PDA

View Full Version : The genetic history of Ice Age Europe



Pages : [1] 2

bicicleur
02-05-16, 17:38
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2016/05/the-genetic-history-of-ice-age-europe.html

Abstract: Modern humans arrived in Europe ~45,000 years ago, but little is known about their genetic composition before the start of farming ~8,500 years ago. Here we analyse genome-wide data from 51 Eurasians from ~45,000–7,000 years ago. Over this time, the proportion of Neanderthal DNA decreased from 3–6% to around 2%, consistent with natural selection against Neanderthal variants in modern humans. Whereas there is no evidence of the earliest modern humans in Europe contributing to the genetic composition of present-day Europeans, all individuals between ~37,000 and ~14,000 years ago descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans. An ~35,000-year-old individual from northwest Europe represents an early branch of this founder population which was then displaced across a broad region, before reappearing in southwest Europe at the height of the last Ice Age ~19,000 years ago. During the major warming period after ~14,000 years ago, a genetic component related to present-day Near Easterners became widespread in Europe. These results document how population turnover and migration have been recurring themes of European prehistory.

abstract : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17993.html
figures and tables : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature17993_ft.html
supplementary info : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf

Tomenable
02-05-16, 17:58
According to this study, R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago:


Villabruna (Sovramonte – Belluno, Italy)
The burial of Riparo Villabruna was discovered in 1988 by A. Broglio in the small
rockshelter named Riparo Villabruna A in the Veneto Dolomites. It contains a partial
skeleton with lower limbs severed at the distal femoral shafts associated with burial goods of
the Epigravettian culture50. The date quoted here comes from the skull51, whereas the genetic
analysis is of a left femur. This individual bears the earlier known example of treatment of
dental caries52.

• Villabruna at 14,180-13,780 cal BP (KIA-27004: 12,140±7014C)51
(direct date, using collagen ultrafiltration)

[...]

We were surprised to assign Villabruna to R1b1 (Table S4.2). When we restrict to damaged sequences, we still assign it to R1b

[...]

Based on analysis of statistic like D(X, Y; Villabruna Cluster, Mbuti), we find that
BerryAuBac, Bichon, Bockstein, Chaudardes1, Falkenstein, Ranchot88, Rochedane, and
Villabruna all show a high degree of allele sharing with Mesolithic Western Europeans
including Loschbour and LaBrana1, which are sometimes also called “Western Hunter
Gatherers”4 (Table S5.6). We view all these samples as closely related, along with
Hungarian.KO1 which clusters with them despite being from an Early Neolithic context6.


Nice! Definitely M343, likely L278.
And in Italy!!

Y Haplogroups:

* Kostenki 14: C1b

* Goyet C1a

* Cioclivna 1 "CT"

* Kostenki 12 : CT

* Vestonice 13: CT

* Vestonice 15: BT

* Pavlov 1: I*

* vestonice 16: C1a2

* Paglicci 133: *I

* HohleFels49: I*

* Goyet Q2: I*

* Burkhardtshohle: I*

* Villabruna: R1b1

* Rochedane: I*

* Falkenstein: I*

* CuiryLesChaudardes1: I*

* Berry Au Bac I*

Fire Haired14
02-05-16, 18:04
List of new Samples. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMeojSM7Lrep4GYi8qV31QbDPIw5w-bEygm8esoSHF4/edit#gid=0)

All of the Paleo-Europeans form a cluster as opposed to Mal'ta boy. None of them, including the ones from Southern Italy, had Basal Eurasian ancestry. The oldest example of a true WHG appears to be 14,000 years old and from Italy(with Y DNA R1b). Our oldest example of typical WHG mtDNA U5b2 is also from Italy. WHG might be from an Italian, not Iberian, refiguim, but that's just speculation.

Tomenable
02-05-16, 18:21
Link to download the article (http://sci-hub.bz/saveme/d618/fu2016.pdf)

Fire Haired14
02-05-16, 18:22
There were distinct populations in Ice age Europe(besides WHG and EHG). Here are the conclusions by the authors based on treemix and admixturegraph.


Conclusion
>Paleo Euros as clade opposed to MA1
>Vestonice is mostly Kostinki with minor Goyet.
>El Miron is mostly Goyet with minor Villabruna.’
>Loschbour is mostly Villabruna with minor Goyet.


Vestonice: 30,000 years old Czech Republic(Central Europe).
Kostinki: 36,000 years old Russia(Western egde).
Goyet: 30,000 years old Beligium.
El Miron: 20,000 years old Spain.
Villabruna: 14,000 years old Northern Italy.
Loschbour: 8,000 years old Luxembourg.

Goga
02-05-16, 18:29
After so many years on this site I firstly expected ancient R1b in Europe. But everyone was saying that there is no ancient R1b in Europe. So I let go that idea.

But now after so many here on this site this is HUGE and unexpected!

Goga
02-05-16, 18:33
Some very rare, and strange haplogroups.

C1 ??
CT ??
BT ??

Tomenable
02-05-16, 18:41
It seems, that:

That Italian with R1b carried no basal Eurasian ancestry:

(quote from Anthrogenica discussion):


One has to keep in mind the Villabruna cluster has no so called basal. So it is likely a population with no basal contributing to both Villabruna and the Middle/Near East. "the Satsurblia Cluster carries large amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster individuals do not"

So how did they conclude, that he came from the Near East?

Tomenable
02-05-16, 18:42
Some very rare, and strange haplogroups.

C1 ??
CT ??
BT ??

Yeah, this R1b stands out among such strange lineages.

Tomenable
02-05-16, 18:49
We could expect a very fasct reaction by Genetiker (hehehe):

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/y-snp-calls-from-ice-age-europe/

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-villabruna/

According to him: "Villabruna was pre-R1b1a1a-P297."

Tomenable
02-05-16, 19:05
BBC article about this study, with photos of some skulls - including Villabruna's:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502

"This 14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna, Italy, lived at a time when the climate was warming up":

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C87/production/_89538772_89538771.jpg

Tomenable
02-05-16, 19:21
It probably shows that R1b was wide-spread already in Upper Paleolithic - living both in West Asia and South Europe. We really need some aDNA samples from Prehistoric Middle East. Now every location is possible as the original homeland of R1b-M269...

bicicleur
02-05-16, 20:14
We could expect a very fasct reaction by Genetiker (hehehe):

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/y-snp-calls-from-ice-age-europe/

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-villabruna/

According to him: "Villabruna was pre-R1b1a1a-P297."

very pre-P297 : 2 postive SNPs vs 12 negative and this for an individual with age 14 ka while formation age for P297 is 16.8 ka and TMRCA 13.5 ka with subclades M478 and M269
this makes this individual very unlikely to be the ancestor of the split between M478 and M269
how and when did this pre-P297 get there and where were his brothers?
the spread of obsidian from Melos to the Peloponesos suggests people were crossing the Aegean Sea at least 13 ka
or they may have come through the northern part of the Adriatic Sea which was dry land

don't forget Oase-I who was K https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/analyses-of-the-oase-1-genome/
and who was an outlier

the paleolithic men travelled a lot !

ElHorsto
02-05-16, 20:28
the paleolithic men travelled a lot !

Right. In this case it was not even difficult, because Italy and Balkans were one land mass, which means the Steppe and probably Anatolia and the whole Near-East were directly connected. Having this in mind, it would surprise me not to find various haplogroups scarcely scattered around already much earlier.

Tomenable
02-05-16, 20:31
They seem to be sure it isn't associated with modern West European R1b though.

They write this in "... Ice Age Europe" (footnote 9 leads to Haak 2015 "Massive migration..."):

"(...) We were surprised to find haplogroup R1b in the ~14,000-year-old Villabruna individual from Italy. While the predominance of R1b in western Europe today owes its origin to Bronze Age migrations from the eastern European steppe9 (...)"

However, just a few days ago in "Punctuated bursts in male demography...", we could read:

"(...) in Western Europe, related lineages within R1b-L11 expanded ~4.8–5.9 kya (Supplementary Fig. 14e), most markedly around 4.8 and 5.5 kya. The earlier of these times, 5.5 kya, is associated with the origin of the Bronze Age Yamnaya culture. The Yamnaya have been linked by aDNA evidence to a massive migration from the Eurasian Steppe, which may have replaced much of the previous European population24,25; however, the six Yamnaya with informative genotypes did not bear lineages descending from or ancestral to R1b-L11, so a Y-chromosome connection has not been established. The later time, 4.8 kya, coincides with the origins of the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture in Eastern Europe and the Bell–Beaker culture in Western Europe26. (...)"

And AFAIK this is correct, since neither R1b-L11 nor its ancestral clade - R1b-L51 - have been found in Yamnaya.

And the westward expansion of Yamnaya into Europe is explained well enough by modern distribution of ht35:

http://s32.postimg.org/s6rq86kf9/Yamna_Westward.png

Tomenable
02-05-16, 20:40
very pre-P297 : 2 postive SNPs vs 12 negative

Yes but he was still closer to P297 than - for example - Samara Eneolithic sample:

I0122 / SVP35 (grave 12) - R1b1

According to Genetiker that sample was farther away from P297, only R1b-L278* :

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/

M415 is on the same level as L278. He lived thousands of years after Villabruna.


very pre-P297 : 2 postive SNPs vs 12 negativeBut he lived ~1000 or more years before the TMRCA of P297.

So he could not be positive for all SNPs of P297 due to chronology.

It seems that he could actually be ancestral to post-TMRCA P297.

bicicleur
02-05-16, 20:49
Yes but he was still closer to P297 than - for example - Samara Eneolithic sample:

I0122 / SVP35 (grave 12) - R1b1

According to Genetiker that sample was farther away from P297, only R1b-L278* :

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/

M415 is on the same level as L278. He lived thousands of years after Villabruna.

But he lived ~1000 or more years before the TMRCA of P297.

So he could not be positive for all SNPs of P297 due to chronology.

It seems that he could actually be ancestral to post-TMRCA P297.


all I can say : R1b was a wanderer !

Aaron1981
02-05-16, 21:18
BBC article about this study, with photos of some skulls - including Villabruna's:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502

"This 14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna, Italy, lived at a time when the climate was warming up":

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C87/production/_89538772_89538771.jpg

There we go...now THAT is a western European man's skull!

sparkey
02-05-16, 21:25
Extremely interesting information here. Looks like we're really starting to get some ancient DNA coverage of Stone Age Europe.


Some very rare, and strange haplogroups.

C1 ??
CT ??
BT ??

