & L4 - are carried predominantly - and where the aforementioned older yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups are also carried predominantly.
Over the course of multiple generations, they would have inadvertently wound up in Northeast Africa due to following prey animals. As part of the Sahara, the region would have been a savanna around the time that CT and L3 formed, 88,000 to 70,000 years ago; therefore, prey animals would have been attracted to the region's fruits and vegetation.
However, as the region would have transitioned to a desert, many prey animals would have starved, as well as many Ancestral Northeast Africans; this would have been a bottleneck event that would have eliminated many unknown subclades of CT and L3.
Other subsets of Ancestral Northeast Africans would have survived due to following certain prey animals into sub-Saharan Africa or the Levant.
It should be noted that Figure 2 of Lazaridis et al (2018) models 13% of the Yoruba's ancestry as having derived from the Afro-Eurasian ancestors of the Taforalt hunter-gatherers. However, this 13% of the Yoruba's ancestry may simply be ancestry that both the Taforalt hunter-gatherers and the Yoruba inherited from Ancestral Northeast Africans.
The reason for my conclusion is that I can use Niger-Congo peoples in combination with Mota to model ~36% to ~42% of the ancestry in the Taforalt hunter-gatherers - or I can use Mota alone to model roughly the same percentage (~36% to 42%) with roughly equal distances.
This indicates that there is genetic overlap between Niger-Congo peoples and Mota, which would explain why they both carry subclades of E-V38 (E1b1a) and L3e'i'k'x; Niger-Congo peoples' E-M2 and Mota's E-Y240395 both descend from E-V38 (E1b1a), and Niger-Congo peoples' L3e and Mota's L3x2a2b both descend from L3e'i'k'x.
Additionally, Niger-Congo peoples carry E-M75 and other subclades of E-M5479 besides E-V38 (e.g. E-M132).
Therefore, unless Mota also has Taforalt-related ancestry, this ancestry likely did not derive from the Afro-Eurasian ancestors of the Taforalt hunter-gatherers.
However, the people that directly descend from him or his population are likely the Ari. Here is a quote from Llorente et al (2015).
Quote:We compared Mota to contemporary human populations (6). Both principal component analysis (PCA) (Fig. 1A) and outgroup f3 analysis using Ju|’hoansi (Khoisan) from Southern Africa as the outgroup (Fig. 1, B and C) place this ancient individual close to contemporary Ethiopian populations, and more specifically to the Ari, a group of Omotic speakers from southern Ethiopia, to the west of the highland region where Mota lived. Our ancient genome confirms the view that the divergence of this language family results from the relative isolation of its speakers (8), and indicates population continuity over the last ~4500 years in this region of Eastern Africa.
However, the Ari are ironically genetically farther from Mota than the aforementioned Aboriginal East Africans.
The reason for this is the 15% to 18% of their genomes that derived from Eurasia; this can be seen in Table S5 of the aforementioned article's supplementary materials (page 32).
What's interesting about Mota is that he carries yDNA E-Y240395 and mtDNA L3x2a2b. These haplogroups are related to those that are carried by Eurasians. E-Y240395 descends from CT, as do the yDNA haplogroups of Eurasians; and L3x2a2b descends from L3, as do the mtDNA haplogroups of Eurasians.
Note that other "E" yDNA haplogroups (i.e. subclades of yDNA E-M96) and other subclades of L3 are very common among Aboriginal East Africans and Niger-Congo peoples.
Subsequently, there is disagreement in regard to the birthplace of CT, L3, and certain ancient subclades of theirs: CF, DE, C, F, D, & E.
According to the aforementioned table, Table S5, 2.12% of Mota's genome appears to be Eurasian, when the Yoruba and the Druze are used as unadmixed African and Eurasian sources, respectively.
And 1.84% of Mota's genome appears to be Eurasian, when the Yoruba and LBK (a Neolithic Farmer, AKA Stuttgart) are used as unadmixed African and Eurasian sources, respectively.
However, this small percentage-range of Mota's ancestry that appears to be Eurasian may not actually be so; rather, it may actually be ancestry that certain Aboriginal Africans and Eurasians have inherited from a common African source, before their lineages split.
This is implied by Vahaduo, when it's used to model Mota's ancestry (and those of other Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3). It will select Zlaty Kun woman, which is the oldest Eurasian sample that has been discovered, in order to model part of Mota's ancestry (and that of Aboriginal African populations that also carry subclades of E-M96 and L3).
Zlaty Kun woman was discovered in the Czech Republic and is estimated to be more than ~45,000 years old, due to her long segments of Neandertal DNA.
