East Eurasian phylogeny

[Tatsuya]

Hi everyone, I have just joined today. Happy to be here. I want to discuss the East Eurasian / IUP wave phylogeny here. (Sorry in advance if I make English grammar mistakes...).

Basically, Early East Eurasians (eastern non-Africans) diverged from early West Eurasians around 50,000 years ago in Western Asia/Mesopotamia/Persian plateau. Shortly before, a pre-divergence branch (Zlaty Kun) diverged and migrated into SE Europe.

At roughly 48kya the IUP expansion started outgoing from a population hub on the Persian plateau, giving rise in a short span of time to the IUP Central Asia/Siberia lineage (Ust'Ishim-like), the IUP Europe lineage (Bacho Kiro-like), and proper East Eurasians (EEC; East Eurasian Core). The EEC had a secondary hub in Northwest South Asia (NW India/Pakistan), from which Australasians (Oceanians/Australo-Papuans) diverged first and migrated rapidly into Oceania, and subsequently diverged into an Australian and Papuan branch. They were followed by a second expansion resulting in the formation of the AASI/SAHG and East Asian/Onge (ESEA). ESEA than rapidly expanded from South to North; Onge-like groups stayed in MSEA, Tianyuan diverged next and rapidly moved to N.China/Amur, Longlin stayed in SE.China, Jomon went on the Japanese archipelago, and AEA stayed in Central China, subsequently diverging into ANEA and ASEA. ANEA replaced Tianyuan-like groups in N.China/Amur around 21kya~. ASEA replaced Longlin and eventually Hoabinhians/Onge-like groups, geneflow happened in MSEA. Tianyuan-like groups may have assimilated remnants of the IUP Siberian groups (Kara Bom etc. of Ust'Ishim-like affilation) and later contributed significantly to the formation of Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) in tandem with UP European groups (Kostenki14-like).

Appearently, Ust'Ishim is very basal East Eurasian, sharing only minimal drift with other East Eurasians, but still do so in contrary to West Eurasian lineages, making it a "near trifurication", but on the IUP/ENA branch:

"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." Vallini et al. / Allentoft et al.

"... 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."

Example:
           

The IUP Central Asian/Siberian group may have arrived first to NW.East Asia, but went largely extinct/replaced by the main southern dispersal wave, which is ancestral to modern E.Asians.    

Aoki, Kenichi; Takahata, Naoyuki; Oota, Hiroki; Wakano, Joe Yuichiro; Feldman, Marcus W. (30 August 2023). "Infectious diseases may have arrested the southward advance of microblades in Upper Palaeolithic East Asia":

"A single major migration of modern humans into the continents of Asia and Sahul was strongly supported by earlier studies using mitochondrial DNA, the non-recombining portion of Y chromosomes, and autosomal SNP data [42–45]. Ancestral Ancient South Indians with no West Eurasian relatedness, East Asians, Onge (Andamanese hunter–gatherers) and Papuans all derive in a short evolutionary time from the eastward dispersal of an out-of-Africa population [46,47]. The HUGO (Human Genome Organization) Pan-Asian SNP consortium [44] investigated haplotype diversity within present-day Asian populations and found a strong correlation with latitude, with diversity decreasing from south to north. The correlation continues to hold when only mainland Southeast Asian and East Asian populations are considered, and is perhaps attributable to a serial founder effect [50]. These observations are consistent with the view that soon after the single eastward migration of modern humans, East Asians diverged in southern East Asia and dispersed northward across the continent."

"the southern migration wave seems to have diversified into the local populations in East Asia (defined in this paper as a region including China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan and Southeast Asia)"

The IUP Europe (Bacho Kiro-like) lineage also went largely extinct, but may have contributed some ancestry to later UP Europeans (WEC), such as evident among the GoyetQ116-1 remains. Vallini et al. 2024 supplementary data 11 also gives some estimations on WEC, EEC and Basal Eurasian contributions to ancient and modern West Eurasians, this I guess includes also IUP Europe contributions, in tandem with Tianyuan via ANE, and ANEA.

I will add more information later/tomorrow.

[Gats]

Nice tree chart. Lacks a few things like Longlin(?), internal suspected North-South split within AASI, Aeta being basal to Papuan-Australian clade. Also I would think UstIshim and BachoKiro-Oase form their own clade. Either can be modelled as 1:1 of other, the difference is BachoKiro has higher Neanderthal

May I ask how the tree chart was generated?

