Talk:Ancient North Eurasian

Contradiction

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)

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)

Geography??

"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)

South Americans ?

@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)

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)

@Beyond My Ken and Nanuh2020: I also removed the paragraph on "Ancient Beringians". The reason was the statement of a calculable "East Eurasian" ancestry. "East Eurasian" is a redirect to "Eurasia" (i.e. not a population, but a continent). The article Ancient Beringians uses "Proto-Mongoloid" instead, which is derived from the outdated racist concept of "Mongoloid". So IMHO, the whole thing remains unclear and dubious. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Bathtub Barracuda: It is not the use of the word "Mongoloid" that bothers me, but the pseudoscience related to it. This article should only refer to concepts that are clearly defined in science, that's why a problem in 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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

@Bathtub Barracuda: If the picture is really your "own work", it doesn't qualify for WP, see 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)

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)

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)

@Bathtub Barracuda: I restored the earlier version of the lede. Please, don't call everything that you don't agree with "vandalism". Also, please take a look at WP:RS (your first source at the lede), and WP:PSTS, which says that interpreting primary sources should be left to secondary sources, not to our judgment. The sources use "west Eurasian" only in a geographical sense, not in the sense of a race, and they don't say that all west Eurasians are descended from Gravettians. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS and 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.

@Bathtub Barracuda: A scientific subject cannot be presented based on news articles. Why do you think that 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)

Misinterpreted source/Not found in source

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Misleading content removal

What on my edits was "unhelpful"? I included a secondary paper (per WP:Secondary) and an inline citations citing that the initial ANE lineage (ANS) was widespreaded in Paleolithic Siberia and closely related to European hunter-gatherers.

The citation:

"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 WP:OR. __

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 WP:Secondary. This is a disruptive behavior and does not conform to any Wikipedia rules. If the editor thinks this paper is not reliable, he should take it to the respective Wikipedia discussion pages and not randomly throw around accusations in bad faith! @Austronesier: what are your thoughts?45.159.250.18 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 45.159.250.18 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. and Jeong et al..

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):; their editorial process: (->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:WIKIVOICE and 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)

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)

"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)

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 archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (generally abbreviated as ANE) refers to an ancestral lineage, closely related to European hunter-gatherers in Paleolithic 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.

It is concensus that ANS was closely/deeply related to European hunter-gatherers and underwent admixture with "early East Asians". ANS is considered ancestral to the ANE cline (the AG and MA-1 samples specifically), which also showed varying degrees of admixture (there is no agreement for how much admixture frequencies, some papers mention none, some minor and some significant admixture). Yet there is only one paper cited for the admixture giving "significant" estimations. We also have (perhaps wrong) estimations for basal West-Eurasian or Ust'Ishim geneflow into Tianyuan/East Asians, contrary to Tianyuan geneflow into ANE (MA-1), also and. What do we do with that? These primary estimations should not be cited in the lead in my opinion, especially when so many different models exist. Concensus is (by the majority of published papers talking or modeling the ANE) that the ANE/ANS lineage represents a closely/deeply European-related lineage which later may or may not underwent admixture with early East Asians, perhaps Tianyuan or not, (they obviously did of course, but the initial lineage was not mixed for obvious reasons, and the multiple existing models make it hard to give a simple statement per WP:Weight in the lead). Furthermore if you (Hunan201p) "dislike" this review paper, than we can also used the citations used for this statement by Yang (and the other papers which I cited above) to cite the rewording I made.

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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

In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (generally abbreviated as ANE) refers to an ancient population in Paleolithic 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.

