search this blog

Friday, June 30, 2017

SMBE 2017 abstracts


The abstract book is available here. Lots of interesting stuff this year, although nothing really earth-shattering as far as I can see, and a couple of the ancient DNA talks are based on preprints that have already appeared at bioRxiv. I'd check out these talks:

Genome wide data from the Iron Age provides insights into the population history of Finland

Lamnidis et al.

Abstract: The population history of Finland is subject of an ongoing debate, in particular with respect to the relationship and origins of modern Finnish and Saami people. Here we analyse genome-wide data, extracted from three teeth found in the archaeological site of Levänluhta, in southern Ostrobothnia. The site dates back to the Iron Age between 550-800 AD, according to the artefacts recovered, while radiocarbon dating on scattered femurs from the site span 350-730 AD. When analysed together with previously published ancient European samples and with modern European populations, the ancient Finnish samples lack a genetic component found in early Neolithic Farmers and all modern European populations today. Instead, we find that they are more closely related to modern Siberian and East Asian populations than modern Finnish are, a pattern also observed in genetic data from modern Saami. Our results suggest that the ancestral Saami population 1500 years ago, inhabited a larger region than today, extending as far south as Levänluhta. Such a scenario is also supported by linguistic evidence suggesting most of Finland to have been speaking Saami languages before 1000 AD. We also observe genetic differences between modern Saami and our ancient samples, which are likely to have arisen due to admixture with Finnish people during the last 1500 years.


40,000-year-old individual from Asia provides insight into early population structure in Eurasia

Yang et al.

Abstract: To date, very few ancient genomic studies have been conducted in Asia. Genome-wide studies using ancient individuals from Europe have revealed complex ancestry and genetic structure in ancient populations that could not be observed studying only present-day populations, suggesting similar approaches may also aid in elucidating the demographic history in Asia. Here, we present genome-wide data for a 40,000-year-old individual from Tianyuan Cave near Beijing, China. We show that he is more related to present-day Asians than present-day and ancient Europeans. However, unlike present-day Asians, he shows potential relationships with some present-day South Americans and a 35,000-year-old European individual. Our results suggest that there was extensive population structure in Asia by 40,000 years ago that persisted over an extended period of time.


Bridging the Divide Between Modern and Ancient DNA

David Reich

Abstract: Genome-wide studies of human variation have for the most part focused either on DNA from present-day individuals, or from individuals who lived prior to 4,000 years ago. However, developing a detailed understanding of how the peoples who lived in the early Bronze Age contributed to Iron Age populations who in turn contributed to Medieval populations who in turn contributed to people living today, has been difficult. One challenge is that by the beginning of the Bronze Age (at least in Western Eurasia where the most ancient DNA data have been collected), the ancestry composition of many populations was very similar to that of populations that live in the same regions today. As a result, the powerful methods that have been developed for learning about population history based on allele frequency correlation patterns are sometimes not able to discern the often subtle differences in ancestry composition between past populations. In this talk, I will describe work in which my colleagues and I have tried to begin to bridge this divide, both by studying ancient samples from intermediate time points, and by deploying more sensitive statistical methods.

See also...

Europeans: genetically homogeneous on a global scale

55 comments:

Samuel Andrews said...

Wow a heavily East Asian people in Iron age Finland. It will be interesting to see how Finland became so similar to mainland Europe and how it received East Asian admixture.

Davidski said...

Wow a heavily East Asian people in Iron age Finland. It will be interesting to see how Finland became so similar to mainland Europe and how it received East Asian admixture.

Yeah, sounds like these Iron Age samples will be more East Asian shifted than modern-day Saami, but probably not much more.

rozenfag said...

Barely anything from Asia. Sure, Tianyuan is a cool sample, but that's it.

Davidski said...

The lack of East Asian samples is very puzzling, considering the favorable climatic conditions for ancient DNA preservation in much of East Asia (the northern half).

Rob said...

That abstract said Tinyuan was similar to an UP European : Oase or one of the Goyets (?)

rozenfag said...

@Rob May be Kostenki?

Samuel Andrews said...

Ancient DNA from the Caribbean.

7,000 years of change: Migration and admixture in the population history of the Caribbean

Nieves-Colon et al.