[Tatsuya]

While "southern route dispersal" is majority academic view, minority support "northern route dispersal" for IUP East Eurasian. Mostly based in Chinese school. Japanese school primarily has "southern route" concensus.

Above I showed the southern route dispersal of East Eurasians. Here I share the alternative possibility: migration route and one out of 6 possible qpGraph models (Vallini et al.):
       

Northern route model is a minority view. I think its more unlikely and southern route model is more likely. Also I think Ust'Ishim is most basal East Eurasian, but appearently alternarive phylogenies work as well.

In this northern route model, the EEC hub is Altai site and southwards expansion of IUP with local adaption. AASI/SAHG is a sister lineage to Tianyuan/Onge with or without minimal admixture from the southern route. Australasian/Oceanian is a nearly equal admixture between Tianyuan-like (Onge-like) and southern route, Onge is pure southern East Eurasian, Tianyuan is pure northern East Eurasian. As Tianyuan/Onge share extra drift, they form ESEA clade. Regardless of northern or southern route.

I deem the southern route dispersal more likely scenario: Eg. the relevant genealogical lineage for modern East Asians and other living East Eurasians derives (primarily) from the EEC southern route wave (as shown in initial post). Regardless from the IUP northern route in Central Asia and Altai/NW China. Its a single northwards wave from SEA to NEA, rapidly diverging during that expansion: eg. Onge-like stayed in SEA, than the Tianyuan branch diverged and migrated to N. China, Longlin stayed in SE. China, Jomon migrated to Japan, AEA remained in Central China and subsequently diverged into ANEA and ASEA, with ANEA replacing Tianyuan-like groups in the Amur/N.China region as early as 21kya.

~if northern route is valid, all modern East Eurasians need contribution from northern IUP lineages. If southern route is valid, northern IUP lineages are largely extinct and all modern East Eurasians are primarily southern route descedants.

[GHurier]

Northern route model is a minority view. I think its more unlikely and southern route model is more likely.

It depends on the angle you take.
When focussing on Y-lineages, northern route has some virtues (but in fact, in any realistic version it quickly converges to a southern route model, post ~40kyr BP) :
The IUP cultures are offering a clear dispersal patern for F-haplogroup families.
The path of "C" is also a big question. It is tempting to have C being among Altai-IUP and then expanding from there. But on any realistic perspective, I find hard to keep C and F "compact" from CF stage to F and C diversifications. Because a ~15 kyr timegap, it is too much. Thus to me, they have to be separated all this time before coming together again around Altai-IUP.

Then, IUP technology got "abandonned" when reaching south-eastern Asia, an event that can't significantly post-date K2b stage (with a later backflow expansion toward the north with P-P337).

In a northern-route model, I think the most likely is :
F being related to Emiran culture
F-Y27277 being a first northward expansion related to Altai-IUP and Backo-Kirian
G and H likely got initialy spawned around Anatolia/Caucasus area (with one H sub-lineage shortly later migrating toward south-Asia)
IJK would be related to Ahmarian culture
IJ would be a southern Ahmarian component
K would be a northen Ahmarian component
K1 (LT) ended around Riwat
K2 joined Altai-IUP
K2a having an original large Eurasian expansion from Europe to East Asia with K-M2335 as a southern component surviving likely around Eastern-Asia
K2b ended in south-eastern Asia
J became Levantine Aurignacian
I-lineage likely made it to Europe with Aurignacian

Northern K2 were likely wiped out at some point, even prior LGM, because by ~31kyr BP what is found in North-Eastern Siberia are lineages related to P-P337 later expansion and nothing related to K2 original diffusion area.

Interestingly, Shichi et al. 2023 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0189) are finding some vegetation recovery event around ~45-40 kyr at lake Baikal, which might indicate temporary positive condition for the IUP expansion, that likely got wiped out when conditions became harsher again after ~40 kyr BP.

[CLTVTE]

Hi everyone, I have just joined today. Happy to be here. I want to discuss the East Eurasian / IUP wave phylogeny here. (Sorry in advance if I make English grammar mistakes...).

Basically, Early East Eurasians (eastern non-Africans) diverged from early West Eurasians around 50,000 years ago in Western Asia/Mesopotamia/Persian plateau. Shortly before, a pre-divergence branch (Zlaty Kun) diverged and migrated into SE Europe.