In this way we mention all important information in a way applying to WP:WIKIVOICE, including the significant (but variable) amounts of admixture. And we do not use the citation from Yang 2022 which some users dislike or have concerns about it's reliability. What are your thoughts on this rewording? Any objections or further ideas. Thanks for the quote by btw.45.159.250.18 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How many sources speak of an ANE-cline? For most sources, "ANE" is a workable reference point from which other clines are built on. Btw, I'm baffled to see how your earlier insistence to trace East Asian ancestry everywhere has turned into defending a wording that leaves the founding contribution of East Asian ancestry into ANE as an afterthought. ("Perhabs" I am mistaken, though.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "ANE-cline" may not be the best choice in Wikipedia, true, but we should somehow mention that different samples had different amounts of admixture or ancestry component frequency, eg. Yana had 22% East Asian admixture, Malta was modeled as Yana+18% additional West-Eurasian (per Sikora), and AG had even less East Asian ancestry, forming a "cline" within the "ANE". (Btw. ANE is actually defined as Malta, not Yana, Yana is closely related but not identical. Initially Malta=ANE=siter lineage of contemporary West-Eurasians). Perhaps we should make this more clear as well. I have no problem to remove the term "cline" from my proposal.

In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (generally abbreviated as ANE) refers to an ancient population in Paleolithic Northern Eurasia and Siberia, that represents a lineage ancestral to the people of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture, but also populations closely related to them, such as from Afontova Gora and the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site, and populations descended from these. 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 Paleolithic Siberian populations younger than 40kya, are consistently described to have formed from a sister lineage of Europeans with variable but significant amounts of admixture from early East Asians. ANE-associated archeological remains (Malta, Yana and Afontova Gora) display different amounts of admixture from East Asians.

The last sentence of my proposal may also be: "ANE-associated archeological remains (Malta, Yana and Afontova Gora) display slightly different frequency of ancestral components."

And yes, I did make many mistakes in the past, but I want to overcome this. Do you see further problems with this rewording?45.159.250.18 (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Vallini et al. (2022)

@Wikiuser1314: You have changed the first lede paragraph mostly based on Vallini et al. (2022), by adding a) that ANE ancestry descended from ANS and b) that non-West Eurasian admixture came "from deep East-Eurasian lineages, particularly a lineage closer to the Ust'-Ishim man". The latter part is obviously based on the graph in Fig. S5.D, which is generated from transversion-only SNPs. The main purpose of the graph is to verify the basic structure in Figs. S5.A-C obtained from statistics that use all preserved SNPs, but they are not very committed to its details. In their words, the limited set of SNPs that Fig. S5.D is based on has "enough power to identify siberians as a mixture of UP [= West Eurasian] and IUP [= East Eurasian], but not sufficient to pinpoint the exact position of the admixing source within the variegated IUP branch."

So IMO, a non-committed "East Eurasian" without details (I'd actually prefer "East Asian" based on quite a number of earlier studies, but that's not the point here) is a better representation of Vallini et al. (note that Fig. 1.A in the main part of the paper is based on Fig. S5.C, which gets East Eurasian ancestry from a sister lineage of Tianyuan). Btw, Fig. S5.D is actually at odds with your other addition to the text ("ANE ancestry descended from an earlier "Ancient North Siberian" population"), since Mal'ta and Yana are modeled as originating from independent admixture events. My suggestion is: "less is more", especially in the lede. Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yep, that was a logical contradiction. Yours sincerely Wikiuser1314 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Grebenyuk et al. (2022)

@Wikiuser1314: I couldn't find how the following passage from your lastest addition is based on Grebenyuk et al. (2022): "A link to the Central Asian Ust'-Ishim man, who was previously described as equally related to West- and East-Eurasians, would represent a possible migration route for Ancient North Eurasians, but lacks solid evidence". Maybe I've overlooked it during my admittedly cursory reading of the chapter. –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Should actually be "A link to the Central Asian Ust-Ishim site, of which a hunter-gatherer sample was previously described as...", based on Fu et al. 2014 "This suggests that the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations prior to - or simultaneously with - their divergence from each other. The finding that the Ust’-Ishim individual is equally closely related to present-day Asians and to 8,000- to 24,000-year-old individuals from western Eurasia, but not to present-day Europeans, is compatible with the hypothesis that present-day Europeans derive some of their ancestry from a population that did not participate in the initial dispersals of modern humans into Europe and Asia 11." and "It is possible that the Ust’-Ishim individual was associated with the Asian variant of Initial Upper Paleolithic industry, documented at sites such as Kara-Bom in the Altai Mountains at about 47,000 yrs BP. This would then represent an early modern human radiation into Europe and Central Asia that may have failed to leave descendants among present-day populations29."; which is further elaborated by Grebenyuk et al. (2022): "It has been suggested that the representatives of the IUP cultural community of Southern Siberia and Central Asia belonged to one of the migration waves of the anatomically modern humans (Fu et al. 2014). The discovery of a human femur in Ust-Ishim in the Irtysh River valley (57°N) dated to 41,400 uncal BP/ 45,000 calBP is essential for understanding the paths into Northern Eurasia for the Homo sapiens’ first populations." I will write it in a more clear way and add the Fu paper as additional citation. Wikiuser1314 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The map