The Supplementary Info pages 29-31 give some indication of what SNPs they tested, and it doesn't seem that these "CT" and "BT" calls are so weird once you look there. Basically, they didn't test beyond BT and CT markers for those, so they could still be something more expected like Haplogroup C or Haplogroup I.

Maciamo
02-05-16, 21:34
Landmark study for European Paleolithic Y-DNA, but nothing unexpected, not even the R1b1*. We already knew that Mesolithic Europeans belonged to haplogroups C1a2, I*, I and I2 + R1a and R1b in eastern Europe. Phylogenetically their ancestors could only have belonged to older subclades of the same haplogroups, which is exactly what we see here. There is also the appearance of even older haplogroups like BT and CT, which eventually went extinct.

The presence of R1b1* is Italy 14,000 years ago is not that remarkable considering that Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe were peopled by highly mobile hunter-gatherers. It is to be expected that some eastern European HG ended up in central or southern Europe now and then, as they follow herds, are expelled by neighbouring tribes, or escape bouts of particularly cold winters in Ice Age Russia or Ukraine. Nothing exceptional here. Besides Villabruna is in Alpine north-east Italy, near Austria, so only a stone throw away from the Pannonian plain which is regarded as the westernmost section of the Eurasian Steppe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe), that was inhabited by R1a and R1b people since these haplogroups emerged around the LGM.

Fire Haired14
02-05-16, 21:37
So how did they conclude, that he came from the Near East?

The media authors aren't as familiar with this topic as we are so they are giving miss information. He, and all Europeans after 14,000 years ago, was more related to Near Easterners than earlier Europeans were. This is likely because of WHG-related ancestry in modern Near Eastern people. It's possible WHG has partial Near Eastern origins or Near Easterners have partial European WHG-related origins.

Goga
02-05-16, 22:41
There we go...now THAT is a western European man's skull!
That R1b fella had even BLUE eyes, although his skin was dark...

Tomenable
02-05-16, 22:51
I doubt that R1b-M269+ were originally IE speakers, or that they originated in the Russian Steppe.

More likely, they were Non-Indo-Europeans who were responsible for the diffusion of metallurgy.

Some of them (R1b-Z2103) became Indo-Europeanized by R1a (who adopted metallurgy from them).

But other M269 - like that "controversial" Copper Age M269 from Spain: ATP3 - initially remained Non-IE.

See this map of the diffusion of metallurgy (ATP3 from Iberia wasn't Neolithic - he was Copper Age!):

Note that copper metallurgy came to Southern Iberia early on (= ancestors of R1b-L11 ???):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fb/20120207231743!Metallurgical_diffusion.png

R1b-L11 Bell Beakers were originally Non-IE (speakers of languages related to Basque), until they came to Central Europe.

In Central Europe (Germany) they came into contact with Corded Ware folks, and gradually adopted IE language from them.

Then Italo-Celtic languages spread as back-migrations from Central Europe to the west and to the south.

Also Bell Beakers in Central Europe most likely married many CWC women, acquiring their autosomal DNA.

Tomenable
02-05-16, 23:14
The map above shows that Southern Iberia had copper metallurgy early on. Which haplogroup do you think imported copper metallurgy to Iberia, and later spread it out of Iberia ??? IMO R1b-L11. Remember, that ATP3 was not an Iberian Neolithic man, but an Iberian Copper Age man. R1b-M269 should rather be linked with the spread of metallurgy, not of IE languages. OTOH, R1b-Z2103 imported metallurgy to the Steppe, where they became Indo-Europeanized by local folks. R1b-L11 however were likely descended from ATP3-related folks and part of Bell Beaker since the beginning. Therefore, they were initially Non-IE and became Indo-Europeanized by German CWC. Later some of them back-migrated west & south, spreading Italo-Celtic languages.

Tomenable
02-05-16, 23:21
Anthropology confirms that in Germany (= BB-CWC contact zone) Beakers mixed with Corded folks.

Carleton S. Coon wrote:

"(...) In their Rhineland center, the more numerous Bell Beaker people had
constant relationships with the inhabitants of Denmark, who were still
burying in corridor tombs. Furthermore, the Corded people, one branch
of whom invaded Jutland and introduced the single-grave type of burial,
also migrated to the Rhine Valley, and here amalgamated themselves
with the Bell Beaker people, who were already in process of mixing with
their Borreby type neighbors. The result of this triple fusion was a great
expansion, and a population overflow down the Rhine, in the direction
of Britain.

(8) THE BRONZE AGE IN BRITAIN

The consideration of the Bell Beaker problem leads naturally to that of
the Bronze Age in the British Isles, where the Beaker people found their
most important and most lasting home. Coming down the Rhine and out
into the North Sea, they invaded the whole eastern coast of England and
of Scotland, and also the shore of the Channel.
The Beaker invasion of Britain was not a simple affair. Not only did the
newcomers land in many places, but they brought with them somewhat
different traditions. Although most of them brought zoned beakers and
battle axes, in consequence of their blending with the Corded people in
the Rhinelands (...)"

So my hypothesis that Beakers acquired autosomal and mtDNA admixtures from CWC seems correct.

Perhaps also this is how BB acquired a minority of R1a, and CWC a minority of R1b-L11 lineages.

Goga
03-05-16, 00:12
I doubt that R1b-M269+ were originally IE speakers, or that they originated in the Russian Steppe.

More likely, they were Non-Indo-Europeans who were responsible for the diffusion of metallurgy.

Some of them (R1b-Z2103) became Indo-Europeanized by R1a (who adopted metallurgy from them).When was R1b-Z2103 Indo-Europeanized then and by which subtypes of R1a? Because at the time of Yamnaya culture, where Z2103 is found, there was already a split between R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93.


If R1b-Z2103 was Indo-Europeanized around the Yamnaya Horizon then it has to be by R1a-Z93. But this whole story is way to one-dimensional and to simple.


I'm sure something else happened. What we know for sure is that Yamnaya culture was Indo-European and that R1b-Z2103 was part of that culture. Yamnaya is the OLDEST Indo-European culture in Europe.

Silesian
03-05-16, 00:20
That R1b fella had even BLUE eyes, although his skin was dark...
According to Genetiker also R1b Hunter Gatherer had HERC2-[ blue eyes]. What are the chances the two oldest R1b samples 14k+/- and 7.5K+/- had HERC2-blue eyes?
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes

Corded Ware LN I0049 AA
Corded Ware LN I0103 GA
Corded Ware LN I0104 AG
Esperstedt MN I0172 GA
Halberstadt LBA I0099 GG
Karelia HG I0061AA
Karsdorf LN I0550 AA
LBK EN I0022 GG
LBK EN I0025 GA
LBK EN I0026 AA
LBK EN I0046 GG
LBK EN I0048 GA
LBK EN I0054 AA
LBK EN I0056 GG
LBK EN I0100 GG
LBK EN I0659 GG
Motala HG I0011 GG
Motala HG I0012 GG
Motala HG I0013 GG
Motala HG I0014 GG
Motala HG I0015 GG
Motala HG I0016 GG
Motala HG I0017 GG
Samara HG I0124 GG
Spain EN I0410 AA
Yamnaya I0231 AA
Yamnaya I0357 AA
Yamnaya I0370 AA
Yamnaya I0429 AA
Yamnaya I0438 AA
Yamnaya I0443 GA
Yamnaya I0444 AA

Silesian
03-05-16, 00:26
When was R1b-Z2103 Indo-Europeanized then and by which subtypes of R1a? Because at time of Yamnaya culture, where Z2103 is found, there was already a split between R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93.


If R1b-Z2103 was Indo-Europeanized around the Yamnaya Horizon then it has to be by R1a-Z93. But this whole story is way to one-dimensional and to simple.


I'm sure something else happened. What we know for sure is that Yamnaya culture was Indo-European and that R1b-Z2103 was part of that culture. and that Yamnaya is the OLDEST Indo-European culture in Europe.
R1b-z2103 is about 1000 years older than R1a-93, or 500-600 years older than R1a-645-how does that work?:confused2:6100YBP+/-
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/

Goga
03-05-16, 00:38
According to Genetiker also R1b Hunter Gatherer had HERC2-[ blue eyes]. What are the chances the two oldest R1b samples 14k+/- and 7.5K+/- had HERC2-blue eyes?Do you mean La Braña 1 who belonged to hg. C1a2?

He had also blue eyes and dark skin.

So it is pretty obvious that the blue eyes were already part of the hunter-gatherers.

Goga
03-05-16, 00:43
R1b-z2103 is about 1000 years older than R1a-93, or 500-600 years older than R1a-645-how does that work?:confused2:6100YBP+/-
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/
Maybe, but Yamnaya was the OLDEST Indo-European culture in Europe. And by the time when Yamnaya culture was born, there was already a split between R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93.


According to the latest paper on R1a "the diversification downstream of M417 occurred ~5800 years ago". And this is BEFORE Yamnaya.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html)



I think that R1b-Z2103 is from the Maykop culture and Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon. By the time when R1b-Z2103 migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon (5500 YBP), the Y-DNA hg. R1a-Z283 & R1a-Z93 already existed.

sparkey
03-05-16, 01:19
One hypothesis that these results seem to help confirm is the idea that European C = Aurignacian and European I = Gravettian.

Aurignacian sample GoyetQ116-1 got tested as C1a with no further subclades called; recall that modern European C is mainly C-V20, or C1a2, so it could be either C-V20 or proto-C-V20.

Very early Gravettian sample Paglicci133 got a mix of Haplogroup I positive and negative SNP calls, indicating that it is early Haplogroup I or proto-I (we can't tell since canonical SNP M170 was not tested). Fellow Gravettian sample Pavlov1--about 2500 years younger or so--tested similarly as early Haplogroup I or proto-I with a mix of positive and negative SNP calls.

Goga
03-05-16, 01:33
One hypothesis that these results seem to help confirm is the idea that European C = Aurignacian and European I = Gravettian.

Aurignacian sample GoyetQ116-1 got tested as C1a with no further subclades called; recall that modern European C is mainly C-V20, or C1a2, so it could be either C-V20 or proto-C-V20.

Very early Gravettian sample Paglicci133 got a mix of Haplogroup I positive and negative SNP calls, indicating that it is early Haplogroup I or proto-I (we can't tell since canonical SNP M170 was not tested). Fellow Gravettian sample Pavlov1--about 2500 years younger or so--tested similarly as early Haplogroup I or proto-I with a mix of positive and negative SNP calls.
Fascinating!

