A more complex tree of recent human origins


Sometimes charts are useful. The above plot does not have branch lengths which are proportional to length. But, they capture I think the rough topology. I’ve also put notes on there.

Some of the branches are certainly wrong. We’ll know more in the next few years.

14 thoughts on “A more complex tree of recent human origins

  1. one model is that west africans =
    proto-east africans + proto-basal humans + proto-north africans/eurasians

    probably some archaic, but that’s probably in all human populations

    0
  2. Have they actually found any “Early East Eurasian Modern” genetic ancestry in present-day populations? Not aware of any such studies.

    0
  3. I’d like to read more about these Early East Eurasian Modern and Basal Modern groups. From which remains or populations have we deduced these groups?

    0
  4. I was just gonna ask about the difference between a ‘west african’ and Dinka but then saw your comment lol. Super interesting.
    So proto-basal humans = similar to Hadza? And the proto north african are what exactly in terms of closest modern pop? It can’t be the self styled berbers/amazigh surely? I wonder abwt the omotic peoples in all of this…

    A small detail in Skoglund et al has been buggin me for a hot minute though. I don’t understand how the western-nilotic speaking Luo have 100% Mande related ancestry, whereas their Bantu speaking neighbours [and coincidentally extensively used/studied] Luhya have up to 40% Dinka related ancestry. I know of raiding/trading/mixing between each group, but did Skoglund et al make an error in tha paper? or did i read suttin incorrectly?

    0
  5. What is the Model for current North Africans and Iberomaursians? Proto-North African + Basal Eurasian + West Eurasian?

    0
  6. So proto-basal humans = similar to Hadza? And the proto north african are what exactly in terms of closest modern pop? It can’t be the self styled berbers/amazigh surely? I wonder abwt the omotic peoples in all of this…

    hadza = east african. reich has said they might be closest to out of africa humans. though that might be affinity due to backmigration.

    these models are tentative. nothing locked down.

    please see the follow-up chart.

    0
  7. Are we at the point yet where we can say whether the first people to inhabit South Asia were more closely related to East Asians or Australasians?

    0
  8. Where will indigenous Indians i.e. AASI(Archaic Ancestral South Indians) fit here? Are they descendants of East Eurasians?
    Also can you please tell me, do most modern Indians, except some upper caste groups, get most of ancestry from AASI i.e. they are indigenous to India?

    0
  9. @S Kumar: Razib, can probably give you a better answer on AASI, but I will try.

    It seems like a complicated question to me because of how many different groups there are in India and how they all have different levels of AASI. I would guess from Reich group’s latest graphic that a small majority of Indian cline groups have less than 50% AASI. See: https://i.imgur.com/ch2qeG5.png. Considering that and the population in India is also centered in the north where AASI ancestry tends to be lower, so overall I would guess that most Indian people have slightly less than 50% AASI ancestry (so less than “a majority”). But it is hard to answer definitively. It’s also possible that some of the Iranian related ancestry came to India before farming.

    Probably there is more AASI in India than direct hunter-gatherer ancestry in Europe (though if we’re thinking more about “how alike” the people before and after the mass migrations are, we have to consider that the groups that migrated en masse to Europe were basically from the edges of Europe directly into their north and west – NW Anatolia and the steppes north of the caucasus – and a probably bit more similar than the people who migrated from further away to India, from basically NW Iran as best guess and NE Europe via Central Asia).

    0
  10. “Also can you please tell me, do most modern Indians, except some upper caste groups, get most of ancestry from AASI i.e. they are indigenous to India?”

    @S.Kumar Just my two cents, Most of middle-caste Hindus and Muslims from Hindi belt, Bengal, Gujrat, Maharashtra and South India are approximately 60% Iran_N or Iran_N/Steppe that means 40% AASI for the majority of Indians. In Bengal might be slightly lower due to east Asian. I think Iran_N is as much native as AASI is because these two together form the basis of all modern south Asians. I agree with Matt, some of Iran_N might have a pre-farming origin.

    0

Comments are closed.