@पाटलिपुत्र: thank you for updating the map. It looks much better with the geographical details. Frankly, I haven't given much attention to the map before, but I have noticed that it had some errors which now were taken over into the visually amended map.

• The main error is the area of WSHG which is too far south. Tyumen, the "type site" of WSHG ancestry lies at 57° latitude, while Botai, a WSHG-rich population lies at 53°. So the northernmost known WSHG-site more or less has the same latitude as the northern end of Lake Baikal. I'm also not sure if WSHG-rich ancestry extended all the way to the shore of the Caspian Sea.
• Also, Iran_N is not commonly understood as having ANE-rich ancestry. Sure, there are some models that have the non-basal (=West) Eurasian component of Iran_N/CHG as close to ANE, e.g. Sikora et al. (2019). But this is based on a topology that has several ghosts linking ANE and Iran_N/CHG, because both the pre-ANE population (before they moved to Siberia) and the West Eurasian component of Iran_N/CHG are completely unsampled. So this remains an area of great uncertainty. I suggest to remove the green area entirely.
• Jomon ancestry has a faint ANE (or rather ANS) signal, but that's only interesting when discussing the Jomons, but not relevant in a map that displays ANE and ANE-rich populations.

So I would only keep ANE, WSHG (with fixed location), EHG and AB/ANA in the map. There are of course recent discoveries that would deserve a separate spot on the map (Tarim mummies, Altai hunter-gatheres), but let's start with a broad fix. @Wikiuser1314: what do you think? Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments @Austronesier: I'll try some tweaking. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked

Hi @Austronesier: with the above adjustments. Please tell me if it's OK. I don't mind tweeking a bit more, so tell me if something still doesn't feel right. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I like the map but it needs Ancient North Siberians (Yana) --> ANE, as well as the mixing with East Asians that happened prior to the migration out of Eurasia (preferably both currently posited scenarios: the southward dispersal to Lake Baikal area or the northward dispersal to Beringia). Without East Asians on the map it is inadequate and misleading. Citation is Raff 2022:

Extended content

We know from later comparisons that the Mal'ta boys' people were direct descendants of the Ancient North Siberians from Yana (7). They were broadly ancestral to present day Eurasians. But in comparing his genome to present day populations from across the world, they found that he was also closely related to present day Native Americans; his population was directly ancestral to them. Mal'ta's population -- the ancient Northern Siberians, seems to have encountered the daughter East Asian population described at the beginning of this chapter around 25,000 years ago and interbred with them. Current estimates suggest that approximately 63% of the First Peoples' ancestry comes from the East Asian group and the rest from the Ancient North Siberians. We're not sure where this interaction took place. Some archaeologists believe that it occured in East Asia, suggesting that this is where the Siberians moved during the LGM. There's also a case to be made for this interaction having taken place bear the Lake Baikal region in Siberia from genetic evidence, too. The ancient Paleo-Siberians, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, split from the East Asian ancestors of Native Americans by about 25,000 years ago. They are known to us from the genomes of an Upper Paleolithic person from the Lake Baikal region known to us from the genomes of an Upper Paleolithic from the Lake Baikal region known as UKY and a person from Northeastern Siberia dating to about 9,800 years ago known as Kolyma1. Closely related to Native Americans, these "cousin" genomes also show a mixture of ancestry from Ancient North Siberian and East Asian populations, although the proportion of East Asian ancestry is a bit higher than in Native Americans -- about 75%. The Ancient North Siberian gene flow into the East Asian ancestors of the Ancient Paleo-Siberians probably occured at the same time as into the ancestors of Native Americans -- between about 25,000 and 20,000 years ago. Because UKY lived in the Lake Baikal region some 14,000 years ago, some researchers argue, it seems likely that the meeting between East Asians and Ancient North Siberians occured in the Trans-Baikal region. But other archaeologists and geneticists argue that the meeting of the two grandparent populations of Native Americans occured because people moved north, not south, in response to the LGM. In this scenario, Paleo-Siberian descendants, like UKY, could have been the result of a southward repopulation of Siberia out of Beringia. The reason for this is because both mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of Native Americans show that they had been isolated from all other populations for a prolonged period of time, during which they developed the genetic traits found only in Native American populations. This finding, initially based on classical genetic markers and mitochondrial evidence, came to be known as the Beringian Incubation, the Beringian Pause or the Beringian Standstill hypothesis.