Abstract:
Although the Caribbean has been continuously inhabited for the last 7,000 years, European contact in the last 500 years dramatically
reshaped the cultural and genetic makeup of island populations. Several recent studies have explored the genetic diversity of
Caribbean Latinos, and have characterized Native American variation present within their genomes. However, the difficulty of
obtaining ancient DNA from pre-contact populations and the underrepresentation of non-Latino Caribbean islanders in genetic
research, have prevented a complete understanding of genetic variation over time and space in the Caribbean basin. Here we discuss
research that takes two approaches towards characterizing migration and admixture in Caribbean populations: an ancient DNA
analysis of 139 individuals from three pre-contact archaeological sites in Puerto Rico (A.D. 500–1300), and an analysis of whole
genome variants from 55 Afro-Caribbeans in five Lesser Antillean populations. Our ancient DNA analysis traces the origin and
number of pre-contact migrations to Puerto Rico and examines the extent of genetic continuity between ancient and modern
populations. In contrast, our modern DNA work analyzes autosomal SNP genotypes to characterize complex patterns of admixture
since European contact among Lesser Antillean Afro-Caribbeans. Our findings characterize how ancient indigenous groups,
European colonial regimes, the African Slave Trade and modern labor movements have shaped the genomic diversity of Caribbean
islanders. In addition to its anthropological or historical importance, such knowledge is also essential for informing the identification
of medically relevant genetic variation in these populations.

Rob said...

I think it's one of the Aurignacian Goyets on their MdS plot in Fu. I'll double check

Yeah the Finns must have shifted back to "European" with Germanic / Swedish migrants to southern Finland during roman & Migration Eras (?) Maybe one of our resident Uralics can comment

Arza said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Possibly it looked like this:

Population,X,X,Baltic_BA_ghost,Nenets,D statistic
Saami,0,0,65,35,0.0061

Population,X,X,Baltic_BA_ghost,Czech,D statistic
Lithuanian,0,0,55,45,0.0045

Population,X,X,Lithuanian,Saami,D statistic
Vepsa,0,0,66,34,0.0013
Ingrian,0,0,73,27,0.0044
Finnish,0,0,70,30,0.0033

@ Davidski

Globular Amphora Poland Kierzkowo I2440 I2
Globular Amphora Poland Kierzkowo I2403 I2a2
Globular Amphora Poland Kierzkowo I2405 I2a2
Globular Amphora Poland Kierzkowo I2441 I2a2a1b
Globular Amphora Ukraine Ilyatka ILK001 I2a2a1b
Globular Amphora Ukraine Ilyatka ILK002 I2a2a1b2 Z161

Kow_45 - I2, I2: Z2631/PF3623+ Z2673/CTS12003/PF3846+, I-M436: L35/S150/PF3862+ S5818/FGC3530+, I-L801: S12350/FGC3570+

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z161/

Apparently this guy is post-GAC. Slavic-like millet diet in Wielbark makes sense. We took the recipes from the megalith-building Stolems.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolemy

स्थूल sthUla adj. large, thick, bulky, huge, massive, big, rough

Arza said...

"Ancient Iberian and Central European Yersinia pestis genomes reveal genetic diversity of the Justinianic Plague"

Plague in Central Europe in 6-7th century. What a coincidence...
Interesting is that we also remember this plague, just like we remember the Giants from Pomorze.

Davidski said...

What giants from Pomorze?

Slumbery said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Wow a heavily East Asian people in Iron age Finland. It will be interesting to see how Finland became so similar to mainland Europe and how it received East Asian admixture."

Gradual expansion of the denser Finnish population into the North on the expense of the smaller Saami groups that got assimilated or pushed out. Based on this it is likely that 500 AD Finnish were even less Siberian/East Asian that today, because a significant part of this genetic element could have picked up during this expansion, from absorbed Saami.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

If memory serves me, GoyetQ116-1 was closer to ENA and MA1 than Kostenki.

André de Vasconcelos said...

