Talk:Ancient North Eurasian

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archaeology Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

First: ANE is "basal to modern day Europeans", deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe

Later: The ANE component was introduced to Western Europe by people related to the Yamnaya culture, long after the Paleolithic. It is reported in modern-day Europeans (7%–25%), but not of Europeans before the Bronze Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.146.61 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANE being "deeply related" to Paleolithic HGs means that these groups split a long time ago. Then, ANE+WHG = EHG, EHG+CHG=Yamnaya-related, who brought this ancestry to (western) Europe during the third millennium BCE. Perhaps the article needs to explain this a bit better. Tewdar (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"entered Scandinavia from the north through the coast of Norway" - in this form the sentence is nonsense. You perhaps mean, "from the north-east .."?2A02:8108:9640:AC3:40BD:40E1:A051:A933 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken and Nanuh2020: I saw your discussion about the ancestry of Native South Americans. The closest thing I found in the source to support the statement was this sentence: "TreeMix model indicated multiple admixture events: 41% admixture (95% CI: 36%–45%) from the ANE clade represented by MA-1 and AG-2 individuals into Native Americans represented by Andean Highlanders" (below Fig. 7). So I think Nanuh2020 was right that Bathtub did some original research there. And after I lost many hours checking their lousy POV work at West Eurasians (now reduced to a redirect), I'm not going to trust them again. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see how much you take pride in vandalizing articles, I already asked for mediation which will hopefully arrive eventually.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Nonsense, if the nomenclature written in another article bothers you, modify it directly. That has 0 to do with this article whatsoever. Specially when the nomenclature that bothers you isn't being used. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ancient Beringians causes a problem in this article. Since I should give a good example using polite language, I struck out the word "lousy" above. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I just took a look at Ancient Beringians and saw that the problem could be easily solved based on the sources provided there. So I restored the paragraph, but left out the last part for which there is no source. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bathtub Barracuda: The sentence Such as those from the Andean region in South America. has no verb. I'd fix it myself, but am a bit at a loss regarding a matching one. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'll fix it. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bathtub Barracuda: It's still wrong. "belonging to" is no verb. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made it a comma that follows the rest of the statement.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sunghir Man.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OR. Please don't accuse users of "vandalism" and please don't use expressions like "completely blantant POV edit". If somebody disagrees with you, that's not vandalism. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I stand by my tone and my statements, this is OBVIOUSLY a vandalic edit, you can verify the contents of the study yourself here, the entirety of the pharagraph added to this article can be found in its original state as:

The TreeMix model also revealed several important admixture events. In particular, we found that 43% (95% CI: 38%–47%) of the Western Siberian ancestry could be attributed to an ancient admixture, with the Eastern Siberian population most related to the modern-day Evenk people. The Northwestern Siberian Nenets people exhibited evidence of an additional admixture, with the Eastern Siberian population closely related to modern-day Evens. We estimated that 38% (95% CI: 31%–46%) of the Nenets’ ancestry could be attributed to this admixture event.

The pharagraph currently upholded on this article is goes as:

A genetic study in 2017 by Wong et al., who analysed several Northern Eurasian/Siberian samples, including the ancient Sungir, Mal'ta–Buret' and Ust'-Ishim samples, revealed a complex population history of Siberia and Northeastern Europe. The "Ancient North Eurasian" (ANE) component can be modeled as admixture of West-Eurasian and East-Eurasian lineages. ANE has about 43% East-Eurasian ancestry (38% to 47%; samplified by Eastern Siberian Evenk people). It was also found that the Yamnaya have a significant input from Eastern Siberians which is associated with their link to the ANE population, however it is relatively lower than among the Mansi people of Western Siberia. The authors note that the arrival of this East-Eurasian ancestry predates the formation of the Yamnaya culture.

The information has been completely, unequivocally altered to present an idea that is both false, and ridiculous when compared to the enormous academic canon on the subject, this is by all mesures and purposes, vandalism. I was too kind even to rather than outright delete the mention, move it to the proper position on this article (West Siberian Hunter Gatherer); and introducing whats sensible about the original, actual statement. Would've it had been you you would've completely deleted it as you did on my

West Eurasian

article.