What is the reason that the Gravettian hg. I* survived until now, while the Aurignacian hg. C1a (almost) disappeared in Europe? Where the Aurignacian hg. C1a eventually replaced by the Gravettian hg. I* folks?

Angela
03-05-16, 01:49
Is Gioiello still around? Has he opened up his oldest and best bottle of wine? :)

Silesian
03-05-16, 02:00
Maybe, but Yamnaya was the OLDEST Indo-European culture in Europe. And by the time when Yamnaya culture was born, there was already a split between R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93.


According to the latest paper on R1a "the diversification downstream of M417 occurred ~5800 years ago". And this is BEFORE Yamnaya.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html)



I think that R1b-Z2103 is from the Maykop culture and Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon. By the time when R1b-Z2103 migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon (5500 YBP), the Y-DNA hg. R1a-Z283 & R1a-Z93 already existed.
R-M417F3166/M763 * CTS5979/PF6193/M700 * PF6218/M782+29 SNPsformed 8500 ybp, TMRCA 5500 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-M417/)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M417/ Yes it is older than R1b-Z2103


Do you mean La Braña 1 who belonged to hg. C1a2?
He had also blue eyes and dark skin.
So it is pretty obvious that the blue eyes were already part of the hunter-gatherers.

No R1b from Steppe. Look at the base of the tree M73+ 7500 YBP+/-Io124 sample had Herc [blue eye gene] That
means both R1b samples on from Italy and one from Steppe had gene.

http://i42.tinypic.com/4so0wh.jpg


https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/backgroundhttp://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_02_11_30_2015.png
Z-2109 Pathans is 6200 YBP. From Poltavka- or Proto-Indo-Iranian?
J.P.Mallory "Poltovka Culture"
http://bit.ly/1SJwJCA

Angela
03-05-16, 02:28
The Conclusions section:

"We show that the population history of pre-Neolithic Europe was
complex in several respects.

First, at least some of the initial modern humans to appear in Eurasia, exemplified by Ust’-Ishim and Oase1, failed to contribute appreciably to the current European gene pool.Only from around 37,000 years ago do all the European individuals analysed share ancestry with present-day Europeans.

Second, from the time of Kostenki14 about 37,000 years ago until the time of the Villabruna Cluster about 14,000 years ago, all individuals seem to derive from a single ancestral population with no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere. It is interesting that during this time, the Mal’ta Cluster is not represented in any of the individuals we sampled from Europe.

Thus, while individuals assigned to the Gravettian cultural complex in Europe are associated with the Věstonice Cluster, there is no genetic connection between them and the Mal’ta1 individual in Siberia, despite the fact that Venus figurines are associated with both. This suggests that if this similarity is not a coincidence, it reflects diffusion of ideas rather than movements of people.

Third, we find that GoyetQ116-1 derives from a different deep branch of the European founder population than the Věstonice Cluster which became predominant in many places in Europe between 34,000 and 26,000 years ago including at Goyet. GoyetQ116-1 is chronologically associated with the Aurignacian cultural complex. Thus, the subsequent spread of the Věstonice Cluster shows that the diffusion of the Gravettian cultural complex was mediated at least in part by population movements.

Fourth, the population represented by GoyetQ116-1 did not disappear, as its descendants became widespread again after ~19,000 years ago in the El Mirón Cluster when we detect them in Iberia. The El MirónCluster is associated with the Magdalenian culture and may represent a post-Glacial Maximum expansion from southwestern European refugia.

Fifth, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster at least ~14,000 years ago, all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East. This correlates in time to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, the first significant warming period after the Glacial Maximum.

Archaeologically, it correlates with cultural transitions within the Epigravettian in southern Europe and the Magdalenian-to-Azilian transition in western Europe. Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of mitochondrial DNA turnover. One scenario that couldexplain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern European or west Asian refugia after the Glacial Maximum, drawing together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East.

Sixth, within the Villabruna Cluster, some, but not all, individuals have an affinity to east Asians.

An important direction for future work will be to generate similar ancient DNA data from southeastern Europe and the Near East to arrive at a more complete picture of the Upper Palaeolithic population history of western Eurasia."

This possible movement into Europe from the Near East connected to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial warm period may correlate with the sudden expansion of certain mtDna lineages leading to "H".

Also, it's interesting that they're pointing to the Herc2 blue eyes mutation as coming from the southeast. Didn't an old paper trace its expansion to somewhere around the Black Sea about 10,000 years ago?

If the refugia for the Villabruna cluster was in Europe and not West Asia, could it have been in and around the now submerged Great Adriatic plain?

http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleofig/images/pfmabeng.gif

Goga
03-05-16, 02:41
No R1b from Steppe. Look at the base of the tree M73+ 7500 YBP+/-Io124 sample had Herc [blue eye gene] That means both R1b samples on from Italy and one from Steppe had gene.Nice! Blue-eyed hunter-gatherers!



Z-2109 Pathans is 6200 YBP. From Poltavka- or Proto-Indo-Iranian?
J.P.Mallory "Poltovka Culture"
http://bit.ly/1SJwJCA
What do you mean? I don't understand. Pathans are not 6200 years old. And why do you mention Poltavka?

There is a lot of space, time and different/distinguish cultures between Poltovka and Pathan folks south of Pakistan (homeland of Pathans).

1. Ancient Pathans (Pakthas) are much modern/younger people than the ancient Poltavka culture. Poltavka = 4700 YBP. While. Pathans (or ancient Pakthas) are (were) East Iranians who came from BMAC.
2. There is no direct 'highway' from Poltavka region into the Hindu Kush. If there was a migration from Poltavka it has to be in phases.



Z2103 in Pakistan and north India can be from BMAC or direct from the southern parts of the Caspian Sea. It can't be directly from Poltavka because the current region of Pathans doesn't border with and has no direct road to the ancient Poltavka. If it was from Poltava it should first settle around BMAC where East Iranians evolved and then going southward toward the Hindu Kush. There was no direct migration from Poltavka into Hindu Kush, that's impossible.

But if Z2103 is not from BMAC then it has to be directly from the southern parts of the Caspian Sea, not far from Azerbaijan province of Iran.


http://s32.postimg.org/ufo79vx79/abc.jpg

Silesian
03-05-16, 02:53
Is Gioiello still around? Has he opened up his oldest and best bottle of wine? :)

I wish I would have been there to see the expression on his face, if he has seen it yet. I bet he was jumping up and down, screaming..
It's nice to see he was proven right, about finding ancient R1b in Italy.Not many were as bold as he was in his prediction. Already you could see when the R1b-V88 ancient Sardinia results came in on Yfull that R1b had a ancient presence in Italy.

Silesian
03-05-16, 03:35
Nice! Blue-eyed hunter-gatherers!



What do you mean? I don't understand. Pathans are not 6200 years old. And why do you mention Poltavka?

There is a lot of space, time and different/distinguish cultures between Poltovka and Pathan folks south of Pakistan (homeland of Pathans).

1. Ancient Pathans (Pakthas) are much modern/younger people than the ancient Poltavka culture. Poltavka = 4700 YBP. While. Pathans (or ancient Pakthas) are (were) East Iranians who came from BMAC.
2. There is no direct 'highway' from Poltavka region into the Hindu Kush. If there was a migration from Poltavka it has to be in phases.



Z2103 in Pakistan and north India can be from BMAC or direct from the southern parts of the Caspian Sea. It can't be directly from Poltavka because the current region of Pathans doesn't border with and has no direct road to the ancient Poltavka. If it was from Poltava it should first settle around BMAC where East Iranians evolved and then going southward toward the Hindu Kush. There was no direct migration from Poltavka into Hindu Kush, that's impossible.

But if Z2103 is not from BMAC then it has to be directly from the southern parts of the Caspian Sea, not far from Azerbaijan province of Iran.


http://s32.postimg.org/ufo79vx79/abc.jpg

If you look at the R1b tree, I posted you will see that R1b-Z2103=Z2106=Z2108/9=Z2110/CTS7822 are all dated to 6100+/YBP
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
Gioiello- Belongs to R1b- Z2110*
My branch is same R1b-9219+ found in Eastern Europe and Digor Ossetians.
There are not to many of our R1b branch in your map. There is no variance in our branches of R1b. in Iraq/Iran;and they are just as old as R1b Z2103+

Angela
03-05-16, 04:27
Well, they come down hard on the Willerslev paper:

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using
data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population
to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three
major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today4,15: (1) a lineage
related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians
before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to
the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive
sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this."

As I said at the time, it made no sense to me.

Here's the paper on which Willerslev was a co-author.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1113

Fire Haired14
03-05-16, 04:43
This possible movement into Europe from the Near East connected to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial warm period may correlate with the sudden expansion of certain mtDna lineages leading to "H".

I doubt it because WHG, who they think might have come from SE Europe/Near East, was essentially 100% mtDNA U.


If the refugia for the Villabruna cluster was in Europe and not West Asia, could it have been in and around the now submerged Great Adriatic plain?

That makes a lot of sense. Even our 11,000 year old genome from the Southern tip of Italy is a typical WHG person. So, how could WHG be from Spain if it was so far SouthEast so long ago? Doesn't make sense. Our oldest examples of WHG so far are from Northern Italy(14ko),Switzerland(13ko), and France(13ko). 19,000 year old girl from Spain looks like a mixture of WHG and people who lived in Belgium 30,000 years ago. She did clearly have lots of WHG-affinity, but wasn't pure WHG.

I believe most of the 15,000 year old samples from Germany and Belgium are just like that Spanish lady, then suddenly after 15,000 ears ago everyone became WHG. But I'll have to check the paper to see if that's what happened. If that is the case, then WHG was a newcomer maybe from the SouthEast.

Angela
03-05-16, 04:57
I wish I would have been there to see the expression on his face, if he has seen it yet. I bet he was jumping up and down, screaming..
It's nice to see he was proven right, about finding ancient R1b in Italy.Not many were as bold as he was in his prediction. Already you could see when the R1b-V88 ancient Sardinia results came in on Yfull that R1b had a ancient presence in Italy.

When you think of the abuse he took over the years from certain people, people who don't even have the good manners to acknowledge that he was at least correct that it would be found in Paleolithic Italy. He just had faith in his analysis, and stuck to it. It's rather remarkable, I think.

Now, the question is how long was it there, where did it come from, and where did it go.