There's also this one, that got me interested



aDNA reveals a different demographic impact of the Neolithic transition in South and North of Spain

Gloria Gonzalez1,*, Tassi Francesca1, Kirstin Henneberger2, Cecilio Barroso3, Arturo Lombera4, Ramon Fabregas4, Aurora Grandal5, Michael Hofreiter2, Guido Barbujani1

1 Biology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara., Italy,
2 Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany,
3 Archaeology, Fundacion Estudios Prehistoricos, Cordoba,
4 Archaeology, Universtiy of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela,
5 Biology, University of A Coruna, A Coruna, Spain

Abstract: Ancient DNA (aDNA) studies are strongly contributing to shed light on a widely debated topic in archaeology, anthropology and population genetics: the dynamics of the spread of farming into Europe, or Neolithic transition. In the last few years, nuclear aDNA from prehistoric samples have led to identify the genetic legacy of the Neolithic and later human migrations into modern Europeans. Far from closing the debate, these palaeogenomes are revealing a complicated scenario, where the demographic impact of the Neolithic transition seems to have been different in different geographic areas. Describing in detail how the transition occurred in each area, and by which combination of demic and cultural changes, is now an important research priority. The Iberian Peninsula, at the western edge of major human migrations is a particular interesting area for understanding otherwise elusiveaspects of European prehistory. We have taken advantage of the high percentage of endogenous DNA preserved in the petrous bone to recover nuclear genomes from Spanish prehistoric samples by shotgun sequencing. The newly generated genome data has revealed a different demographic impact of the Neolithic transition in North and South of Spain, with northern populations having a smaller Middle East component in their gene pool than southern populations. Furthermore, the palaeogenetic data has revealed prehistoric contacts between the Iberian and African populations dated back to at least 3000 years before present.

Māceklis said...

This all does not contradict Napolskich's idea (sorry if my diagonal reading betrays me here), that Finns arrived after 500 AD from Estonia.
If so, then I do not see how they should have been much different from modern Estonians.

epoch2013 said...

@Chad.

Exactly:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7606/fig_tab/nature17993_SF3.html

Upper left.

epoch2013 said...

@Chad

It would be interesting to see if that affinity can be found in Villabruna samples as well. However, Goyet116 is the only one where the Asian affinity is no accompanied with an affinity to American Indians, which may point to ANE-admixture.

So if this turns out to be two different admixtures both Lipson and Reich [1] and Lazaridis 2016 may be right

[1] http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2017/01/east-and-west-eurasians-separated-at.html

Shaikorth said...

@Samuel Andrews

This is actually a case where genetic data matches linguistic well. Historical linguists have for some time said Finnic speakers didn't come to Finland from Estonia until the Iron Age, and these Saamic types inhabited Finland before that, including Southern Finland.

http://oi68.tinypic.com/24pc66h.jpg

So modern Finns = Baltic Finnic speakers from Estonia with a substrate from these locals.

epoch2013 said...

Also interesting is that affinity with some present-day South-Americans. I am willing to bet it is this affinity:

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature14895_Skoglund_2015.pdf

Grizzlor said...

@Yeah the Finns must have shifted back to "European" with Germanic / Swedish migrants to southern Finland during roman & Migration Eras (?) Maybe one of our resident Uralics can comment
I find that unlikely, unless so-claimed germanic ancestors of Baltic Finns picked the Uralic language from the Saami they over-ran during Iron Age. From what I've understood from morpohological studies, the Leväluhta population was different from the rest of the Baltic Finns of that time. It is without a doubt that the origin of Finnic languages in the Baltic is Siberian but most of the linguistically uralicized populations likely retained their European Hunter-Gatherer genetic affinities.

Rob said...

No I think you've misunderstood
Germanic settlers arrived in southern Finland and assimilated, making modern Finns more European than there Iron Age forebears ; I was not claiming that finnish is a creole of Germanic & Saami
That Finnish language expanded from the east Baltic is well known

Matt said...

@All: Re links of an UP European sample to Tianyuan, and links of Tianyuan to Southern Americans, it seems like that might make various:

D([MA-1 / AG2], [UP European],[North American],[South American])
D([African outgroup], [UP European],[North American],[South American])

stats interesting to have a look at, where UP_European are the subjects of interest (GoyetQ113, Oase, Kostenki14, etc.), North American is an admixture free native North American person (Anzick child / Kennewick adult for instance) and South American includes Karitiana, Surui, Mixe.

Of course, might be a signal from Tianyuan to Surui, Karitiana, etc. and a signal from Tianyuan to this UP European while South Americans and the mystery UP European lack a signal to each other... But would be cool if these stats show a signature.

....

Finnish stuff is pretty awesome - Finns have expanded recently from a small population size; is this with admixture or strictly replacing a more Saami like population? Were the expanding population more Balt-like (expected) or more Swede-like in their overall ancestry?