On the image, I have already elaborated on the nomination page, there's no need to paraphrase myself here. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image, the only question here is: Where has it been published ? If unpublished, it is

WP:OR. The IP already reminded you of WP:OR on 8th December, so accusing them of vandalism doesn't seem to be justified. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:PSTS

are neither applicable here, once is a published study, other is a reputable news article, both are entirely legitimate and I dont see the reason why delete them. "West Eurasian" doesnt exist as a geographical concept, it IS born as a necessity to explain genetic affinities across populations, it wasnt a "race" or anything similar to that whatsoever, you seem to be confused or misguided on what West Eurasian even means and thats why you are easily manipulated into feeling antagonistic about it by other users posting on your talk page, it has 0% to do with race or racialism, its scientific lingo, what you are saying is partially true in that gravettians are not ancestral to all west eurasian populations, i can rephrase that, but the article states clearly that Upper paleolithic european such as kostenki, sungir and so forth are all ancestral or at least closely related to the crown west eurasians.

@

WP:PSTS doesn't apply here ? Where does your source use "West Eurasian" in the sense of a population distinct from other populations ? Some time ago, you misrepresented the source about South Americans, then you used a picture that was either OR or copyvio (or both), you also misrepresented a source for your claim that "all" West Eurasians are descended from Gravettians, and you should not blame me for that. Also, please don't use argumentum ad hominem. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Austronesier: Hello, I wanted to bring this to your attention. In Hokkaido Jomon entry, someone claims that Jomons are 21% ANE but this is not mentioned in provided source (Cooke et al. 2021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448447/) nor are they shown admixed with ANE in graph or anywhere but entirely East Eurasian (Fig. 3.). Please look into it. Jomon does not have ANE admixture but Ainu have minor ANE admixture due to Okhotsk culture. In Sato et al 2021 https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evab192 Ainu derive ~49% of their ancestry from the Hokkaido Jōmon (East Eurasian, no ANE in Hokkaido Jomon), ~22% from the Okhotsk (samplified by Chukotko-Kamchatkan peoples with ANE admixture), and ~29% from the Yamato Japanese (Fig. 8.). Please take note of both studies. Someone is trying to mislead people on here by falsely claiming Jomon are 21% ANE. 117.198.116.189 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indian IP, how do you know who Austronesier is? Your comment is very similar to an Austrian IP's sole edit; [1] - Hunan201p (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: Hi i came across the editor after looking through history of this page. I thought i should contact someone reliable instead of editing randomly. I didn't know it was added in Okhotski page by that person, so this 21% must have been added by that Austrian IP person you mentioned. You can check me if you like. I wanted to point out the fault which was not found in source.117.198.116.212 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: Hey, (Cooke et al. 2021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448447/) Fig. 3. graph shows MA1 (ANE) admixture 31.4% going into USR1 (Pleistocene Alaskan), not Jomon. Note the arrow marks. Supplementary information (Table s6) does not give % for such admixture either. The affinity between Jomon and Yana is very likely due to Proto-East Asian which contributed to ANE, which several studies have suggested and also cited in first section of this wiki article. 117.198.116.212 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: While Sato et al 2021 https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evab192 (Fig. 8) does support ANE-related admixture (via Kamchatkan) into Ainu, rather than in Jomon.117.198.116.212 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have read your messages. The graph that the Wikipedia article refers to for 21% is graph D in Fig. 3, not graph C.

https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/sciadv.abh2419/asset/4781b228-e461-4b6c-a7b3-bc974deb7e30/assets/images/large/sciadv.abh2419-f3.jpg

As you can see the lower left D chart reads "initial Jomon" and gives percentage wise contributions of ancestry. There is a red cross, a purple cross, and a brown cross, representing MA-1, AG2, and Yana. These are hovering at 21%.

I will look at Sato. If there is a source conflict it can be resolved.- Hunan201p (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: Hey, f3 statistics does not show ancestry % but drifts, while qpAdm, qpgraph and TreeMix shows ancestry %. They would have shown that in Treemix if that was the case. Here in this new study (Morten E. Allentoft et al 2022 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v2.full.pdf) Fig.4 Admixture modelling tree/qpgraph, you can see East Eurasian/Jomon related admixture going -> into Yana/Ancient North Siberian in page 39. It appears to be similar to what is cited in first section of this wiki article regrading ANE admixed with early East Asian. In Sato et al 2021 (Fig. 8) Ainu later receive admixture from Kamchatkan-related (ANE-admixed) ppl. 117.198.116.212 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course wholly correct, and last night I was only attempting to bring someone in to the discussion. The editor who re-added this information to the article was a banned LTA, and this is but one of the unsubstantiated edits they added to the article (under different IPs). So, allow me to apologize and just remove the unverifiable content. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I've been busy lately, so I couldn't chime in earlier. The IP is of course right: outgroup f3-statistics only indicates shared genetic drift, which can be due to a common ancestor or additional geneflow in either direction. The purpose of fig 3D is just to illustrate that all Jomon samples are virtually indistinguishable when compared to other Asian populations, which means that Jomons were isolated from the mainland from the time of initial settlement until the arrival of the Yayoi people. The LTA has written much erroneous stuff all over the place in this respect that badly needs to be fixed. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What on my edits was "unhelpful"? I included a secondary paper (per