--Hunan201p (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:Hunan201p for the comments. I'll be waiting for User:Austronesier's take too to make modifications. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Yana (Ancient Norther Siberian = ANS) definitely needs to be included, probably best (or at least easiest) by extending the ANE blob up to the Laptev Sea and labelling it (ANS/ANE).

As for the Ancient Paleo-Siberians (= APS, represented by the genomes of Ust-Khyakhta-3 and Kolyma), it's a matter of where to make a cutoff. Sikora et al. (2019) model Kolyma as stemming from an independent admixture of the two same sources as ANA (i.e. from ANE and northern East Asian), but with different proportions (AB/ANA: 40% : 60%; APS: 27% : 73%), which roughly matches the figures of Raff (2022). Yu et al. (2020) and Mao et al. (2021) successfully model APS in a different way, viz. as sister lineages of AB/ANA with each receiving additional pulses of northern East Asian geneflow. So in a way, APS ancestry is like steppe ancestry, being more remotely ANE-derived. I'm open to add APS (or even both APS and Yamnaya) but maybe with striped shading.

The only thing I'm worried about is sourcing. Assembling the key findings of the last years is not to hard based on the best sources, but putting them together in a good map will eventually be quite a SYNTH-product. –Austronesier (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked

Hi guys. I added the ANS on the map, which seems to make consensus. As for the other points I don't really know how to deal with them graphically (or if we should even try to add them... cf sourcing). I also feel that it might be best to keep the map simple... At the very least, I would need a rough drawing if we are to add more elements to the map... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The map looks quite fine. Perhaps the EHG part may be slightly shifted or extended, as the EHG are samplified by the Samara HG but also the Karelia HG. (I would colour the Karelia region too.) Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Size of EHG extended to the west (Karelia). Emptying the file cache might be needed to see the modification. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Two separate articles or better one?

I have just redirected the newly created page Ancient North Siberian to it's archaeological article. Both ANE and ANS are discussed here, and there is no clear cut between the two. Both are actually sometimes referred to as ANE/ANS lineage or simply Ancient North Siberians. I do not think that it is useful to have two articles (Ancient North Eurasians here, and Ancient North Siberians, as well as repeating the same content at their respective archaeologic articles. My suggestion would be to deal with the genetic stuff here at this article, and perhaps think about moving the page (or just noting the different terms for Malta, AG, Yana, etc.) and link to this article at their respective archaeologic articles to reduce repeated content and redundancy. Just my thoughts, what do you others think? Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly blanking [3]... For the sake of clarity, I tend to think it is preferable to have a separate article about Ancient North Siberians like the one I had started: Ancient North Siberian, to be expanded as new considerations and new scholarship arises, especially in relation with the other genetics lineages. "Ancient North Siberian" appears everywhere in the literature, usually distinctly from ANE, and it is a bit strange to be redirected to an archaeological site (Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site), even though, the Yana site is the only Ancient North Siberian site (for the time being?). Ontologically, a genetic lineage is not the same thing as an archaeological site, and both article should expand in different directions... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more in agreement with the respective studies to deal with both in a single article. The two are not clearly separated, and at least in one instance 'Ancient North Siberian' was used for both Yana and Malta/AG. To reduce confusions and redundancy, it would be easier to deal with both here. I would also reduce the genetic information at the respective archeologic articles, as I initially did, now it harbors again content which is identical to the content here. It would be better to explain that there is an archaeogenetic lineage X associated with Y remain, rather than having thr same information here and at the archaeologic article, which you correctly said is not the same thing. So why you included the same content in the archaeologic and in the newly created article? Overall I see no problem with the Ancient North Siberian article per se, but the above mentioned points let me think that one article explaining about the ANS and the descended ANE lineage would be better. But I will just restore the page, until we have an agreement.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all: let's avoid content forking. Saying the same things in detail in several places never is a good thing. Eventually, content will be updated/modified in article A, but not in article B, and in the worst case, we end up with detailed but completely contradictory information in different places. So let's keep archeological information in an article about a genomic population/ancestry at a necessary minimum, and vice versa. An exception is with undersampled populations that are only known from a single site. In that case, it makes good sense to keep the archeogenetic stuff in the archeological article. And ideally, the archeological site should remain the main topic of the article, unless the individuals have more coverage in the literature than the actual site.