Plus, how does this fit with population structue of the Nordic / Scandinavian region in general? See - http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/17/081505 p19, with a cline in Sweden between southmost individuals who are basically close to British / CEU cluster and northmost individuals who are look essentially Finnish.

...

For papers not mentioned in Davidski's post: "Reconstructing prehistoric African population structure and adaptation" (p79) should be pretty awesome as a complement to the recent paper on the Ballito Bay South African samples.

Shaikorth said...

@Matt


"Finnish stuff is pretty awesome - Finns have expanded recently from a small population size; is this with admixture or strictly replacing a more Saami like population? Were the expanding population more Balt-like (expected) or more Swede-like in their overall ancestry? "

Based on Broushaki 2016, Estonians are the best modern proxy, apparently verifiable by a PCA http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.com/2016/12/new-data-gives-11-million-snps.html.

The interesting thing is that these "old Saamis" lack EEF? Back when Haller et al. 2017 came out I quoted U of Tartu researcher Valter Lang:

"A common horizon for both Pre-Proto-Saami and Pre-Proto-Finnic (if it indeed existed) can only be found in the Volga–Oka region in the Bronze Age;

From there two branches of cultural influences spread westwards, one through the North-Western and another through the South-Western Passage of Contacts. The former can be connected with Pre-Proto-Saami and the latter with Pre-Proto-Finnic.

Both movements took place in several waves lasting over many centuries. The first Pre-Proto-Saami movements perhaps started already within the Textile Ware networks, but they certainly continued in the later Bronze Age / Early Iron Age (Anan’ino influences). The Pre-Proto-Finnic speakers started to shift westwards at the end of the second millennium BC.

...

As a result of these processes and language contacts with Proto-Baltic, Proto-Germanic, and some Palaeo-European, Proto-Finnic emerged and it also achieved the dominant position at least in what are today coastal Estonia, SW Finland, and the Daugava valley in Latvia. However, as more intensive and developing processes concentrated next on the coastal areas further north, it is easy to imagine the mechanisms of the separation of one portion of Proto-Finnic-population – the one that was later called South Estonian. "

https://s12.postimg.io/m49gshl71/image.png

This would mean that Corded Ware people, who had EEF, never existed in a typical form along the route pre-Saami took from Russia to Finland (Lang's Northwestern passage)? Indeed Saami is supposed to have a recent linguistic substrate from unknown language(s).

Matt said...

@ Shaikorth, trust on your knowledge of this, and the haplotypes may well tell.

Relevant to the above (very fine scale), also interesting:

p515 "Bridging the Divide Between Modern and Ancient DNA" - David Reich.

"developing a detailed understanding of how the peoples who lived in the early Bronze Age contributed to Iron Age populations who in turn contributed to Medieval populations who in turn contributed to people living today, has been difficult. One challenge is that by the beginning of the Bronze Age (at least in Western Eurasia where the most ancient DNA data have been collected), the ancestry composition of many populations was very similar to that of populations that live in the same regions today. As a result, the powerful methods that have been developed for learning about population history based on allele frequency correlation patterns are sometimes not able to discern the often subtle differences in ancestry composition between past populations. In this talk, I will describe work in which my colleagues and I have tried to begin to bridge this divide, both by studying ancient samples from intermediate time points, and by deploying more sensitive statistical methods."

To be honest, I'm not sure it's that hard necessarily to find links, when Davidski runs methods showing Anglo Saxon etc sitting firmly on the West European side of a modern intra-European PCA, and the Early Slavs sitting firmly on the East European side, and that all this is evident in Fst, but pretty welcome for Reich to be putting all this on a solid formal framework.

As well:

p503 "Modelling rare genetic variation in modern and ancient genomes to study recent human history" - Stephan Schiffels

(Btw, Africa paper is actually on p536, apologies).

Shaikorth said...

Srkz has done some good work on that aspect with his short IBD segment comparisons.

Unfortunately IBD and haplotypes require decent coverage from the samples. Rarecoal worked on the Anglo-Saxons and IA Britons, and Flegontov et al used it to verify Saqqaq-type ancestry in Na-Dene. It'll be interesting to see what Reich's team has done.

Cossue said...

@André
Very, very interesting! :-)

Kristiina said...