The citation^[1]:

"in Upper Paleolithic Siberia, populations associated with a thriving Ancient Northern Siberian (ANS) ancestry were widespread and closely related to European hunter-gatherers (Figure 2). ANS ancestry had a lasting impact on the ancestral population contributing to the First Americans, as well as steppe populations who would later influence populations in Mongolia, Siberia, and central and southern Asia."

Furthermore, I correct another sentence citing the primary paper by Vallini et al. 2022 from: "ANE ancestry developed from a sister lineage of West-Eurasians with significant admixture from early East Asians."

To: "The "ANE-cline", as observed among Paleolithic Siberian populations and their direct descendants, developed from a sister lineage of Europeans with later significant admixture from early East Asians."

What does the reference (and the inline citation cited) say:

Supplementary Information, p. 17: "Paleolithic Siberian populations younger than 40 ky are consistently described as a mix of European and East Asian ancestries."

Note it says "European" not "West-Eurasian", and that Paleolithic Siberians younger than 40kya are consistently characterized with the admixture of European and East Asian ancestries.

Therefore the content to which was reverted is factually

Lastly, the - for whatever reason - disruptive editor keeps suddenly dismissing the references as "possible not reliable", when it is published by a respected geneticist - Melinda A. Yang - with multiple other papers and high quality sources within a review paper (it is citing all previous papers and therefore

The issue here is not Melinda Yang but rather the citation link. The journal given is Human Population Genetics and Genomics (ISSN 2770-5005), published by Pivot Science Publishers (not to be confused with Elsevier's book of the same name). This paper from Pivot doesn't even appear to have been cited before, and Pivot Science seems sketchy to me. As for your edits they've been described as unhelpful in the past such as when added by confirmed socks. Hunan201p (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dear Hunan201p, but where and how are these edits similar to your linked ones? They are basically the opposite. Furthermore you still do not explain why you restore original research and remove the correct lead summary. The part about being close to European hunter-gatherers is also cited by Raghavan et al.^[2] and Jeong et al.^[3].

Raghvan et al:

Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought.

Jeong et al:

For example, the Upper Paleolithic genomes from the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora sites in southern Siberia revealed a genetic profile, often called “Ancient North Eurasians (ANE)”, which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe and also substantially contributed to the gene pools of present-day Native Americans, Siberians, Europeans and South Asians19,20.

And Pivot Science publication is reliable publishing site and used by a number of academics for Open Access knowledge (i.e. preventing pay wall by journals):^[4]; their editorial process:^[5] (->peer-reviewed).

Yet again this quotation: "in Upper Paleolithic Siberia, populations associated with a thriving Ancient Northern Siberian (ANS) ancestry were widespread and closely related to European hunter-gatherers (Figure 2). ANS ancestry had a lasting impact on the ancestral population contributing to the First Americans, as well as steppe populations who would later influence populations in Mongolia, Siberia, and central and southern Asia" is cited inline the 2022 review paper by three papers:

Yang MA, Gao X, Theunert C, Tong H, Aximu-Petri A, Nickel B, et al. 40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia. Curr Biol 2017;27(20):3202-3208; Fu Q, Li H, Moorjani P, Jay F, Slepchenko SM, Bondarev AA, et al. Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia. Nature 2014;514(7523):445-449; and Fu Q, Posth C, Hajdinjak M, Petr M, Mallick S, Fernandes D, et al. The genetic history of Ice Age Europe. Nature 2016;534(7606):200-205.