Yana/ANS is an inbetween case. Taken by itself, the site is the main topic, and the two genomes are best covered in that article. As I said: undersampled. But of course ANS is not an isolated population; spatiotemporally, it is, but genetically, it belongs to the wider topic of ANE ancestry, because either ANS and ANE are the result of similar admixture events of similar source populations, or part of a well-defined genepool with a long unbroken history from the UP to the Holocene.

So my take on it is: restore the Yana RHS article as it was before (plus adding a "see also" hatnote in "Archeogenetics" pointing to this ANE article), and probably expand a bit about ANS here, but without digressions such as this one[4], which is off-topic (it would make more sense in an article about the early population history of Eurasia) and contains some errors (who says that the IUP population didn't make it to Europe? See e.g. Bacho Kiro). –Austronesier (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the points and suggestion of Austronesier. We could probably also elaborate on the ANE/ANS relationship per above (ANS and ANE are the result of similar admixture events of similar source populations, or part of a well-defined genepool with a long unbroken history from the UP to the Holocene).Wikiuser1314 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding all the redirects and content movement and whatnot a bit confusing. I may chip in tomorrow when things have settled down a bit.  Tewdar  17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

West Eurasian Admixture

Hello, This article states that some researchers believe that Ancient North Eurasians and Ancient North Siberians are both the products of admixture between Early West Eurasians and Early East Eurasians. However, one of the papers cited for this claim, "The Population History of Northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene", states that Ancient North Siberians diverged from East Asians, "an event that probably occurred very soon after the latter diverged from West Eurasians", indicating that the ANS were similar to West Eurasians because they branched off from East Asians immediately after East Asians split from West Eurasians and not because of admixture. Can anyone provide a peer-reviewed article that actually states that admixture occurred between Early West Eurasians and Early East Eurasians and produced the ANS? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The same sentence from the same paper that you half-quote says just that. Other sources include Massilani et al. (2020), Vallini et al. (2022) and Villalba-Mouco et el. (2023) cited here. Here's a full quote with the preceding and following sentence (empahsis added):

Using admixture graphs and outgroup-based estimation of mixture proportions, we find that ANS can be modelled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians (Extended Data Fig. 3f, Supplementary Information 6). Demographic modelling of the high-coverage individual Yana1 using a site-frequency-spectrum-based framework indicates an early divergence of the ANS lineage at about 39 ka (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.2–45.8 ka), concomitant with substantial gene flow (approximately 29%; 95% CI 21.3–40.1%) from East Asians, an event that probably occurred very soon after the latter diverged from West Eurasians 43.1 ka (95% CI 33.4–48.6 ka) (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Information 7). 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.