At roughly 48kya the IUP expansion started outgoing from a population hub on the Persian plateau, giving rise in a short span of time to the IUP Central Asia/Siberia lineage (Ust'Ishim-like), the IUP Europe lineage (Bacho Kiro-like), and proper East Eurasians (EEC; East Eurasian Core). The EEC had a secondary hub in Northwest South Asia (NW India/Pakistan), from which Australasians (Oceanians/Australo-Papuans) diverged first and migrated rapidly into Oceania, and subsequently diverged into an Australian and Papuan branch. They were followed by a second expansion resulting in the formation of the AASI/SAHG and East Asian/Onge (ESEA). ESEA than rapidly expanded from South to North; Onge-like groups stayed in MSEA, Tianyuan diverged next and rapidly moved to N.China/Amur, Longlin stayed in SE.China, Jomon went on the Japanese archipelago, and AEA stayed in Central China, subsequently diverging into ANEA and ASEA. ANEA replaced Tianyuan-like groups in N.China/Amur around 21kya~. ASEA replaced Longlin and eventually Hoabinhians/Onge-like groups, geneflow happened in MSEA. Tianyuan-like groups may have assimilated remnants of the IUP Siberian groups (Kara Bom etc. of Ust'Ishim-like affilation) and later contributed significantly to the formation of Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) in tandem with UP European groups (Kostenki14-like).

Appearently, Ust'Ishim is very basal East Eurasian, sharing only minimal drift with other East Eurasians, but still do so in contrary to West Eurasian lineages, making it a "near trifurication", but on the IUP/ENA branch:

"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." Vallini et al. / Allentoft et al.

"... 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."

Example:


The IUP Central Asian/Siberian group may have arrived first to NW.East Asia, but went largely extinct/replaced by the main southern dispersal wave, which is ancestral to modern E.Asians.

Aoki, Kenichi; Takahata, Naoyuki; Oota, Hiroki; Wakano, Joe Yuichiro; Feldman, Marcus W. (30 August 2023). "Infectious diseases may have arrested the southward advance of microblades in Upper Palaeolithic East Asia":

"A single major migration of modern humans into the continents of Asia and Sahul was strongly supported by earlier studies using mitochondrial DNA, the non-recombining portion of Y chromosomes, and autosomal SNP data [42–45]. Ancestral Ancient South Indians with no West Eurasian relatedness, East Asians, Onge (Andamanese hunter–gatherers) and Papuans all derive in a short evolutionary time from the eastward dispersal of an out-of-Africa population [46,47]. The HUGO (Human Genome Organization) Pan-Asian SNP consortium [44] investigated haplotype diversity within present-day Asian populations and found a strong correlation with latitude, with diversity decreasing from south to north. The correlation continues to hold when only mainland Southeast Asian and East Asian populations are considered, and is perhaps attributable to a serial founder effect [50]. These observations are consistent with the view that soon after the single eastward migration of modern humans, East Asians diverged in southern East Asia and dispersed northward across the continent."

"the southern migration wave seems to have diversified into the local populations in East Asia (defined in this paper as a region including China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan and Southeast Asia)"

The IUP Europe (Bacho Kiro-like) lineage also went largely extinct, but may have contributed some ancestry to later UP Europeans (WEC), such as evident among the GoyetQ116-1 remains. Vallini et al. 2024 supplementary data 11 also gives some estimations on WEC, EEC and Basal Eurasian contributions to ancient and modern West Eurasians, this I guess includes also IUP Europe contributions, in tandem with Tianyuan via ANE, and ANEA.

I will add more information later/tomorrow.

