Mediterranean Europe major source of European Neolithic?

[MarkoZ]

Which undermines your earlier remark on Ahmarian influences in Gravettian.

It's not my 'remark'. Broad similarities in Upper Paleolithic sites can exists alongside distinct cultural trends. You're reducing the whole study of early prehistory to absurdity.

Both the origin of mtDNA U6 and the resurgeance of GoyetQ116 in Magdalenian point to something more complex that that sink. It may need to be reconsidered.

A single sample isn't sufficient to establish the origin of mtDNA U6. Structure within early European populations doesn't mean that Europe was not a sink.

True, although comparison of a 14k yo old sample with present day North Africans is not very meaningful.

It is.

That article itself also claims that Villabruna lies nicely inbetween Early Upper Paleolithics and Late Upper Paleolithics.

That's because Early Upper Paleolithic humans retained tropically adapted skeletal morphologies much like Austrlians or equatorial West Africans.

If you take a look at the PCA's it isn't all that dramatic and may very well be on the tail of normal variation.

Possible.

Well, it was established with Loschbour so you'd have to figure out a way of admixture before the bottle neck but after LGM. LGM being the best, even only good candidate for the bottle neck as we know population of humans dropped and stayed low during it.

Again, there were no barriers to gene flow in the North Mediterranean. Human populations dwindled due to mass extinction resulting from drastic climate change, not the cold per se.

It simply doesn't fit IMHO.

I'm assuming you simply don't like the idea of Near Eastern gene flow.

 

[MarkoZ]

I doubt today NorthAfrican population is homogenous for limbs!!! legends

Well it's about averages, isn't it? I'm sure there's some minor overlap even between such divergent groups as Sami and Australians, for example.

 

[epoch]

It's not my 'remark'. Broad similarities in Upper Paleolithic sites can exists alongside distinct cultural trends. You're reducing the whole study of early prehistory to absurdity.

But you mentioned to point to possible migrations.

A single sample isn't sufficient to establish the origin of mtDNA U6. Structure within early European populations doesn't mean that Europe was not a sink.

It is not just a single sample, it was basal U6*. Basic to all U6 subclades.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

It is.




That's because Early Upper Paleolithic humans retained tropically adapted skeletal morphologies much like Austrlians or equatorial West Africans.

OK, let us for the sake of the argument assume that Villabruna's specifics are due to the fact that it is an immigrant. In the paper you linked it is stated that the sample lies nicely in between EUP and Later Upper Paleolithic. The paper also mentioned that craniologically Villabruna is affiliated to Bichon, which is one of the Late Upper Paleolithic samples. Even more, the late Upper Paleolithic samples that are used in this paper are mostly Villabruna cluster samples, as they are contemporary. So we are now led to believe that despite the fact that DNA shows that these less tropical adapted specimens are clearly related to Villabruna they are not sharing this feature which you want us to believe is so typically showing it is a migrant.

How could that be? A short, very, very rapid evolution? Villabruna has ancestry the others haven't? But that ancestry has been thoroughly shown by DNA.

And you say I stretch things to absurdity?

Possible.



Again, there were no barriers to gene flow in the North Mediterranean. Human populations dwindled due to mass extinction resulting from drastic climate change, not the cold per se.

But LGM has been shown to be a period of greatly diminished human presence in Europe. It is the most significant depopulation in ice age Europe.

I'm assuming you simply don't like the idea of Near Eastern gene flow.

I think you are pretty biased in that assumption. Mind you, it is not only nationalism which gives tunnel vision. Anti-Nationalism just as well.

 

[MarkoZ]

But you mentioned to point to possible migrations.

The idea of Near Eastern influence in the European Gravettian is hardly controversial. It's not my idea at all.

It is not just a single sample, it was basal U6*. Basic to all U6 subclades.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

I know - still the authors of the paper you linked propose a Near Eastern origin. Why do you think that is?