Goga
03-05-16, 04:57
If you look at the R1b tree, I posted you will see that R1b-Z2103=Z2106=Z2108/9=Z2110/CTS7822 are all dated to 6100+/YBP
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/
Gioiello- Belongs to R1b- Z2110*
My branch is same R1b-9219+ found in Eastern Europe and Digor Ossetians.
There are not to many of our R1b branch in your map. There is no variance in our branches of R1b. in Iraq/Iran;and they are just as old as R1b Z2103+
Oh, I know what you mean. Thanks for this tree btw. I see it for the first time.

But some things doesn't make sense to me. This tree is not complete or full mistakes. If Z2109* = 6200 YBP, while Poltavka = 4800 YBP (on this map), then Poltavka can't be exactly the same as Z2109* (6200 YBP), because there is a gap of almost 1500 years in between, right?
And therefore I don't see any direct links between Poltavka and Pathan. This tree is saying that Pathan mutated directly from Z2109 (which is 6200 YBP) and not from Poltavka. Doesn't make any sense either, because Pathan is much younger than Z2109*.


Further, I don't think Z2110* is from Poltavka, but it is actually native to Yamnaya. When Z2110* mutated Poltavka didn't exist yet (according to this tree).


It seems that different subtypes of R1b migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon at the same time. Not only 1 subtype but a couple of cousin subtypes of R1b.

From this map I got that your branch is from Z2110* and that Z2110* is a downstrem of Z2109*. After Z2109* really settled down in the Yamnaya Horizon it became really native to that region and started to change/mutate. Your branch is native to East Europe.
I don't know anything about Digor Ossetians, but if it is true what you're saying (and I believe you) then your subtype could be also part of the 'European' Scythians who brought R1b to the Ossetians.

Angela
03-05-16, 05:05
Fire Haired14;479447]I doubt it because WHG, who they think might have come from SE Europe/Near East, was essentially 100% mtDNA U.

I didn't mean that "H" got to Europe that early. I meant that this particular warming period may have been the time when populations started to increase, and new lineages arose.

As to "H" in Europe, are any of these samples the same ones from Spain that were supposedly tested previously and found to to "H"? If that's the case, then it's sort of case closed, isn't it? MtDna "H" in Europe would be Neolithic, except for that stray from the northeast which probably arrived from the Caucasus.

Speaking of mtDna. They found mtDna "M" in this era too, and U6. So, U6 is probably a back migration to North Africa and just got very lucky there. As for "M", I don't know why the authors say it doesn't exist in Europe. It does; I know it can be found in southern Italy. Now, without all sorts of detailed sub-clade analysis it's impossible to know or speculate when that mtDna "M" arrived there, but I think we should know by now that Italy harbors some very ancient haplogroups.



That makes a lot of sense. Even our 11,000 year old genome from the Southern tip of Italy is a typical WHG person. So, how could WHG be from Spain if it was so far SouthEast so long ago? Doesn't make sense. Our oldest examples of WHG so far are from Northern Italy(14ko),Switzerland(13ko), and France(13ko). 19,000 year old girl from Spain looks like a mixture of WHG and people who lived in Belgium 30,000 years ago. She did clearly have lots of WHG-affinity, but wasn't pure WHG.

I believe most of the 15,000 year old samples from Germany and Belgium are just like that Spanish lady, then suddenly after 15,000 ears ago everyone became WHG. But I'll have to check the paper to see if that's what happened. If that is the case, then WHG was a newcomer maybe from the SouthEast.

I'm not sure if that's the case. They seem to be hedging their bets by saying it could be sub-stucture in Europe.

This all leaves the role of "Basal Eurasian" still murky for me. If this Villabruna like group(which includes La Brana and Loschbour), came from the southeast via Italy, and that's why it's "related" to Near Eastern populations according to the authors, why does it have no Basal Eurasian? That would mean there was no Basal Eurasian in Anatolia in 14,000 BC? So when did it arrive and from where?* They don't talk about the farmers of Anatolia, but they mention that CHG, which is much older, was about 30% Basal Eurasian. So how would that have worked? A non-Basal Eurasian Near Eastern group of hunter-gatherers leaves for Europe from Anatolia. Then, somehow Basal Eurasian arrives in Anatolia? How could it have come from the south if it was already present earlier in the Caucasus?

I have to re-read the paper tomorrow as well, because I don't understand how the re-population of Europe after the LGM by people who were part GoyetQ116-1 as well as part Villabruna could have led to all these analyses showing WHG admixture.

Also, what the heck yDna did they carry?

Ponto
03-05-16, 05:06
I cannot see how he was correct. Gioiello was only concerned about his particular subclade of R1b found commonly in the North of Italy. There are hundreds of subclades of R1b in Europe, and elsewhere. Finding one subclade in Europe among ancient Europeans does not prove Gioiello right. Personally his whole argument about R1b in Europe and Italy in ancient times was based purely on his own jingoistic bias and his own haplogroup.

Aaron1981
03-05-16, 05:08
I think that R1b-Z2103 is from the Maykop culture and Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon. By the time when R1b-Z2103 migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon (5500 YBP), the Y-DNA hg. R1a-Z283 & R1a-Z93 already existed.

"Indo-Europeanized", even though all the elite graves are R1b? It doesn't appear that R1b is ancient in the Caucasus, several studies have already arrived at this conclusion. ie: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/54/

Angela
03-05-16, 05:30
"Indo-Europeanized", even though all the elite graves are R1b? It doesn't appear that R1b is ancient in the Caucasus, several studies have already arrived at this conclusion. ie: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/54/

Everybody had me convinced it wasn't ancient in Europe, either, so who knows where it was. As someone else mentioned, R1b people are apparently the restless sort.

Fire Haired14
03-05-16, 06:33
I've added mtDNA/Y DNA results to my spreadsheet with the list of samples. I also labelled each according to the cluster they were assigned using F3-stats.

New Paleo European Genomes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMeojSM7Lrep4GYi8qV31QbDPIw5w-bEygm8esoSHF4/edit#gid=0)

The ~30,000 year old Italian and Central European samples form a cluster. They're closer to WHG than Kostinki and 30,000 ear old Belgium are. Their Y DNA is C1a and IJKH(inlu. confirmed I). Their mtDNA is U2*, pre-U5*, U8*, U2'3'4'7'8'9*, and M. Looks like a good canidate for the ancestor of WHG.

LeBrok
03-05-16, 06:35
The Conclusions section:

"We show that the population history of pre-Neolithic Europe was
complex in several respects.

First, at least some of the initial modern humans to appear in Eurasia, exemplified by Ust’-Ishim and Oase1, failed to contribute appreciably to the current European gene pool.Only from around 37,000 years ago do all the European individuals analysed share ancestry with present-day Europeans.

Second, from the time of Kostenki14 about 37,000 years ago until the time of the Villabruna Cluster about 14,000 years ago, all individuals seem to derive from a single ancestral population with no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere. It is interesting that during this time, the Mal’ta Cluster is not represented in any of the individuals we sampled from Europe.

Thus, while individuals assigned to the Gravettian cultural complex in Europe are associated with the Věstonice Cluster, there is no genetic connection between them and the Mal’ta1 individual in Siberia, despite the fact that Venus figurines are associated with both. This suggests that if this similarity is not a coincidence, it reflects diffusion of ideas rather than movements of people.

Third, we find that GoyetQ116-1 derives from a different deep branch of the European founder population than the Věstonice Cluster which became predominant in many places in Europe between 34,000 and 26,000 years ago including at Goyet. GoyetQ116-1 is chronologically associated with the Aurignacian cultural complex. Thus, the subsequent spread of the Věstonice Cluster shows that the diffusion of the Gravettian cultural complex was mediated at least in part by population movements.

Fourth, the population represented by GoyetQ116-1 did not disappear, as its descendants became widespread again after ~19,000 years ago in the El Mirón Cluster when we detect them in Iberia. The El MirónCluster is associated with the Magdalenian culture and may represent a post-Glacial Maximum expansion from southwestern European refugia.Thanks for posting Angela. It means a lot to me and others lacking time to read whole paper.


Fifth, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster at least ~14,000 years ago, all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East. This correlates in time to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, the first significant warming period after the Glacial Maximum.

Archaeologically, it correlates with cultural transitions within the Epigravettian in southern Europe and the Magdalenian-to-Azilian transition in western Europe. Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of mitochondrial DNA turnover. One scenario that couldexplain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern European or west Asian refugia after the Glacial Maximum, drawing together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East. There was a give away when Anatolian farmer genome was published last year. They contained WHG admixture even before entering Europe. I imagined some sort of hunter gatherer "refugium" in Anatolia, and later repopulation throughout Europe. Now it becomes more obvious. I think someone back then proposed name change to Anatolian HG from WHG.


Sixth, within the Villabruna Cluster, some, but not all, individuals have an affinity to east Asians.Now, this is something new, isn't it? Do they say anything about African admixture showing in some Mesolithic hunter gatherers?


An important direction for future work will be to generate
similar ancient DNA data from southeastern Europe and the Near East to arrive at a more complete picture of the Upper Palaeolithic population history of western Eurasia."Yes, yes, yes! Though it might take another couple of years for a complete research. They should include North Africa too.


This possible movement into Europe from the Near East connected to the Bølling-Allerød interstadial warm period may correlate with the sudden expansion of certain mtDna lineages leading to "H". I always thought it was Mesolithic expansion. Probably together with Anatolian WHG. No wonder they could have brought some R1b from over there too.


Also, it's interesting that they're pointing to the Herc2 blue eyes mutation as coming from the southeast. Didn't an old paper trace its expansion to somewhere around the Black Sea about 10,000 years ago?

If the refugia for the Villabruna cluster was in Europe and not West Asia, could it have been in and around the now submerged Great Adriatic plain?Blue eye Anatolian Hunter Gatherer. Another twist of the story. Nice.

sparkey
03-05-16, 07:35
I've added mtDNA/Y DNA results to my spreadsheet with the list of samples. I also labelled each according to the cluster they were assigned using F3-stats.

New Paleo European Genomes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMeojSM7Lrep4GYi8qV31QbDPIw5w-bEygm8esoSHF4/edit#gid=0)

Thanks! Y-DNA for Vestonice16 and Pavlov1 is wrong though.

bicicleur
03-05-16, 08:30
Thanks! Y-DNA for Vestonice16 and Pavlov1 is wrong though.

it is what the paper says
do you have other info?

bicicleur
03-05-16, 08:36
I think the main conclusion of the paper is the identification of the 5 clusters.
How reliable this identification is, the future will show.