The split of mtDNA M80’D was dated to 42100 years ago in one of the western articles, which presupposed in accordance with its findings that mtDNA M in East Asia was older than in India. Importantly, the IVPP (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) data imply that during such a split the ancestry of the population, which could not be older than mtDNA L3 was maximized near the area of the split of mtDNA M80’D and was distributed to the surrounding populations. The age of 42100 years ago most resembles the distribution of yDNA NO-M214 in East Asia, since 42100 years ago is older than the birth of yDNA O-M175 and yDNA N-M231, but the IVPP data point that the ancestor of yDNA K2b* Tianyuan had to be located not far from the place of such a split of mtDNA M80’D and should have acquired some of such an ancestry. The ancestors of the Tibetan branch of the ancient yDNA D-M174, who contributed to the modern Tibetan yDNA D-M174 population had already been distinct from the Japanese-Onge branch of yDNA D-M174, should have been present not far from the place of such a split, but it followed from the IVPP data that the ancestors of the ancient Tibetan yDNA D-M174 acquired such an ancestry, related to the split of yDNA M80’D 42100 years ago in conjunction with the Tianyuan individual. The IVPP data imply that it was not obvious that the existing mtDNA M80 reached the Philippines already close to 42100 years ago, because such a particular branch of mtDNA could have “traveled” via other different locations and their inhabitants in accordance with the IVPP data. Consequently, the known Tianyuan-Papuan interaction may not have led to the distriburion of mtDNA M80 to the Philippines. Regarding the Papuan ancestors, it appears that ancient East Asians could have mostly interacted with them via the ancient mtDNA M74-related population, which seems to have carried the name /*To/ in accordance with the IVPP data, which also suggest that this population indirectly contributed to the ancestors of the Touo Papunesians, whose language clustered with the Austronesian languages in Jager, 2017 (“From words to features to trees: Computing a world tree of languages from word lists”): consequently, whatever languages mtDNA M74 people had spoken before, it appears that their ancestors had already been assimilated into a sufficiently Austronesian-like language, related to ancient East Asians, already in the Early Upper Paleolithic. The IVPP data even highlighted the indirect link between mtDNA M74 as a branch of mtDNA M42’74 and mtDNA Q of the Australians, the population of whose bearers was shown to have contacts with the Papuans from outside of Australia. It means that the language tree of Jager, 2017, where Papuan-Australian languages got attached to East Asian languages, should not be explained as a result of yDNA C1b population influence onto ancient East Asians, but instead it can be explained in such a way that East Asia-derived lexical units were distributed to Papuan and Australian ancestors via the mtDNA M74-related population (obviously indirectly), which had already been “assimilated” into the Austronesian-like language of the ancient East Asian origin. Consequently, ancient East Asians of yDNA NO-M214 should not be thought to have been assimilated by yDNA C1b individuals, who contributed to the Papuans and Australians, and the Australo-Papuan linguistic links with other parts of Eurasia, (including Abkhazia in Jager, 2017) should be explained by being caused by other not so deep ancestries, such a s yDNA CT*-related ancestry (yDNA CT* was present at the Near East, where Abkhazian ancestors lived), with which the died-out Ust-Ishim had mixed in accordance with the IVPP data, and it is this yDNA CT* population’s ancestry that caused some affinity between the Ust-Ishim as an individual, who did not contribute per se to modern populations, and some mtDNA C lineages in accordance with the more detailed IVPP data. In case of the know Australia-Ust-Ishim genetic affinity, the yDNA CT* mediation would mean that similar yDNA CT* populations could have distributed between locations in Australia and Eurasia. As for yDNA C1b*, the IVPP data imply that there should existed parallels between mythologies of the Australian populations and populations, influenced by yDNA C1b Hoabinhians, which were not so characteristic of the ancient East Asian-related groups.

In accordance with the IVPP data, the modern Southern East Asian component did not exist yet ca. 38000 years ago, and the general ancient East Asian component 19000-45000 years ago was marked by the color of the Northern East Asian component in in “Ancient genomes reveal the complex genetic history of Prehistoric Eurasian modern humans”, while the “Southern East Asian” colour only apperared for the period of 19000-45000 years ago for mtDNA N’s G8701A mutation in this article, implying that the later final formation of the Southern East Asian component by 19000 years ago had been taking place in narrowly located mtDNA B- and mtDNA F-rich southern East Asian populations during the Last Glacial Maximum. The IVPP formulations mean it that the split between the Ancient Northern East Asian (ANEA) and Ancient Southern East Asian (ASEA) was finalized by 19000 years ago.