It's highly unlikely that Mota - and related African populations - carry DNA from Eurasians who lived ~45,000 years ago in the region that is now known as the Czech Republic. Therefore, in actuality, Vahaduo may be selecting this ancient Eurasian sample because it's the one that lived most closely - out of all samples available - to the split that occurred between the lineages of Aboriginal Africans and Eurasians, 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.
This is consistent with Figure 2 of Lazaridis et al (2018).
The figure models Mota's lineage as splitting from the common ancestors that he shared with Ancestral North Africans and Eurasians before the latter two split from each other; additionally, it doesn't model Mota's lineage as receiving any gene flow from the latter two.
Figure S3.17 of Lipson et al also models Mota as splitting from the common ancestors that he shared with Ancestral North Africans and Eurasians independently relative to the other two.
Therefore, it would not be consistent with these figures for Mota's yDNA and mtDNA to have derived from Ancestral North Africans or Eurasians; rather, it would be consistent for Mota's yDNA and mtDNA to have derived from the common ancestors that Mota shared with the latter two.
Based on the phylogenies of yDNA and mtDNA, as well as autosomal DNA, these common ancestors would have been African; all haplogroups that are older or equal in age to CT and L3 are Aboriginal African: A00, A0, A1b1, B-M60, L1, L5, L2, L6, and L4.
Additionally, as already implied, one of CT's major downstream subclades, E-M96, is carried predominantly by Aboriginal Africans. Furthermore, whereas two of L3's direct subclades - M & N - are primarily associated with Eurasians, five are primarily associated with Aboriginal Africans: L3a, L3b'c'd, L3e'i'k'x, L3f & L3h.
Therefore, CT & L3 likely originated in Africa.
Accordingly, there would have been a split between ancient carriers of CT and L3 - or carriers of ancient subclades of theirs - that would have been consistent with one group migrating out of Africa, one group remaining in North Africa, and another one migrating into sub-Saharan Africa.
The region that's most conducive to such a split is Northeast Africa. It's part of North Africa, where Ancestral North Africans would have resided; and it's between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, the latter of which is the terrestrial exit out of Africa.
Note that sub-Saharan Africa is home to most Aboriginal Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3.
Therefore, the common ancestors of Ancestral North Africans, Eurasians, and Aboriginal Africans who carry subclades of CT and L3 should be called Ancestral Northeast Africans, based on this hypothesis.
They would have originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where the relatives of CT and L3 - that is to say B-M60 & L4 - are carried predominantly - and where the aforementioned older yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups are also carried predominantly.
Over the course of multiple generations, they would have inadvertently wound up in Northeast Africa due to following prey animals. As part of the Sahara, the region would have been a savanna around the time that CT and L3 formed, 88,000 to 70,000 years ago; therefore, prey animals would have been attracted to the region's fruits and vegetation.
However, as the region would have transitioned to a desert, many prey animals would have starved, as well as many Ancestral Northeast Africans; this would have been a bottleneck event that would have eliminated many unknown subclades of CT and L3.
Other subsets of Ancestral Northeast Africans would have survived due to following certain prey animals into sub-Saharan Africa or the Levant.
It should be noted that Figure 2 of Lazaridis et al (2018) models 13% of the Yoruba's ancestry as having derived from the Afro-Eurasian ancestors of the Taforalt hunter-gatherers. However, this 13% of the Yoruba's ancestry may simply be ancestry that both the Taforalt hunter-gatherers and the Yoruba inherited from Ancestral Northeast Africans.
The reason for my conclusion is that I can use Niger-Congo peoples in combination with Mota to model ~36% to ~42% of the ancestry in the Taforalt hunter-gatherers - or I can use Mota alone to model roughly the same percentage (~36% to 42%) with roughly equal distances.
This indicates that there is genetic overlap between Niger-Congo peoples and Mota, which would explain why they both carry subclades of E-V38 (E1b1a) and L3e'i'k'x; Niger-Congo peoples' E-M2 and Mota's E-Y240395 both descend from E-V38 (E1b1a), and Niger-Congo peoples' L3e and Mota's L3x2a2b both descend from L3e'i'k'x.
Additionally, Niger-Congo peoples carry E-M75 and other subclades of E-M5479 besides E-V38 (e.g. E-M132).
Therefore, unless Mota also has Taforalt-related ancestry, this ancestry likely did not derive from the Afro-Eurasian ancestors of the Taforalt hunter-gatherers.
![[Image: 1-s2.0-S0960982222003141-gr2_lrg.jpg]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982222003141-gr2_lrg.jpg)