Maciamo
03-05-16, 09:35
Archaeologically, it correlates with cultural transitions within the Epigravettian in southern Europe and the Magdalenian-to-Azilian transition in western Europe. Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of mitochondrial DNA turnover. One scenario that couldexplain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern European or west Asian refugia after the Glacial Maximum, drawing together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East.


So far we know that:

- Aurignacian people in central and western Europe belonged to mt-haplogroups M and R* and Y-haplogroup C1a, while contemporary people in Romania and Russia belonged to U*, U2 and U6 and Y-haplogroup CT and C1b.

- Gravettian people belonged to mt-haplogroups M, U*, U2, U5 and U8c, and Y-haplogroups BT, CT, C1a2, F, IJK and I.

- Magdalenian people belonged to mt-haplogroup U5b and U8a and Y-haplogroups HIJK and I.

- One Epigravettian person from northern Italy belonged to mt-haplogroup U5b2b and Y-haplogroup R1b1*.

- One Azalian sample belonged to mt-haplogroup U5b1h and Y-haplogroup I2.

- Epipaleolithic samples from France and Germany belonged to mt-haplogroup U5b1 and U5b2 and Y-haplogroup I.


Note that six years ago I attempted to retrace the original mtDNA of Proto-Indo Europeans (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25613-Identifying-the-original-Indo-European-mtDNA-from-isolated-settlements) and I concluded that the earliest lineages associated with Neolithic R1b (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#mtDNA) cattle herders a few millennia before the Yamna period were U5, J1b1a and V. I explained that R1b originated in Central Asia and spread around the Caspian Sea, northward to Russia and southward to Iran and Kurdistan. Some tribes that had ended up in northern Mesopotamia eventually domesticated cattle. J1b1a was picked up in the northern Msopotamia before R1b cattle herders split in two groups, one that migrated across the Caucasus to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (R1b-M269) and one that migrated south to the Levant and Africa (R1b-V88). So it is not surprising to see that the mitochondrial haplogroup associated with an even earlier R1b hunter-gatherer should be either U5 or V.

U5 is a very old haplogroup that could be up to 50,000 years old by some estimates. Yet U5 is completely absent from the Aurignacian and the oldest U5 sample to date is a Gravettian dating from 30,000 years ago. Since Gravettian brought Y-haplogroup I to Europe from the Middle East or Southeast Europe, the origins of U5 would also appear to be more eastern. It is now known that the But given the Gravettian culture xtended as far east as Romania and Bugaria and possibily even Russia. Gravettian were big game hunters and included groups of mammoth hunters like the Ancient North Asians (Mal'ta boy) who belonged to Y-haplogroup R. Given the paucity of U5 in the Middle East today, it would make more sense if U5 originated in Eastern Europe and/or western Siberian with big game hunters, belonging both to Y-haplogroup I and R.

In Paleolithic Europe we see a sharp increase in mt-haplogroup U5 from about 15,000 ybp. This also corresponds to the disapperance of older mitochondrial (M, N, R, U*, U8) haplogroups from the gene pool and the overwhelming replacement of old Y-DNA lineages (BT, CT, C1a, F, IJK) by R1a and R1b in eastern Europe and Y-DNA I in the rest of Europe during the Epipaleolithic and the Mesolithic.

In other words, the Bronze Age invasion from the Steppe was not the first major population replacement that originated in Eastern Europe. It looks like an Epipaleolithic wave of big game hunters belonging mostly to Y-DNA I2 and mtDNA U5 swept over Europe from the Steppe.

So the Gravettian may have originated in Southeast Europe and sent waves of Y-haplogroup I to both western and eastern Europe. But the latter came back 15,000 to 20,000 years later as (mostly) Y-haplogroup I2 and mt-haplogroup U5 and replaced most of the older male and female lineages in Europe. A few R1b may have ended up with them, which is why an R1b1* showed up in Villabruna.

anthropico
03-05-16, 11:17
I think that R1b in Italy, like that in Iberian neolithic sample (Els Trocs), was ancestor to V88.
I don't think west european R1b descend from those samples.


Is Gioiello still around? Has he opened up his oldest and best bottle of wine? :)
lol

Tomenable
03-05-16, 11:36
When was R1b-Z2103 Indo-Europeanized then and by which subtypes of R1a? Because at the time of Yamnaya culture, where Z2103 is found, there was already a split between R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93.

If R1b-Z2103 was Indo-Europeanized around the Yamnaya Horizon then it has to be by R1a-Z93. But this whole story is way to one-dimensional and to simple.

I'm sure something else happened. What we know for sure is that Yamnaya culture was Indo-European and that R1b-Z2103 was part of that culture. Yamnaya is the OLDEST Indo-European culture in Europe.

Yes, by R1a-Z93 (and possibly by other R1a)

IMO R1b-M269 / R1b-L23 were the guys who invented metallurgy. Later as we know L23 split into two branches.

In my opinion R1b-L51 went directly to Western Europe without "visiting" the Steppe on their way there.

They brought metallurgy to Western Europe. And R1b-Z2103 brought metallurgy and "Teal" ancestry to the Steppe.

Metallurgy was invented most likely in the Middle East - that's where both L51 and Z2103 expanded from.

Yamnaya people were a mixture of these two:

Smiths - R1b-Z2103
Commoners - R1a

That's why we see Z2103 in kurgans, in which smiths (who were at the same time chieftains) - not commoners - were buried.

Men buried in kurgans was not the whole population, but only "shamans" (and metallurgy was their "magic") or chieftains.

===========================

Where is Yamnaya L23(xL51) and especially L23(xL11) in western Europe today? There is none.

Once you cross the Czech-German border or the Slovene-Italian border, almost all of R1b becomes L11.

The last countries with significant (over 5%) frequency of L23(xL11) are Slovenia, Czech Rep. and Poland.

Frequency of L23(xL51) in Germany is only around 0.5% (see: Natalie Myres 2010).

It is clear that Bell Beaker expanded West-->East and encountered CWC in Rhineland.

CWC was R1a with a minority of R1b-L23+ (but actual L23/Z2103, not L51 or L11).

Non-L11 subclades of R1b-M343 (including Non-M269 & Non-L23):

R1b-M343(xL11):

Poland (n=202) - 6,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 5,9%
Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Slovakia (n=276) - 5,0%

Germany (n=321) - 1,83% (including Non-M269)

And now only R1b-M269+, L23+ which is actually R1b-L23(xL51):

R1b-L23(xL51):

Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Poland (n=202) - 5,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 3,9%
Slovakia (n=276) - 3,6%

Germany (n=321) - 0,62%

This data is from Myres 2010:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html

So in a sample of 321 Germans, only 2 had L23(xL51).

And Germany is in Central Europe, not Western Europe.

Go to Western Europe and you will find hardly any L23.

R1b-L11 expanded West->East, in the opposite direction to how R1b-L23(xL11) expanded...

Tomenable
03-05-16, 11:47
"Indo-Europeanized", even though all the elite graves are R1b?

In France and in Italy Germanic elites were "Latinized" (started speaking Romance languages), not the other way around.

What we see in kurgan graves are smiths - who were at the same time shamans and/or chieftains - community leaders.

They were not the majority of the population. This refers also to cultures in which kurgans were full of R1a (like Srubna).

Simply in all of those Steppe cultures, kurgans were burials of ruling clans / leading families, not of "average Joes".

Tomenable
03-05-16, 11:59
R1b was IMO native to the Near East and there were numerous successive emigrations of R1b from that area.

Villabruna represents one of the earliest migrations of R1b from the Near East to South Europe. Later other waves came. R1b migrated both to the Steppe (Z2103 was "intrusive" in Yamna - perhaps came from south of the Caucasus with Maykop?). Z2103 was not the majority of Yamna males - but they brought the "magic" of metallurgy, and became "shamans" / "chieftains". That's why we see them overrepresented in kurgans.

R1b-L51 in my opinion expanded directly from the Middle East to Western Europe, bringing Copper Age to Iberia (ATP3).

Tomenable
03-05-16, 12:40
I don't think that there was ever such a thing as "replacement of R1b by R1a in the Steppe after Yamna".

Yamna was probably R1b-Z2103 minority (but "smiths-shamans") + R1a majority (but "commoners").

And what we see later on, is the loss of high status by Z2103 and R1a men becoming "chieftains".

However, Z2103 continued to exist as a minority lineage and went to India - as Parasar wrote:


R1b:
1. Oldest R1b on the P297 line found in Italy ~14000ybp
2. Oldest R1b on the V88 line found in Spain ~7000ybp.
3. Oldest R1b on the M269 line potentially found in Spain ~5500ybp
4. Oldest R1b on the M73 line found in Samara ~7600ybp

Lets see how this comports with modern DNA evidence from India.
1. L278xL389 lines are present in India - trace amounts (eg. N93357 Joshi P25+, L21-, L23-, L51-, M18-, M222-, M269-, M335-, M73-, P297-, P312-, U106-, U152-, V88-, L389- & 267597 Raza Varanasi R-M343 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1asterisk/default.aspx?section=ysnp) - perhaps remnants of early R1b moving west along with other early R/Q lines (incl. R1a and R2xM124).
2. V88 completely absent in India because V88 splits in the Mediterranean region and does not move east.
3. M269 present in present in India beyond trace amounts - of the Yamna type - likely enters India with R1a-Z94 lines.
4. M73 - trace or absent in India.

What he wrote does not contradict my theory about Maykop smiths with "M269 of the Yamna type" (= Z2103 and L23*).

But let's add also information about L51 in India:

5. L51 completely absent in India because L51 splits from L23 in the Mediterranean region and does not move east.

There might be some L21 or U106 though - due to British occupation of India in recent history.

MOESAN
03-05-16, 12:54
BBC article about this study, with photos of some skulls - including Villabruna's:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502

"This 14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna, Italy, lived at a time when the climate was warming up":

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C87/production/_89538772_89538771.jpg

Is it sure this interesting skull is this famous Y-R1b's one? If true have you a profile (lateral) picture?

Tomenable
03-05-16, 14:39
My current assertion is that M269 & L23 were responsible for spreading early metallurgy around Western Eurasia.

It does not require the presence of M269/L23 already in Neolithic Europe.

It also does not imply that L23 originally spoke PIE, because we know well that metallurgy was not invented by PIE people.

The PIE community only adopted metallurgy from Non-IE people who were spreading it.

Villabruna is a proof that R1b expanded from the Near East in several succesive waves between Upper Paleolithic and Metal Ages.