In the most recent article “Neolithic to Bronze Age human maternal genetic history in Yunnan, China”, mtDNA D was reported once again as being indicative of the Northern East Asian population, consequently, the distribution of mtDNA D/D* branches between 42100 years ago (the above-described split of mtDNA M80’D into mtDNA M80 and mtDNA D) and 19000 years ago should be indicative of the populations, which could potentially be called the Northern East Asian populations after 19000 years ago, when the ANEA-ASEA split was finalized. In the recent article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago”, out of mtDNA D/D*, the ancestry related to the newly reported Mabu Co population, which also contained some ancestries, resembling the ones observed in ancient yDNA N-M231-related populations, but not coinciding with these ancestries, observed in ancient yDNA N-M231-related populations (that is the Mabu Co variant of ancestries belonged to the died-out yDNA N-M231* populations), contained the ancestry, which was simultaneously characteristic of selected lineages mtDNA D4 mtDNA D5 and one of mtDNA lineage of mtDNA M10’M11’M21’M13’46’61 (this creation appeared in Fuzuki Mizuno’s work) as well as mtDNA M23’75, which should have limited the homeland of such yDNA N-M231* to the territory of China. Additionally, mtDNA D5 did not seem to be observed in Siberia prior to the Neolithic, if not Middle Neolithic, and it could not have managed to reach at least 26000-year-old “Native American-like” or “Beringian-like” “Ancient Northern East Asian”, which is propagated in articles of current elites of Japan as separating from the population, ancestral to the Japanese.

Regarding more ancient populations, different from the yDNA NO-M214 population, splitting into yDNA N-M231 and yDNA O-M175 populations, It should be noted that, even in the materials of the earlier articles of the IVPP (the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) it was already deduced that the ancient DNA, uniting some descendants, belonging to mtDNA C and mtDNA G, can be related to the mtDNA M* populations, which had already contributed to the Tianyuan Man of China, and it would be even more ancient then the DNA of the rather young mtDNA C*, mtDNA C4*, mtDNA C5* members, when they still lived in their ancestral population. In the recent article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago”, such an ancestry even appeared to be related to the indigenous population of the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau. When such an ancestry participated in the formation of the component, which was called “Northeast Siberian” in the recent article about the Doigahama Yayoi, it means that the ancestry, causing the maximization of this component, was not properly called “Northeast Siberian”, but was instead related to the indigenous population of the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau.

Hopefully, everybody thought that /ba/ and /cho/ in Bacho Kiro were not actually related to the various Ba of China and to /Cho/ in Chokhopani, because the IVPP data imply that such /Ba/ and /Bu/ should be parallel developments to similarly sounding stems, having separate grammatical functions, which were actively used in relevant ancient East Asian languages. As for /Cho/ in Chokhopani, the IVPP data imply that this /Cho/ should be related to the late combination of the Himalayan ethnically colored name /Ou/ and the dialectal Tibeto-Burman phonetic variant /chi/ “man”, which is a late derivative of Proto-Tibeto-Burman word /*skyay-/ “to give birth” (which means that this late /chi/, which does not even sound as /chi/ in all Tibeto-Burman languages, formed out of the word, meaning “parent”, that is, this late Tibeto-Burman /chi/ (a variant of which is observed in Tibetan Gyalrongic languages as well) could not be a prototype for events of the layer of Kojiki mythology, describing the earliest past of humanity).

UPDATE

Regarding more ancient populations, different from the yDNA NO-M214 population, splitting into yDNA N-M231 and yDNA O-M175 populations, It should be noted that, even in the materials of the earlier articles of the IVPP (the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) it was already deduced that the ancient DNA, uniting some descendants, belonging to mtDNA C and mtDNA G, can be related to the mtDNA M* populations, which had already contributed to the Tianyuan Man of China, and it would be even more ancient then the DNA of the rather young mtDNA C*, mtDNA C4*, mtDNA C5* members, when they still lived in their ancestral population. In the recent article “Lake-centered sedentary lifestyle of early Tibetan Plateau Indigenous populations at high elevation 4,400 years ago”, such an ancestry even appeared to be related to the indigenous population of the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau. When such an ancestry participated in the formation of the component, which was called “Northeast Siberian” in the recent article about the Doigahama Yayoi, it means that the ancestry, causing the maximization of this component, was not properly called “Northeast Siberian”, but was instead related to the indigenous population of the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau.