EEF is a characteristic of Central European Corded Ware, and is probably a result of the admixture with European Neolithic farmers. Baltic Corded Ware seems not have carried EEF as

“The presence of a Steppe-related component in Latvia_LN1 in the absence of an Anatolian farmer-related genetic input supports a Steppe rather than an Anatolian origin for the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family.”
(http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1)

In a recent nMonte analysis, neither Sope, i.e. RISE00 (Estonian Corded Ware) had any EEF:
Barcin_Neolithic:I0707 0 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 0 %

There were several different nMonte analyses and none of them showed any EEF. Only Hungary_CA:I1497 appeared in one of the analyses.

”It is without a doubt that the origin of Finnic languages in the Baltic is Siberian but most of the linguistically uralicized populations likely retained their European Hunter-Gatherer genetic affinities.”

Proto-Uralic was with all probability spoken in the forest Volga-Ural. An origin of pre-proto-Uralic in Siberia is pure speculation. The structure of Proto-Uralic is in no way similar to paleo-Siberian languages.

Volga-Uralic and Baltic-Finnic speakers are very much Yamnaya like. Much more than any western and central Europeans.

Matt said...

@ Davidski / Chad, couple of qpGraph models to test for relatedness between GoyetQ-116 and South Americans / Onge, based on Reich and Lipson's "Deep Working Model":

Model A: https://pastebin.com/eXNZZKsN (with admixture from base of ENA into MA-1)
Model B: https://pastebin.com/tmLX9JtL (with admixture from East Asian into MA-1)

I've labeled the Anzick child as Clovis:Anzick here (sorry, not sure what label is present in your datasets). If not Anzick then Kennewick should be just as workable.

Outlier >2 would be good, to see if there is any outlying signal between GoyetQ-116 and either Karitiana or Onge that requires a ghost / admixture edge to explain.

Rob said...

@ Shaikorth quoting

"A common horizon for both Pre-Proto-Saami and Pre-Proto-Finnic (if it indeed existed) can only be found in the Volga–Oka region in the Bronze Age;'

Yes. But what's before the Volga-Oka B.A. ?

Shaikorth said...

@Rob

According to Lang, the Proto-Uralic stage. Almost immediately in fact - splits around 4000 bp.

epoch2013 said...

@Matt

The abstract mentions specifically that Tianyuan has affinity to some South-Americans. That must be the mystery admixture that Pontus Skoglund found. It is found in Surui and Karitiana, but not Mixe. Don't know if the ancient samples have it. I don't even know if that has been tested.

Matt said...

@ Epoch2013, yeah, as you say, it seems likely that the relatedness of Tianyuan towards South Americans they describe is going to be connected to relatedness signal between Onge and South Americans, which Skoglund found.

Since they also mention that a 35,000 YBP UP European sample, presumably GoyetQ-116, is also displaced towards Tianyuan, I think it would be interesting to run those graphs and see if there is anything special going on between GoyetQ-116 and Onge and South Americans. Mixe could be used in place of Anzick in those graphs as well.

Rob said...

@ Shaikorth
Thanks, but I was asking from a genetic - population aspect (I know proto-Uralic comes before pre-Proto-Finnic, etc). A mixing of local EHGs & CWC-derived groups moving East from the Dnieper ?

epoch2013 said...

@Matt

Maybe swap Kariiana for Surui as the latter has the most mystery admixture?

Shaikorth said...

@Rob

I can't say so much about the genetic aspect because there are no Bronze Age ancient samples that far north in the Volga region. About EHG+CHG mixes, we know that those existed in eneolithic Samara and Ukrainian Neolithic didn't have as much CHG IIRC. So when CHG began to spread into EHG territory, did it move eastwards from Dnieper or did it spread along the Caspian shore?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Matt,

Used Mbuti instead of Yoruba, since I'm running another tree at the moment. I'm actually working on a tree based on Reich & Lipson (2017).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnQWdEeWxBVkdydTQ/view?usp=sharing

epoch2013 said...

Matt & Chad.


I am quite curious on the outcome of those, thanks in advance already.

Matt said...

Thanks Chad. Looks like something has gone seriously wrong with the way I laid it out though - MA1 models as 85% ENA, 15% North Eurasian and Karitiana as 64% East Asian, 36% North Eurasian, and the drift lengths on all the ancient branches look seriously high (esp. MA1, Goyet, Kostenki14, while Ust-Ishim looks the same as in Davidski's model).

I can't really make out the worst fitting stat, but involves Onge, Goyet, MA-1, Karitiana?