EEF autosomal DNA is still more abundant in Western Europe (especially South-Western, but in fact also in North-Western) than is Steppe autosomal DNA. By contrast, G2a haplogroup is very rare in that region. This implies that initial EEF population (G2a-heavy) got extinct, and was replaced by another wave of Near Eastern immigrants - bringing with them similar EEF admixture, but different Y-DNA.

They were R1b folks spreading metallurgy as well as EEF and "Teal" ("Armenian") admixtures.

================

RISE 413 from Middle Bronze Age Armenia was R1b-P297* according to Sergey Malyshev.

He lived very late, but it is possible that P297 (and M269) was native to areas south of Caucasus:

http://s32.postimg.org/3rbbp9psl/RISE413.png

bicicleur
03-05-16, 14:39
my conclusions so far :

Aurignacian was C1a2 - same branche as La Brana (C-V20xV86)
Gravettian in central and western Europe developped after arrival of I and arrival of J in eastern Europe (north of the Black Sea) around 35 ka
Vestonice - Gravettian cluster 26-34 ka is a mixture of C1a2 and I
Mal'ta cluster 24-17 ka is P1,Q,R
El Miron - Magdalenian cluster 19-14 ka is I and mtDNA U8a
Satsurblia - Epigravettian cluster 13 - 10 ka is J ; Epigravettian originated in Europe but expanded to Transcaucasia & Armenia 18 - 19 ka
Villabruna cluster with microliths and during forestation of Europe was triggered by immigrants from the Near East 14 ka, one of them was R1b pré-P297 but not ancestral to R1b M269 neither R1b M73 ; the main component is I, with few C1a2
the paleolithic European C1a2 is extinct, what is left in Europe today is neolithic C1a2 with origins in the Levant (C-V86)
I seems to have partly dissapeared during neolitisation but expanded again at the onset of the bronze age, while C1a2 remained marginal

PS : Aurignacian C1a2 had higher Neanderthal admixture than I who arrived in Europe 35 ka

Alan
03-05-16, 16:15
12000 BC R1b1 in Villabruna.

Didn't I say that R1b v88 in 5500 BC Iberia with EEF aDNA is unlikely from the Steppes and probably came from a region that was close to the homeland of EEF and they catched it up there? For instance Mesopotamia Kurdistan or the Iranian Plateau? :)

As I said in the past by Neolithic era R1 lineages have been already widespred throughout Eurasia. Mark my words we will find R1b l23 that predates Bronze Age in West Asia.


And than according to this paper WHG is a pre Neolithic Anatolian component lived next to EHG and many other components and replaced Paleolithic Europeans roughly 14000 BC.
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-genetic-
analysis-ice-age-europeans.html

I hate to say it ( actually not :P) But didn't I say that the "WHG" in Neolithic farmers is not a back migration of mesolithic Europeans into Anatolia.
I said that this WHG is ancient in the region since it is also found in the Levant and even Arabia and probably represents a pre Neolithic Near Eastern component.

WHG = pre Neolithic Anatolian, EF= Neolithic Near Eastern, CHG = mesolithic_neolithic Iranian Plateau/Caucasus.

Alan
03-05-16, 16:31
It seems, that:

That Italian with R1b carried no basal Eurasian ancestry:

(quote from Anthrogenica discussion):



So how did they conclude, that he came from the Near East?

Simple, Satsurbilas non basal Eurasian ancestry is what it share with Villabruna what indiciates that Basal Eurasian is a third component (probably from Arabia?) that contributed to the formation of CHG and EEF AFTER WHG already expanded towards Europe.

Means proto "UHG-ANE" or let us call it gravettian component mixed with some degree of Basal Eurasian what became EEF and CHG.

Maciamo
03-05-16, 16:34
R1b was IMO native to the Near East and there were numerous successive emigrations of R1b from that area.

Villabruna represents one of the earliest migrations of R1b from the Near East to South Europe. Later other waves came. R1b migrated both to the Steppe (Z2103 was "intrusive" in Yamna - perhaps came from south of the Caucasus with Maykop?). Z2103 was not the majority of Yamna males - but they brought the "magic" of metallurgy, and became "shamans" / "chieftains". That's why we see them overrepresented in kurgans.

R1b-L51 in my opinion expanded directly from the Middle East to Western Europe, bringing Copper Age to Iberia (ATP3).

I really don't understand why you (or the authors of the paper) would think that the R1b in Villabruna came from the Middle East. R1b was found in Mesolithic Russia and R* in Palaeolithic Siberia. It's not a typically Middle Eastern lineage, although some tribes did end up there in the early Neolithic. The U5b2 isn't Middle Eastern either.

I admit that I didn't have time to check all the supplementary data. Is there any sign that the Villabruna R1b had Middle Eastern (CHG or ENF) rather than Palaeolithic European (WHG, EHG) or Ancient North Asian (ANE) admixture?

Tomenable
03-05-16, 16:41
Here about my theory on M269/L23 related lineages spreading metallurgy during the 4th millennium BC:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy?p=479491&viewfull=1#post479491

They were expanding towards Iberia/Southern France & towards Pontic-Caspian Steppe at the same time.

bicicleur
03-05-16, 16:51
I really don't understand why you (or the authors of the paper) would think that the R1b in Villabruna came from the Middle East. R1b was found in Mesolithic Russia and R* in Palaeolithic Siberia. It's not a typically Middle Eastern lineage, although some tribes did end up there in the early Neolithic. The U5b2 isn't Middle Eastern either.

I admit that I didn't have time to check all the supplementary data. Is there any sign that the Villabruna R1b had Middle Eastern (CHG or ENF) rather than Palaeolithic European (WHG, EHG) or Ancient North Asian (ANE) admixture?

the oldest clades of both R1a and R1b today are found in NW Iran
they may have been the inhabitants of Hoti and Belt caves 14 ka

Villabruna had Asian admixture, even east Asian

Alan
03-05-16, 16:54
R1b was IMO native to the Near East and there were numerous successive emigrations of R1b from that area.

Villabruna represents one of the earliest migrations of R1b from the Near East to South Europe. Later other waves came. R1b migrated both to the Steppe (Z2103 was "intrusive" in Yamna - perhaps came from south of the Caucasus with Maykop?). Z2103 was not the majority of Yamna males - but they brought the "magic" of metallurgy, and became "shamans" / "chieftains". That's why we see them overrepresented in kurgans.

R1b-L51 in my opinion expanded directly from the Middle East to Western Europe, bringing Copper Age to Iberia (ATP3).


I tried to explain this so many times but nice to see that it holds water now.

Only the facts that we found R1b v88 in Neolithic Iberia with EEF ancestry 5500 BC proves the point that it could not have come via the Steppes and must have been from a region nearby to the homeland of early farmers, like Kurdistan, Mesopotamia or the Iranian Plateau thats what I have been preaching for so long.

bicicleur
03-05-16, 17:59
I tried to explain this so many times but nice to see that it holds water now.

Only the facts that we found R1b v88 in Neolithic Iberia with EEF ancestry 5500 BC proves the point that it could not have come via the Steppes and must have been from a region nearby to the homeland of early farmers, like Kurdistan, Mesopotamia or the Iranian Plateau thats what I have been preaching for so long.

Els Trocs were herders 7.5 ka amidst native HG tribes, R1b-V88 might as well have come through North-Africa
R1b-V88 probably never got on the Pontic steppe, R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 did though

sparkey
03-05-16, 18:15
it is what the paper says
do you have other info?

Not quite, he has them swapped. Pavlov1 is the I/pre-I, Vestonice16 is the C1a2.

Fire Haired14
03-05-16, 18:45
There's no special connection with West Asia and the WHG R1b guy from Italy. He had as much connection to West Asia as anyother WHG. He lived far away from West Asia. His results don't suggest any special connection between West Asia and R1b. We don't have enough ancients samples to say there's a connection or not, but none of them yet say there is.

Alan
03-05-16, 19:14
There's no special connection with West Asia and the WHG R1b guy from Italy. He had as much connection to West Asia as anyother WHG. He lived far away from West Asia. His results don't suggest any special connection between West Asia and R1b. We don't have enough ancients samples to say there's a connection or not, but none of them yet say there is.

There is a reason why the study obviously mentions that this Villabruna individuals had connections to the Near East in comparison to other paleolithic samples. So they must know something they haven't yet presented. And they even give a hint with saying that WHG itself differs from other components found their prior which indicates that WHG came from the Near East earlier than EEF. And this explains the WHG like ancestry in EEF.

Angela
03-05-16, 19:36
I've added mtDNA/Y DNA results to my spreadsheet with the list of samples. I also labelled each according to the cluster they were assigned using F3-stats.

New Paleo European Genomes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMeojSM7Lrep4GYi8qV31QbDPIw5w-bEygm8esoSHF4/edit#gid=0)

The ~30,000 year old Italian and Central European samples form a cluster. They're closer to WHG than Kostinki and 30,000 ear old Belgium are. Their Y DNA is C1a and IJKH(inlu. confirmed I). Their mtDNA is U2*, pre-U5*, U8*, U2'3'4'7'8'9*, and M. Looks like a good canidate for the ancestor of WHG.

Fire-Haired, wasn't there an mtDna "H" in central Europe in a Gravettian context?

It's not in your charts.

Of course, mtDna "H" could still have greatly diversified and expanded in that later warm period.

At least one of the Spanish samples that was labeled mtDna "H" definitely isn't, though. The methodology used in those old papers definitely left a lot to be desired.

Maciamo
03-05-16, 20:03
the oldest clades of both R1a and R1b today are found in NW Iran
they may have been the inhabitants of Hoti and Belt caves 14 ka

Villabruna had Asian admixture, even east Asian

The oldest subclades of R1a and R1b are found in Iran because there is so little data from Central Asia. But anyway it doesn't contract my theory that R1b originated near and spread early around the Caspian Sea.

If Villabruna has East Asian admixture it is clearly a sign that it came from Siberia via Eastern Europe, not from the Middle East.

Fire Haired14
03-05-16, 20:11
There is a reason why the study obviously mentions that this Villabruna individuals had connections to the Near East in comparison to other paleolithic samples. So they must know something they haven't yet presented. And they even give a hint with saying that WHG itself differs from other components found their prior which indicates that WHG came from the Near East earlier than EEF. And this explains the WHG like ancestry in EEF.

WHG's relation to the Near East could also be because of EuropeanWHG admixture in West Asia. All we know is that there was gene flow between West Asia(inclu. Caucasus/CHG) and Europe after 30,000 years ago.

Fire Haired14
03-05-16, 20:14
Fire-Haired, wasn't there an mtDna "H" in central Europe in a Gravettian context?

