PDA

View Full Version : Hg I cultures at end of paleolithic



jdanel
19-11-12, 23:30
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5772&stc=1

At the end of the paloelithic, Hg I subclades were essentially 100% of the population of Europe.

This map shows the approximate locations of the cultures that they had developed at that time.

Previous post-Mousterian cultures: Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrian, Magdalenian, etc., which are likewise 100% Hg I, are not shown.

Corrections, additions, comments?

sparkey
20-11-12, 00:10
Hm, I don't think that the timeline is right for all of these cultures to have existed at the same time. As far as Western and Central Europe go, these all ended around 12,000 YBP:


Magdalenian
Ahrensburg
Epigravettian


...and these all began around 12,000 YBP:


Azilian
Sauveterrian
Maglemosian
Mediterranean Epipaleolithic


Roughly, when transitioning from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic, Magdalenian became Azilian and Sauveterrian; Ahrensburg became Maglemosian; and Epigravettian became Med. Epipaleolithic. Tardenoisian is later (it began about 9500 YBP). I'm not as familiar with Swiderian culture.

I think I'd be more cautious that you in saying that "Hg I subclades were essentially 100% of the population of Europe." It does seem likely, however, that Western and Central Europe were high in haplogroup I.

I'd particularly caution against saying that Aurignacian culture had any haplogroup I. Aurignacian culture ended 35,000 YBP... around the same time haplogroup I split from haplogroup IJ. So it's doubtful that you would find any haplogroup I among the Aurignacians. The Gravettians, on the other hand, are good candidates to have brought haplogroup I (or "proto-I" IJ) to Europe.

I have some guesses as to which haplogroup I subclades are associated with which Paleolithic/early Mesolithic cultures. But there's perhaps too much uncertainty to put those guesses into print for the public.

ElHorsto
20-11-12, 01:23
Besides the favoured HG-I one could also speculate about the possibility of a few Q lineages among paleolithic or mesolithic europeans. Scandinavia today has 4% unexplained Q (except ukrainian Q, which is probably of khazar origin). It could be that recent autosomal analyses about 10% amerindian co-ancestry is the explanation. In this case, uralic HG-N from the east and Indo-European HG-R1a from south which arrived later in north-eastern europe possibly just erased any earlier sparse Q lineages in today North-Eastern europe, such the few remnants survived in Scandinavia.

EDIT: there are also traces of Q in Basques.

jdanel
20-11-12, 04:06
Hm, I don't think that the timeline is right for all of these cultures to have existed at the same time. As far as Western and Central Europe go, these all ended around 12,000 YBP:


Magdalenian
Ahrensburg
Epigravettian


...and these all began around 12,000 YBP:


Azilian
Sauveterrian
Maglemosian
Mediterranean Epipaleolithic


Roughly, when transitioning from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic, Magdalenian became Azilian and Sauveterrian; Ahrensburg became Maglemosian; and Epigravettian became Med. Epipaleolithic.

S____, I appreciate your comments. I am trying to simplify (over-simplify?) something that I don't really know much about as a learning project.

Here is what I am thinking: To avoid over complicating the graphic, I left off the Magdalenian because it was pretty much over. The successors Azillian and Souveterian were developing so I put them on. Tardenoisian does not belong (error to be corrected). Ahrensburg was ending, but the Maglemosian had not yet developed. When I remove the Tardenoisian, would that gap be better filled by the Magdalenian? or Ahrensburg? Or?


I think I'd be more cautious that you in saying that "Hg I subclades were essentially 100% of the population of Europe." It does seem likely, however, that Western and Central Europe were high in haplogroup I.

I was paraphrasing some off-the-cuff comments by Maciamo and Dienekes pointing out that there don't seem to be any other candidates


I'd particularly caution against saying that Aurignacian culture had any haplogroup I. Aurignacian culture ended 35,000 YBP... around the same time haplogroup I split from haplogroup IJ. So it's doubtful that you would find any haplogroup I among the Aurignacians. The Gravettians, on the other hand, are good candidates to have brought haplogroup I (or "proto-I" IJ) to Europe.

Recent work redated the materials from Grotta del Cavallo and Kents Cavern 4 to 44,000 bp and confirmed that they are AMH and that they are pre-Aurignacian.

The recent redating of Y-Adam to 142,000 bp would seem to imply that all y-dates may need a fairly radical adjustment, about double. This would put them into more "plausible" agreement with archaeological dates and with mito dates.

Such an adjustment would certainly allow time for Hg I to be those AMH at Kents and Grotta. And if there are no other realistic candidates, then some variety of Hg I (including IJ or even IJK) must be the developer/spreader of Aurignacian.

I know these are pretty bold assertions upon a pretty weak foundation, but does it go too far afield?

sparkey
20-11-12, 19:57
Here is what I am thinking: To avoid over complicating the graphic, I left off the Magdalenian because it was pretty much over. The successors Azillian and Souveterian were developing so I put them on. Tardenoisian does not belong (error to be corrected). Ahrensburg was ending, but the Maglemosian had not yet developed. When I remove the Tardenoisian, would that gap be better filled by the Magdalenian? or Ahrensburg? Or?

OK, I get your logic, although I maybe would have picked 13000 YBP, or 11000 YBP, or something like that, to avoid the confusion of being right on the cusp between two eras. But you're right that Tardenoisian is the only apparent mistake.

As for replacing Tardenoisian, I think it is usually assumed to be an offshoot of the Sauveterrian, so I think it would make sense to extend the reach of Sauveterrian a bit. I'm having trouble finding a good map of the full extent of that culture, though.


The recent redating of Y-Adam to 142,000 bp would seem to imply that all y-dates may need a fairly radical adjustment, about double. This would put them into more "plausible" agreement with archaeological dates and with mito dates.

I thought that the date readjustment was just a shuffling of former A1b back to the A0 position, and a recalculation based on that. That shouldn't affect BT and its descendants. See this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_A_tree.png)'s demonstration of the difference between Cruciani and Karafet, and notice that BT isn't what changes.