Maybe it would work better to fit MA-1 as unadmixed by default, even if that's not what we have in Reich and Lipson's model? Might be the qpGraph can't find the right levels of admixture in MA-1 for some reason, with the Basal ENA edge, and this throws everything off.

Anthro Survey said...

@Andre

Wow, so it does seem to be the case that Iberia was demographically impacted by Berber populations long before Roman times.

The more "middle eastern" nature of south iberia in their findings implies a greater proportion of Neolithic Levantine ancestry(presumably coming across Gibraltar). Makes sense.

I'f be curious to see if there was any E-M81 in the south, too.

Anthro Survey said...

@Chad

Check your anthrogenica inbox.

sds said...

@ Davidski, What giants from Pomorze?

Stolem, no doubt.:) Seriously, there is some similarity, I assume based on some sort of continuity during the late Iron Age/Great Migration period, in y-dna for northern Poland (Pomorze, Wiekopolska), and parts of Sweden and Finland. Wasn't there also a good deal of movement from Sweden to the southern regions of Finland throughout Medieval period?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@ Matt and all

New tree, with these outliers Z>2.

Din Ong Ust Kos -0.000163 -0.005587 -0.005424 0.002257 -2.403
Din Ong Kos Goy 0.000000 0.004661 0.004661 0.002108 2.211

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1Yna2F5QjhrZEpKU28/view?usp=sharing

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Interesting thing is no Denisovan to MA1 when you use Mez and Vin_merge for Neandertal, instead of the AMH admixed Altai individual.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Tree with no Z>2. Requires 4% Basal to Kostenki, as Asian to GoyetQ doesn't resolve the Din Onge Ust Kos stat.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnNjZ3TWp1UTJwZWM/view?usp=sharing

Matt said...

@Chad, awesome, and great fit. Lots of edges, but many are at 0% and are need to allow the graph to accommodate slight variations in archaic ancestry.

Looks like those outliers imply that Din Ong Ust Kos is around 0, and Kostenki14 has unusual low relatedness to Ong compared to both Goyet and Ust Ishim. Hence I guess why the basal edge in your second graph.

Do you think it would be possible to fit Clovis / Kennewick and Surui, or even just Mixe and Surui, on that graph?

On the topology, I would only say I'm not 100% on having a separate North and pMA1, as the they both get admixture from the same sources, and North has no other descendants than pMA1. But maybe this is you future proofing your graph for North having other descendant nodes. Or I guess some of these things make the graph have a better shape and are topologically equivalent.

Razib Khan said...

i will be tweeting

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Thanks, Razib!

Davidski said...

Actually, on second look at David Reich's abstract, his talk should be very interesting indeed.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@ Matt,

Sorry, I found one more unnecessary spot. This one is where I sit right now. I'm tempted to add Bichon or Gravettians, just to see what happens.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnVXFJZ1RVUFR2UEk/view?usp=sharing

Salden said...

>Wow, so it does seem to be the case that Iberia was demographically impacted by Berber populations long before Roman times.

We have Ancient Egyptian artwork showing Maghrebis as beige to yellow with West Eurasian hair and facial features.

Matt said...

@ Chad, integrating Vestonice16 could be interesting, as I believe its the highest quality Gravettian and has results like Kostenki14.

Btw, in case you could integrate it into your tree:

Skoglund 2015 extended data figure 6b: http://i.imgur.com/rHQQOFU.png, showing an edge from proto-Onge related population into South America.

Whole tree: https://pastebin.com/uff2wwj7

Subtree that should slot into your topology: https://pastebin.com/QpFv65LB (though I don't know about if more archaic edges might be needed)

epoch2013 said...

@Chad

That is interesting. Basal in K14 is back on the table in that graph. Fu et al, IIRC, stated that either all pre-14.000 ya ice age Europeans had Basal or there was gene flow between Asians and the Villabruna Cluster.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

@epoch

I think it gets even wilder than that. I'm putting together some stuff now.

@Matt,
I'll get to those as soon as I can.

Matt said...

Btw, all Razib and Skoglund are discussing this on twitter now; confirms the signal relates to GoyetQ116-1, South Americans, Oceanians.

europeuplement said...

" these estimates correspond to admixture events occurring at around 700 CE and 1300 CE, respectively, corresponding roughly to the Tang and Yuan dynasty in China."
----------------

Possibly a sogdian infuence (sogdians are derived from scythian people):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdia

Previously, Ordos culture (a scythian culture) stelled in China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordos_culture