It's not in your charts.

Of course, mtDna "H" could still have greatly diversified and expanded in that later warm period.

At least one of the Spanish samples that was labeled mtDna "H" definitely isn't, though. The methodology used in those old papers definitely left a lot to be desired.

Like with older papers, the H7a1 result for a Gravettian sample is probably contamination. One part of the paper labels her as U and another labels her as H7a1. Considering the 90%+ U frequency in pre-Neolithic Europeans, for now I'm trusting the U result. Also, that same sample was fully sequenced in that recent mtDNA paper and came out U5*.

berun
03-05-16, 21:43
R1b was found in Mesolithic Russia and R* in Palaeolithic Siberia.

I think that you refer SVP44 of Lebyazhinka IV site, but if you look at this Russian site, it was neolitic "Middle Volga Culture" (VI-V millenia), so it's not a sure HG

http://www.povolzie.archeologia.ru/14.htm

Angela
03-05-16, 23:28
The paper also had some things to say about the decline in Neanderthal ancestry, and Dienekes opined upon it.

"Using one statistic, we estimate a decline from 4.3–5.7% from a time shortly after introgression to 1.1–2.2% in Eurasians today (Fig. 2). This is remarkable because it shows that most of the Neandertal ancestry of the earliest AMH in Europe was gone by the Mesolithic. It really seems that Neandertal genes were bred out of the gene pool over time. Will this trend continue into the future? Perhaps only minute traces of Neandertal DNA will remain in humans in 10,000 more years. Some of Neandertal DNA may yet prove to be neutral or beneficial, so at the limit the percentage may be more than zero. Nonetheless, the historical trend does suggest that modern humans inherited mostly genetic garbage from Neandertals and evolution is more than halfway through the process of getting rid of it.

As a corollary, there may have been other episodes of archaic admixture that are no longer detectable. Perhaps our modern human lineage has repeatedly admixed with other species, but traces of those admixtures are long gone by the action of natural selection. The reason for our relative homogeneity as a species may not be that we avoided intermixing with others, but that, sadly, most others had not much that was beneficial to offer to our ancestors."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/neandertal-ancestry-going-going-gone.html

I don't see how the statement exactly flows from statistics that don't refer to the levels in the Mesolithic, but I get the point.

Ed. I take it back. :) I see from the supplement that the levels were indeed down to that by the Mesolithic.

ThirdTerm
03-05-16, 23:28
http://abload.de/img/asgjb6.png

Previous studies assumed that Kostenki14 was the oldest European man with Basal Eurasian ancestry, who survived the Ice Age, but Fu et al. (2016) put it more accurately. Kostenki14 was likely to be a mixed-race individual between populations related to East Asians (hg C) and the ancestors of Europeans (hg U2). This new study also found that some of the Villabruna Cluster individuals such as Loschbour and LaBrana1 are closely associated with Han Chinese but not all Villabruna individuals have an affinity with East Asians. The ancestors of Loschbour and LaBrana1 in the Villabruna Cluster may have interbred with ancient populations related to East Asians as well, which was why excess allele sharing with East Asians was detected. Moreover, the ‘Villabruna Cluster’ is composed of 15 post-Last Glacial Maximum individuals from 14,000–7,000 years ago. Of these fifteen Villabruna samples, older twelve samples belonged Haplogroup R or R1 and haplogroups R1b and R1b1 only appear in more recent three samples, which are dated around 7,000 years ago (Table S4.2. Details of Y haplogroup SNPs in Villabruna Cluster samples).



The Villabruna Cluster is represented by the largest number of individuals in this study. This allows us to study heterogeneity within this cluster (Supplementary Information section 13). First, we detect differences in the degree of allele sharing with members of the El Mirón Cluster, as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; El Mirón Cluster, Mbuti). Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantly negative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han, Mbuti)4. This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistent with zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findings cannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry, and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations related to east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans (Supplementary Information section 8).

Angela
04-05-16, 00:26
The Reich Lab has made the whole paper available:
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

The graph is handy for figuring out these relationships:
7710

"Beginning around 14,000 years ago with the Villabruna Cluster, the strong affinity to GoyetQ116-1 seen in El Mirón Cluster individuals who belong to the Late Glacial Magdalenian culture becomes greatly attenuated (Supplementary Information section 10). To test if this change might reflect gene flow from populations that did not descend from the >37,000-year-old European founder population, we computed statistics of the form D(Early European, Later European; Y, Mbuti) where Y are various present-day non-Africans. If no gene flow from exogenous populations occurred, this statistic is expected to be zero. Figure 4b shows that it is consistent with zero (|Z|<3) for nearly all individuals dating to between about 37,000 and 14,000 years ago. However, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster, it becomes highly significantly negative in comparisons where the non-European population (Y) is Near Easterners (Fig. 4b; Extended Data Fig. 3; Supplementary Information section 11). This must reflect a contribution to the Villabruna Cluster from a lineage also found in present-day Near Easterners (Fig. 4b)."

So, while admixture isn't going to show this "Near Eastern" affinity, formal stats do show it. What's being lost in the renewed R1a vs R1b wars as to who is the most Indo-European of them all, is that the authors leave open two possibilities: one that the Villabruna set was in Europe as early as the "Gravettian" group, and just represents substructure in Europe, and one that they arrived in Europe somewhere around 14000 YBP from the southeast, through Greece perhaps.

If the former was true, why all this Near Eastern "affinity", unless there was some inflow that changed them slightly perhaps?

Maybe they are just being really cautious. I guess we need to stay tuned.

It doesn't seem then that Magdalenian expansions left all that large a trace; most "European hunter-gatherer" ancestry is WHG or related to the Villabruna group.

Twitter-Iosif Lazaridis (one of the co-authors)

"It seems that there was a hunter-gatherer "reset" ~14,000 years ago that left only the "Villabruna cluster" as the inheritors of Europe..."

Angela
04-05-16, 01:09
This is a link to the supplement where you can find the formal stats from which they deduce this Near Eastern affinity.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf

They do not say it necessarily came from the Near East to Europe. They leave open the possibility of gene flow from Europe to western Anatolia. Much less did they say anything about R1b having been born in the Middle East and being the catalyst for bringing WHG to Europe. People are really jumping the gun with all this. Maybe they know the answer and just aren't saying, but regardless, we have to wait for the data.

"Affinities of pre-Neolithic Europeans to the Near East When neither of the two pre-Neolithic Europeans analysed in the statistic is in the Villabruna Cluster—that is, both are older than about 14,000 BP—they tend to be symmetrically related to populations outside Europe including present-day and ancient Near Easterners. However, when one lived prior to the Villabruna Cluster (e.g. Vestonice16, ElMiron, Kostenki14, KremsWA3, and GoyetQ116-1) and the other is in the Villabruna Cluster (e.g. BerryAuBac, Bichon, CuiryLesChaudardes1, Falkenstein, Hungarian.KO1, LaBrana1, Loschbour, Ranchot88, Rochedane and Villabruna), there is a distinct attraction of the Villabruna Cluster samples to Near Eastern populations (Figure 4b; Extended Data Figure 3). Table S11.1 shows the statistics when the Near Eastern population is Iraqi_Jew. There are several possible explanations for these findings. One is gene flow between relatives of Near Easterners and pre-Neolithic Europeans after ~14,000 years ago, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster. A second is population substructure in Europe. In this scenario, after post-glacial re-peopling of Europe, the balance of ancestry could have shifted toward populations that were more closely related to Near Easterners. In either case, however, major population turnovers must have occurred. The affinity of pre-Neolithic Europeans to Near Easterners beginning around 14,000 years ago is distinct from the affinity to East Asians in Mesolithic Europeans."

I also think there's a problem with this theory that the R1b1 in Villabruna is similar to R1b1 that existed south of the Caucasus and moved north into the steppe from there. The Villabruna R1b1 has no Basal Eurasian, while whatever went into the steppe from the Caucasus did have it. Plus, the Villabruna R1b1 is WHG. The authors of this paper maintain that the roughly 68% non Basal Eurasian in the CHG people was related to ANE, not to WHG. For the CHG like ancestry to move into the steppe from the south Caucasus with R1b1 people would mean that we'd have to have CHG like-ANE like R1b1 in the Caucasus, and WHG like R1b1 in Europe.

It may instead be the case that R1b1 was a "Southern European"* hunter-gatherer who roamed the whole range from Italy to the border of Ukraine. The R1b1 found in Yamnaya is one branch that went east. There may be a different branch of R1b1 that is descended from Villabruna.

Some of the answers are going to have to wait for older samples from various places in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, although if we find it in Anatolia, I still don't see how we'd know the direction of gene flow.

Just on a personal note, is the full sequence for the U2 found in southern Italy 28,000 years ago somewhere in the paper or supplement? I'd like to see how mine compares.

Ed.* On reflection I don't think the refugia was in the Ukraine. It doesn't seem to have the right climate or flora and fauna at that period. It seems more likely that it spanned the area from Italy to the Balkans.

Fire Haired14
04-05-16, 02:05
Just on a personal note, is the full sequence for the U2 found in southern Italy 28,000 years ago somewhere in the paper or supplement? I'd like to see how mine compares.

lol, maybe it is related to your U2 :). No seriously it is possible. A large number of our Mesolithic mtDNA U5s have found close modern matches on FTDNA, so anything is possible. However, just as it's near impossible for a modern person to find a close mtDNA match from another random modern person with the same haplogroup, it's near impossible for an ancient person to find a close modern match from a random modern person with the same haplogroup.

Silesian
04-05-16, 02:06
http://wizzyschool.com/images/early%20man/human%20fossil%20sites.gif (http://wizzyschool.com/images/early%20man/human%20fossil%20sites.gif)
http://wizzyschool.com/images/early%20man/human%20fossil%20sites.gif

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png
http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png


R1a and R1b split around 22,000YBP that does not leave a lot of time considering the distance between the samples. A parsimonious explanation will be needed.
R1b M-73[R-M478-formed 13500 ybp, TMRCA 7300 ybp] is on the Steppe and R1b-V88 R-M18[formed 17200 ybp, TMRCA 10200 ybp] is already confirmed find in Cagliari, Sardinia.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml
Sergey M. is placing the Villabruna 14k+/-ybp sample with additional snp's at L754+[ R1b1a on current ISOGG tree] At or near R1b base.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/


P224, M734, P285, P227, P294, P242, P238, P245, M173, P286, P236, M306, L278. [Derived for additional SNPs L754/PF6269/YSC0000022+, A702/Z8137+, CTS4244/PF6257/YSC0001279/V2997+, CTS7585+, C41/M12190/SK2062/V1501/Z8135/Y108+, L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224+, L761/PF6258/YSC0000266+, L774/PF6245/YSC0000277+, PF6263+, PF6271+ which make it R1b1a on current ISOGG tree]

I really can't see any R1b coming from the Near East. That is probably why no samples where found in Anatolia. Also the R1b Z2103+ samples are practically buried on top or beside the R1b-m73 on the Steppe. Non of the Steppe samples came back R1b-L584+; that is significant because that is what you would expect if it came from the lower Caucasus or Iran. Also Armenian are of hand about 80% R1b-L584 if I remember correctly. It looks like all the action including maybe the R1a split was within a certain region or band. Lets see what more samples show.
Eurogenes.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/
It is hard to imagine all this started from the tiny blue star at the far left of this plot.