Tibetan_Tibet

1/13 N-CTS582 > N-MF37183 > N-MF37676 > N-MF36073

1/13 O-M134 > O-F122 > O-F46 > O-F502 > O-MF1201 > O-F3386 > O-F2046 > O-MF1198 > O-MF1211 > O-MF1199 > O-MF1200 > O-MF48296 > O-MF48244 > O-MF89064

2/13 O-M134 > O-F122 > O-F46 > O-F502 > O-FGC85750 > O-FGC16847 > O-CTS9862 > O-CTS3776 > O-F2887 > O-MF12414 > O-F14467 > O-F14338 > O-MF15790 > O-MF30881 > O-MF90583 > O-MF122629
1/13 O-M134 > O-F122 > O-F46 > O-F502 > O-FGC85750 > O-FGC16847 > O-Z26092 > O-F48 > O-CTS1011 > O-F55 > O-F152 > O-F504 > O-FGC14694 > O-MF90306
1/13 O-M134 > O-F122 > O-F743 > O-CTS8481 > O-FGC61200 > O-FGC61191 > O-FGC61169 > O-FGC61180 > O-FGC61189 > O-Y92700 > O-FGC61240 > O-FGC61203 > O-FGC61239 > O-FGC61213 > O-MF219603

The sample size of Tibetans is on the small side, but I am surprised how many of them (10/30 = 33.3%) belong to haplogroup O-F122.

According to the article “Neolithic to Bronze Age human maternal genetic history in Yunnan, China”, “past admixture and migration events can impede the study of past population dynamics using present-day data”.

There is a modern population, related to the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, where lineages, carrying some mutations, uniting mtDNA C and mtDNA G, were observed in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, this population does not carry yDNA N-M231 and yDNA O-M134 > O-F122. Consequently, one cannot suggest that the indigenous Southern Tibetan Plateau ancestry, which had once united some carriers of mtDNA C and yDNA G, was related to the spread of the above yDNA haplogroups N-M231 and O-M122. Instead of this, this modern population carried living yDNA, which was marked as yDNA D-M174* in the research, which is quite rare and probably should be comparably ancient to some subclades of mtDNA M*.

[Tatsuya]

I made a overview map for Northern EEC model and Southern EEC model here: Peopling of Eurasia, including possible set of yDNA haplogroup variation among the branches.

[ZetaMaximus]

I made a overview map for Northern EEC model and Southern EEC model here: Peopling of Eurasia, including possible set of yDNA haplogroup variation among the branches.

very nice maps you have there, if you update further can you perhaps insert/elaborate on the Ranis samples as well?

[Enki]

I made a overview map for Northern EEC model and Southern EEC model here: Peopling of Eurasia, including possible set of yDNA haplogroup variation among the branches.

I'm more partial to the southern EEC model, since those Altai IUP guys will most likely be Ust-Ishim like, and the development of IUP points into core flake theory seems improbable to me based on the fact that core flakes were used in Australasia as well and in Niah cave and such. Also you can follow the Irtysh river directly from Ust Ishim to the Altai straight shot and he likely adheres to the same group. Ranis apparently has IBD with Ust-Ishim as well.
https://cdn.britannica.com/30/246830-050...-River.jpg

[Gats]

Ranis is complicated

First a dead end, second very strongly shows profile of Crown Eurasians

But very difficultly may be possible to have it as UstIshim + Basal.

Problem: What is Basal doing in Czechia 50kBCE?

Problem #2: Why does BachoKiro have Neanderthal ancestors 6 gens back? Did Basal miss going to Bulgaria?

Problem #3: How did Basal mange to go Czechia by 55kBCE and EEC to the same place by 50kBCE all the while when Neanderthal in Europe is last dated 55kBCE? Where did this Basal appear from?

[Kale]

Ranis is complicated

First a dead end, second very strongly shows profile of Crown Eurasians

But very difficultly may be possible to have it as UstIshim + Basal.

Problem: What is Basal doing in Czechia 50kBCE?

Problem #2: Why does BachoKiro have Neanderthal ancestors 6 gens back? Did Basal miss going to Bulgaria?

Problem #3: How did Basal mange to go Czechia by 55kBCE and EEC to the same place by 50kBCE all the while when Neanderthal in Europe is last dated 55kBCE? Where did this Basal appear from?

Oase1 fits within the BachoKiro cluster, is dated 39956-35756 calBCE, and has a recent Neanderthal ancestor.
So even though it's not so parsimonious, these problems all happened.

[Enki]

Ranis is complicated

First a dead end, second very strongly shows profile of Crown Eurasians

But very difficultly may be possible to have it as UstIshim + Basal.

Problem: What is Basal doing in Czechia 50kBCE?

Problem #2: Why does BachoKiro have Neanderthal ancestors 6 gens back? Did Basal miss going to Bulgaria?