Than again, what is a rational reason for the removal? Reworded and rework it, but apply

WP:Weight. See the points I made initially at this discussion section and think about it calmly, look at my edits again, they are not "unhelpful". That's all.45.159.250.18 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a bit silly to talk about OR here when Vallini et al. themselves flip-flop between "European" and "West Eurasian" in their paper and the Supplement (and actually use "West Eurasian" more often throughout the text). And even more silly to bicker about it. @Sockmaster: won't you ever try a Wikipedia:Clean start?–Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Human Population Genetics and Genomics" doesn't sound like an authentic journal. Open Access journals are known for being predatory publishers, and neither HPGG (ISSN 2770-5005) nor Pivot Science Publications appears at the Web of Science index. I also noticed that Pivot's website is lacking a security certificate... - Hunan201p (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles, see [2], yet the respective citations for the quotation I used previously are published and peer-reviewed, so I do not see any "unhelpful" content. What exactly is unhelpful according to you (Hunan201p) in this rewording:

In

Northern Eurasia and Siberia, that represents a lineage ancestral to the people of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture and populations closely related to them, such as from Afontova Gora and the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site, and populations descended from them. The "ANE-cline", as observed among Paleolithic Siberian populations and their direct descendants, developed from a sister lineage of Europeans with later significant admixture from early East Asians

.

Lastly, please take a look at my rewording and explain what is "unhelpful". Thank you... 45.159.250.18 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANS was significantly admixed with its earliest attestation from Yana. The "European" or "West-Eurasian" component is an unattested ghost population. Sikora et al. (2019) estimate the East Asian-admixture at around one third, also Yang et al. (2017) in their Tianyuan paper. How is this not significant? Vallini et al. obtain higher figures mostly because they only have the most ancient specimens in their skeletal tree, but this is not where "significant" comes from anyway. And how is this East Asian geneflow "late" when the are no samples of unadmixed West-Eurasian ancestry from Paleolithic Siberia? –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Sikora et al. 2019 estimated 22% early East Asian admixture among Yana (in her admixture graph) while the ANE Malta_UP is modeled as 88% Yana/ANS-like and 12% additional West-Eurasian-like admixture. The West/East admixture happened "in an admixture event that probably occurred very soon after East-Eurasians diverged from West-Eurasians". If only looking at West-Eurasian samples, the Yana/Malta_UP did not needed additional admixture. Yang et al. 2017 estimated 32% geneflow into Yana, but very close to the split between West and East Eurasians (not linked to Tianyuan), and mention that her used samples may not be "the most appropriate proxy source populations". Wong et al. 2017^[9] does not found any admixture among Malta_UP (aka ANE), but models them as sister lineage to Europeans (diverging date 45-33kya). Lazaridis et al. 2014 modeled the ANE as sister lineage to West-Eurasians without admixture from ENA. But all this shows that these estimations must be taken with a grain of salt. Therefore we should not rely on them, but cite what the authors actually have written in words. Such as:

"in Upper Paleolithic Siberia, populations associated with a thriving Ancient Northern Siberian (ANS) ancestry were widespread and closely related to European hunter-gatherers (Figure 2). ANS ancestry had a lasting impact on the ancestral population contributing to the First Americans, as well as steppe populations who would later influence populations in Mongolia, Siberia, and central and southern Asia"

Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought.

For example, the Upper Paleolithic genomes from the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora sites in southern Siberia revealed a genetic profile, often called “Ancient North Eurasians (ANE)”, which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe and also substantially contributed to the gene pools of present-day Native Americans, Siberians, Europeans and South Asians19,20.

etc.

That these populations would have admixture is not really surprising looking at their geographic location. But the lineage giving rise to ANE/ANS was obviously not. It was probably linked to the EHG, therefore we occasionally read EHG-ANE cline, both sharing this ancestry from the West-Eurasian "ghost population". You probably know very well that there is a mess with these admixture estimations, the best example are the EHG, from nearly identical to ANE to marginally 9%. Therefore I suggest to make use of the above inline citations as I initially tried to do. I do not care if we use the term "minor" or "significant" or "medium" admixture. More accurate would be "admixture in varying degrees" or "different amounts of admixture depending on the respective used model". Perhaps the latter?

45.159.250.18 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more prose from Sikora et al.: "Thus, the ANS population represents a distinct lineage with affinities to both early West Eurasians and early East Asians, albeit in a 2:1 ratio". That's quick'n'dirty and translates well into "significant". –Austronesier (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clear. Perhabs we can find a solution with this rewording, taking my above points into account:

In

Northern Eurasia and Siberia, that represents a lineage ancestral to the people of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture and populations closely related to them, such as from Afontova Gora and the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site, and populations descended from them. The Ancient North Eurasians are described as being closely related to European hunter-gatherers, and derive most of their ancestry from a deeply shared West-Eurasian source population. The "ANE-cline", describing the Paleolithic Siberian populations younger than 40kya, developed from a sister lineage of Europeans with variable but significant amounts of admixture from early East Asians.

^{[10][11][12][13][14]}