OK, let us for the sake of the argument assume that Villabruna's specifics are due to the fact that it is an immigrant. In the paper you linked it is stated that the sample lies nicely in between EUP and Later Upper Paleolithic. The paper also mentioned that craniologically Villabruna is affiliated to Bichon, which is one of the Late Upper Paleolithic samples. Even more, the late Upper Paleolithic samples that are used in this paper are mostly Villabruna cluster samples, as they are contemporary. So we are now led to believe that despite the fact that DNA shows that these less tropical adapted specimens are clearly related to Villabruna they are not sharing this feature which you want us to believe is so typically showing it is a migrant.

The LUP includes Bichon, another Magdalenian, two Gravettians and a thus far unsampled Italian Epigravettian. There's no indication whatsoever that these form a cluster with Villabruna. Fu chose not include the Bichon sample in the Villabruna cluster and his affinity to Near Eastern populations is comparatively negligible, hence I don't see why you'd expect the woman to be very similar to Villabruna in that regard.

Though before getting into another long-winded argument, I iterate that Villabruna's skeletal morphology is but one piece of evidence. To the neutral observer the genetic evidence alone is unambiguous enough. At this point one has to wonder what you'd accept as proof of his Near Eastern ancestry. Is he supposed to be wearing a Fez?

How could that be? A short, very, very rapid evolution? Villabruna has ancestry the others haven't? But that ancestry has been thoroughly shown by DNA.

I would not expect a maladaptive trait to intersperse a population very thoroughly and I consider purifying selection a distinct possibility. Contemporary Europeans don't look like tropical populations after all. But this is entering the realm of conjecture.

It is a fact however that the Villabruna specimen retains a skeletal morphology that is atypical of a population inhabiting the temperate zone. Though to be fair, even in the Near East a typical North African morphology would be quite out of place I would think.

But LGM has been shown to be a period of greatly diminished human presence in Europe. It is the most significant depopulation in ice age Europe.

Whatever the true population size in Europe was at the presumed nadir of the LGM minimum (Bocquet-Appel et al. claim 6000, while Tallavara et al. give a figure of approx. 100000), the Northern Mediterranean was inhabitable and people could migrate there.

 

[epoch]

The idea of Near Eastern influence in the European Gravettian is hardly controversial. It's not my idea at all.

Neither is the idea of similarities between Aurignac in Europe and the Levant or Iran. The suggestion of a back migration comes from Ofer Bar-Yosef. Can't find the reference now.

I know - still the authors of the paper you linked propose a Near Eastern origin. Why do you think that is?

West-Asian, actually.

The LUP includes Bichon, another Magdalenian, two Gravettians and a thus far unsampled Italian Epigravettian. There's no indication whatsoever that these form a cluster with Villabruna. Fu chose not include the Bichon sample in the Villabruna cluster and his affinity to Near Eastern populations is comparatively negligible, hence I don't see why you'd expect the woman to be very similar to Villabruna in that regard.

From the supp info:

“Villabruna Cluster”: BerryAuBac, Bichon, Bockstein, Chaudardes1, Falkenstein, Hungarian.KO1 LaBrana1, LesCloseaux13, Loschbour, Ofnet, Ranchot88, Rochedane and Villabruna

Bichon also did show Middle-Eastern affinity, about the same amount as Villabruna. See fig. 4b.

Though before getting into another long-winded argument, I iterate that Villabruna's skeletal morphology is but one piece of evidence. To the neutral observer the genetic evidence alone is unambiguous enough. At this point one has to wonder what you'd accept as proof of his Near Eastern ancestry. Is he supposed to be wearing a Fez?

No to the neutral observer there are quite some issues with a middle eastern migration.

I would not expect a maladaptive trait to intersperse a population very thoroughly and I consider purifying selection a distinct possibility. Contemporary Europeans don't look like tropical populations after all. But this is entering the realm of conjecture.

In the 300 years that separate Bichon and Villabruna?

It is a fact however that the Villabruna specimen retains a skeletal morphology that is atypical of a population inhabiting the temperate zone. Though to be fair, even in the Near East a typical North African morphology would be quite out of place I would think.

As I stated before, the comparison between present day North Africans and 14.000 year old Villabruna is silly. For one thing, North Africans are not same as they were.