So its West Eurasians and Esian diverging first, then the ancestors of the ANS/ANE diverge from other West Eurasians and subsequently receive geneflow (= admixture) from East Asians Here is the graph from Sikora et al. (2019) which illustrates this. Any model that has Yana (or Mal'ta/AG3) unadmixed fails. The only thing we could arguably do is to change "East Eurasian" to "East Asian", which would be more faithful to this source and others, but that's a different story. –Austronesier (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As Austronesier points out, Vallini et al. (2022) also models both ANS and ANE forming as a result of 50/50 admixture events between Kostenki14-related 'W Eurasian' and Tianyuan-related 'E (Eur)Asian' populations.  Tewdar  08:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent titles

This article is called "Ancient North Eurasian" but we also have Ancient East Eurasians. Which is correct for this subject, singular or plural? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct IMO. Ancient North Eurasian is very old bibliography dating to at least 2014ish?, it's usually first introduced in articles and posteriorly referred simple as ANE, and used primarily as a component or genetic cluster, not as a population in the vein you would say "americans". Although it's not really supposed to be antithetical to Ancient East Eurasian, which is a much later term, by the looks of that article it seems like its written to refer to a genetic component? It all depends on whatever nomenclature is established, for example Early Neolithic Farmers is pluralized both in many papers published, and right here in Wikipedia too.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of Gill et al. 2024 as a source

I’m not sure about the reliability of this source since every other model modeled ANE with Tianyun admixture but that one didn’t. It is almost certain that was a miscalculation on that source’s part and that model probably underestimates Eastern Eurasian ancestry considering they modeled Native Americans as only 56% East Asian when newer models typically predict them being 63-70 percent East Asian 174.239.114.241 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. It's not so much an issue of the source, but they way it is (mis-)used here.

Gill et al. (2024) is a reliable primary source, so it should be cited with care for every novel aspect of their research. And of course they should only be cited for their actual findings, not for details picked from the skeletal part of a manual graph that only serves to check whether the proximal qpAdm models for Middle Holocene Siberian populations (Fig. 2; Table 1) also work in a unified qpGraph topology (Fig. 3). They are simply not concerned with the deep Paleolithic ancestry of MA-1, so they have dumbed down their tree down to represent MA-1 as unadmixed. The only conclusion of this graph is: the proximal qpAdm models can be fit in there with an acceptable Z-score. Nothing more. They don't make further use of the qpGraph admixture proportions (which do not match with the qpAdm proportions anyway) because that's not the purpose of the graph.

I will remove the text based on Gill et al. (2024) as misinterpretation of the source. –Austronesier (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes sense. 2600:1008:B077:B0A5:516F:D397:7B96:63D0 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Flegontov 2016

Flegontov (2016) argues that based on geography and chronology of the Ancient North Eurasian, this component should not be described as Western Eurasian as it associate with only ancient Caucasoid. To all appearances, it emerged before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split. Before the Yamnaya expansion, this component was non-existent in Central and Western Europe

The source can be found in this link in page 138 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348348208_The_Origin_of_the_Okunev_Population_Southern_Siberia_The_Evidence_of_Physical_Anthropology_and_Genetics Sengoku-lord (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

In this edit [5], User:Edefoam is erasing massive amounts of sourced content pertaining to the relationship between the ANEs and the Tarim Mummies. In particular Zhang 2021 (whose quote they deleted) states clearly "The Tarim mummies are currently the best representative of the pre-pastoralist ANE-related population that once inhabited Central Asia and southern Siberia (Extended Data Fig. 2A), even though Tarim_EMBA1 postdates these populations in time.", among many other sourced items. I suggest these deletions should be reverted. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored it, but also added the necessary context of the quoted part. –Austronesier (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor problem with the lede.

It mentions ANE being predominantly of west Eurasian ancestry, but then goes on to say they are circa 1/2 east Eurasian. Which seems somewhat contradictory and also the 1/2 estimate seems to diverge from most estimates I have seen (may be wrong), Circa 1/3 being more on point.

Also it goes on to say that the West Eurasian ancestry is related to modern West Asians but omits modern Europeans despite them deriving notably more ancestry from them, presumably due to less Basal Eurasian.

Idk how to add images because I am dumb.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_and_legacy_of_the_West_and_East_Eurasian_Core_populations.webp# Gelbom (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)