Problem #3: How did Basal mange to go Czechia by 55kBCE and EEC to the same place by 50kBCE all the while when Neanderthal in Europe is last dated 55kBCE? Where did this Basal appear from?

I think the fact that Ranis and Ust-Ishim have IBD with each other but then Ranis has some excess basal type stuff causes this type of thinking.

[Song]

New study about Papuans, Sept 23 2024 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...9.613861v2

-Papuans split from Africans at the time of  Out of Africa (OOA) 62kya.

-Papuans are sister group to mainland Asians. They split from Europeans 51Kya & from mainland Asians 46Kya aligning with the time Papuans arrived in the continent of Sahul ( between New Guinea & Australia )

-They have 3.16% Denisovan admixture with a date of 31.2 Kya, in addition to the signature 3.7% Neanderthal ancestry that all OOA groups received around 52 Kya.

-The main conclusion of the paper is that Papuan drift/shift is probably not due to contributions from an earlier OOA population but likely a consequence of a significant bottleneck & slower population growth.

-The Papuan bottleneck happened 46.2kya.

This would push back early East Eurasian and Western Eurasian/Basal Eurasian split to least 51kya.

[Gats]

Ranis is complicated

First a dead end, second very strongly shows profile of Crown Eurasians

But very difficultly may be possible to have it as UstIshim + Basal.

Problem: What is Basal doing in Czechia 50kBCE?

Problem #2: Why does BachoKiro have Neanderthal ancestors 6 gens back? Did Basal miss going to Bulgaria?

Problem #3: How did Basal mange to go Czechia by 55kBCE and EEC to the same place by 50kBCE all the while when Neanderthal in Europe is last dated 55kBCE? Where did this Basal appear from?

I think the fact that Ranis and Ust-Ishim have IBD with each other but then Ranis has some excess basal type stuff causes this type of thinking.

What route Basal took to reach Czechia? It gets too complicated with this type of thinking. I still think best is to have ZK as Crown Eurasian extension which logically just died out. But haplogroups make it complex, although not entirely

[Enki]

Ranis is complicated

First a dead end, second very strongly shows profile of Crown Eurasians

But very difficultly may be possible to have it as UstIshim + Basal.

Problem: What is Basal doing in Czechia 50kBCE?

Problem #2: Why does BachoKiro have Neanderthal ancestors 6 gens back? Did Basal miss going to Bulgaria?

Problem #3: How did Basal mange to go Czechia by 55kBCE and EEC to the same place by 50kBCE all the while when Neanderthal in Europe is last dated 55kBCE? Where did this Basal appear from?

I think the fact that Ranis and Ust-Ishim have IBD with each other but then Ranis has some excess basal type stuff causes this type of thinking.

What route Basal took to reach Czechia? It gets too complicated with this type of thinking. I still think best is to have ZK as Crown Eurasian extension which logically just died out. But haplogroups make it complex, although not entirely

I was just explaining the rationale in Kales model, I also think it could be crown as well, I believe crown Eurasians had every lineage both west and east Eurasians had, with Ranis they are all related so we only really have a sample size of 1. I think it's too early to determine west or east back then.

[Desdonas]

New study about Papuans, Sept 23 2024 
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...9.613861v2
-Papuans split from Africans at the time of  Out of Africa (OOA) 62kya.
-Papuans are sister group to mainland Asians. They split from Europeans 51Kya & from mainland Asians 46Kya aligning with the time Papuans arrived in the continent of Sahul ( between New Guinea & Australia )
-They have 3.16% Denisovan admixture with a date of 31.2 Kya, in addition to the signature 3.7% Neanderthal ancestry that all OOA groups received around 52 Kya.
-The main conclusion of the paper is that Papuan drift/shift is probably not due to contributions from an earlier OOA population but likely a consequence of a significant bottleneck & slower population growth.
-The Papuan bottleneck happened 46.2kya.
This would push back early East Eurasian and Western Eurasian/Basal Eurasian split to least 51kya.

They use English, Han and Altai Neanderthal.

I wonder if the AMH admixture in Altai and the slight ANA admixture in EEF would have some influence on the estimating of OoA time and the structure and introgression amount of Neanderthal. The 3.7% Neanderthal pulse in the OoA population and the 252,600-year-ago split time of Neanderthal are higher and earlier than previous papers.

Regarding Denisova, main East Asians do have about 0.2% rather than 0%, so their method may not be perfect?