Whatever the true population size in Europe was at the presumed nadir of the LGM minimum (Bocquet-Appel et al. claim 6000, while Tallavara et al. give a figure of approx. 100000), the Northern Mediterranean was inhabitable and people could migrate there.

That migration would have influenced the RoH outcome highly though. We know, because a large migration from the Middle East actually did: The Neolithic migration.

 

[epoch]

Mind you, I don't think the U6* paper or the Goyet166 reappearance are proof of a migration from Europe or even part of evidence for what I say, just that they make the case of Europe as a sink where wave upon wave of immigrant came only to be withered away look less appealing.

 

[MOESAN]

Well it's about averages, isn't it? I'm sure there's some minor overlap even between such divergent groups as Sami and Australians, for example.

sure it's about averages, but what signifies an average where you put in the same bag Northafricaners from Marocco to Egypt? Even in Maghreb, the phenotypical traits are very unevenly distributed among MEANS of "Berbers" or "Arabs" from Marocco to Tunisia and within these states whatever the weight of the responsible genes compared to total auDNA - It was just to be sure people are speaking of the same things before making hypothesis. I read so strange things sometimes - and what is not without weight, these differences are found among people living since a long enough time in the same climates; what would prove that climate action on body proportions needs a far longer time to produce result; I could speak of diverse regions of Portugal or Germany, or Near-East (concerning legs props and body form); the todau differecnes in individuals and pops means are far more linked to long past moves or recent moves of pops than to environment pressure which power is decreasing more and more with human cultural evolution, I mean (except manipulated food input) -
that said, aside Berber Touareg (or Tirgi?), longer legged averages in Europe are find among some mediterranean regions (Andalusia of the 1940's) AND among Scandinavians (Norway) and Frisians!

 

[MarkoZ]

I do address it. With D-stats. Back when Fu et al came out Satsurblia was about the only old enough sample for comparison. We have more now. That is why I posted the D-stats, which swap Satsurblia with ancient Middle-Easterners.

You didn't address their model at all. If you actually read the supplementary information, you'd have noticed that the header of a major subsection in section 12 specifically reads:

The Satsurblia and Villabruna Clusters are not particularly closely related

This actually supports the thesis put forth by Fu et al., because it implies that the new affinity (I) branched off at a very deep node from the WHG lineage (as per Jones et al. 45,000 BP), (II) constitutes but a minority component in the European Epigravettian & Mesolithic, (III) definitely wasn't present in earlier European samples. The parsimonious explanation is that this type of ancestry is instrusive and didn't branch off within the comparatively small European landmass.

It shows that whatever affinity there is, it is with Natufians, not Neolithic Iranians. The Chalcolithic Iranians do show it however, which is understandable because they have some of the Natufian admixture. See Lazaridis 2016.

That is exactly what I pointed out to you when I said that there must have been a very old WHG-like stratum in the Middle East. All it got me was a few snide remarks, so I take that as further evidence that your intentions aren't good.

 

[Angela]

In the Reich speech to which I posted a link, he presents a graphic on these ancient groups which might be helpful. The discussion starts around 14:14.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZjbp_LepPM

If someone could make a screen shot of some of the graphics that would be a great help.

 

[MarkoZ]

I think that's just a simplified version of Fu's tree, isn't it?

 

[Angela]

I think that's just a simplified version of Fu's tree, isn't it?

I think so, yes, but it might be easier for some people to understand. Also, what he says about it, although brief, is telling. In another section of the talk he discusses a possible refugia either in southeast Europe or Anatolia.

Apparently, although I'm sure that he and Svante Paabo have a lot of samples by now, the analysis doesn't seem to have changed, yes?

 

[MarkoZ]

Apparently, although I'm sure that he and Svante Paabo have a lot of samples by now, the analysis doesn't seem to have changed, yes?

Yeah, in general it seems Reich relies heavily on the Fu paper in this presentation. I think that wouldn't be the case if the newer samples they presumably have didn't corroborate their findings.