7708

Angela
04-05-16, 02:19
lol, maybe it is related to your U2 :). No seriously it is possible. A large number of our Mesolithic mtDNA U5s have found close modern matches on FTDNA, so anything is possible. However, just as it's near impossible for a modern person to find a close mtDNA match from another random modern person with the same haplogroup, it's near impossible for an ancient person to find a close modern match from a random modern person with the same haplogroup.

I know it's a long shot, but I'd like to take a look. Did I ever tell you how once when sitting with a 94 year old female relative I was trying to explain to her that I was interested in figuring out when we arrived in our mountains and valleys? She pointed all around her and said, "We've always been here." Probably not, but it was a nice moment. :)

I know how tough mtDna can be. My closest match (other than family) is a "colonial American" with maternal ancestry from England or northern Ireland, and we split about 2000 years ago. I tell him some Roman brought his wife along with him to England, and their descendants are there to this day. :) That, or the timing is off and a Crusader taking the Via Francigena met an Italian girl and brought her home with him. :) Or then again, maybe it's "Celtic" and moved both south and northwest*. Take your pick, I guess.

Anyway, if the data is available somewhere I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

LeBrok
04-05-16, 05:56
The paper also had some things to say about the decline in Neanderthal ancestry, and Dienekes opined upon it.

"Using one statistic, we estimate a decline from 4.3–5.7% from a time shortly after introgression to 1.1–2.2% in Eurasians today (Fig. 2). This is remarkable because it shows that most of the Neandertal ancestry of the earliest AMH in Europe was gone by the Mesolithic. It really seems that Neandertal genes were bred out of the gene pool over time. Will this trend continue into the future? Perhaps only minute traces of Neandertal DNA will remain in humans in 10,000 more years. Some of Neandertal DNA may yet prove to be neutral or beneficial, so at the limit the percentage may be more than zero. Nonetheless, the historical trend does suggest that modern humans inherited mostly genetic garbage from Neandertals and evolution is more than halfway through the process of getting rid of it.Very biased on his part. He still can't get used to the idea of Neanderthal in us, lol. "Get rid of the garbage".


As a corollary, there may have been other episodes of archaic admixture that are no longer detectable. Perhaps our modern human lineage has repeatedly admixed with other species, but traces of those admixtures are long gone by the action of natural selection. The reason for our relative homogeneity as a species may not be that we avoided intermixing with others, but that, sadly, most others had not much that was beneficial to offer to our ancestors."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/neandertal-ancestry-going-going-gone.html
. I wonder if we compare modern human genome with homo sapiens of 100,000 years ago, how many genes are the same? We might have got rid of their "garbage" too.

holderlin
04-05-16, 06:31
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2016/05/the-genetic-history-of-ice-age-europe.html

Abstract: Modern humans arrived in Europe ~45,000 years ago, but little is known about their genetic composition before the start of farming ~8,500 years ago. Here we analyse genome-wide data from 51 Eurasians from ~45,000–7,000 years ago. Over this time, the proportion of Neanderthal DNA decreased from 3–6% to around 2%, consistent with natural selection against Neanderthal variants in modern humans. Whereas there is no evidence of the earliest modern humans in Europe contributing to the genetic composition of present-day Europeans, all individuals between ~37,000 and ~14,000 years ago descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans. An ~35,000-year-old individual from northwest Europe represents an early branch of this founder population which was then displaced across a broad region, before reappearing in southwest Europe at the height of the last Ice Age ~19,000 years ago. During the major warming period after ~14,000 years ago, a genetic component related to present-day Near Easterners became widespread in Europe. These results document how population turnover and migration have been recurring themes of European prehistory.

abstract : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17993.html
figures and tables : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature17993_ft.html
supplementary info : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf



Dank thread, awesome. Thanks for this. I've been obsessively raging about the lack of cool new papers, dreaming of Harrapan and Maykop analyses, but this, this may even be better.

Will begin reading now.

LeBrok
04-05-16, 07:25
I also think there's a problem with this theory that the R1b1 in Villabruna is similar to R1b1 that existed south of the Caucasus and moved north into the steppe from there. The Villabruna R1b1 has no Basal Eurasian, while whatever went into the steppe from the Caucasus did have it. Plus, the Villabruna R1b1 is WHG. The authors of this paper maintain that the roughly 68% non Basal Eurasian in the CHG people was related to ANE, not to WHG. For the CHG like ancestry to move into the steppe from the south Caucasus with R1b1 people would mean that we'd have to have CHG like-ANE like R1b1 in the Caucasus, and WHG like R1b1 in Europe. It may instead be the case that R1b1 was a "Southern European"* hunter-gatherer who roamed the whole range from Italy to the border of Ukraine. The R1b1 found in Yamnaya is one branch that went east. There may be a different branch of R1b1 that is descended from Villabruna.

Some of the answers are going to have to wait for older samples from various places in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, although if we find it in Anatolia, I still don't see how we'd know the direction of gene flow.Good points. After all R1b wasn't found among acquired HG Y DNA by early farmers in Anatolia or Hungary. Either it was a rare mix into WHG, or lost tribe who wandered in Italy and died there, or perhaps contamination?

berun
04-05-16, 07:40
Again a case to doubt about R1b = IE, of unexpected date even. But the interesting fact here is who is not: R1a, the guy that expanded so much quick as IE...

Sile
04-05-16, 07:59
So is the Veneto R1b1 a east asian or near east person?

I also think this is not Italian refugium but more likely a Adriatic Refugium ( Italo-Danubian ) . The north Adriatic area was far more important as a passage from the East into Italy before the area flooded .

bicicleur
04-05-16, 09:04
the Villabruna cluster were forest dwellers
this is a vegetation map of Europe during the youngest dryas

7711

Fire Haired14
04-05-16, 09:45
So is the Veneto R1b1 a east asian or near east person?


No he was WHG. WHG is slightly closer to East Asia and Middle East than other pre-Neo Europeans.

Sile
04-05-16, 09:53
No he was WHG. WHG is slightly closer to East Asia and Middle East than other pre-Neo Europeans.

Middle-East?
Iran, Anatolia and South-Caucasus are not middle-east ...............the levant is near east ................where in middle east ? Arabian peninsula?

Middle east is noted as just SW-Asian .............South Asian is India

Please explain:petrified:

Silesian
04-05-16, 13:44
......But if Z2103 is not from BMAC then it has to be directly from the southern parts of the Caspian Sea, not far from Azerbaijan province of Iran....


http://s32.postimg.org/ufo79vx79/abc.jpg

There is a difference in distribution between R1b-L584+ and for example R1b-9219+, both in same time frame.
R1b-9219+ 4300YBP+/-

7712

R1b-L584+ 4700+/-YBP

7713

Angela
04-05-16, 13:57
Very biased on his part. He still can't get used to the idea of Neanderthal in us, lol. "Get rid of the garbage".

I wonder if we compare modern human genome with homo sapiens of 100,000 years ago, how many genes are the same? We might have got rid of their "garbage" too.

That's exactly what he's saying isn't? Also, whether you call it "garbage" or not, there's total consensus that natural selection is purging it from the human genome; if it were beneficial that wouldn't be happening.

Silesian
04-05-16, 14:43
the Villabruna cluster were forest dwellers
this is a vegetation map of Europe during the youngest dryas

7711

Now we know about WHG(Loschbour-Villabruna R1b- 14k+/-ybp Italian cluster):laughing:
Pretty pan-European from East to West.


http://abload.de/img/ehg5ezl5.png


http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/02/massive-migration-from-steppe-is-source.html

Angela
04-05-16, 15:26
This is what the media is reporting, but is this actually what Reich is saying in those interviews? The part about "WHG" definitely coming from Turkey isn't found in the paper.
http://www.archaeology.org/news/4426-160502-europe-population-changes

"CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS—BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502) reports that a new genetic study of the remains of 51 Europeans between 45,000 and 7,000 years old has been led by David Reich at Harvard Medical School. The results suggests that beginning 37,00 years ago, all Europeans came from a single founding population that developed deep branches in different parts of Europe. At the end of the last Ice Age some 19,000 years ago, people thought to have come from Spain spread northward. Then some 14,000 years ago, populations from Turkey and Greece spread westward into Europe and replaced the first group. “We see multiple, huge movements of people displacing previous ones,” said Reich. The analysis also suggests that Ice Age Europeans had dark complexions and brown eyes until about 14,000 years ago, when blue eyes began to spread across the population. Pale skin began to appear after 7,000 years ago. Earlier populations also had more Neanderthal DNA than present-day people, which is consistent with the idea that it may have had harmful effects on modern humans and was lost over time through natural selection."

Razib Khan is also on the WHG from the Near East bandwagon:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-last-glacial-maximum-dictated-europes-genetic-history/#comments

If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?

Also, where did it come from? I know Dienekes was always going on about a refugium in Arabia, but I don't know how likely that is, and, as I said, when did it arrive? Wouldn't the Natufians have already had it? Also, if it came from there it would have traveled south to north.

Silesian
04-05-16, 16:02
Razib Khan is also on the WHG from the Near East bandwagon:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-last-glacial-maximum-dictated-europes-genetic-history/#comments

If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?..........

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/the-assyrians-and-jews-3000-years-of-common-history/
LOLOL this was another gem LOLOLOL:laughing: peer reviewed, no?

On a serious note, here is the latest, by David, not bad pretty good.
Clearly R-R1a and R1b cluster forming with Villabruna[14+/-k], Steppe R1a and R1b[7.5+/-k], and Malta1 R*[24k+/-]
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/

7714



(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/the-assyrians-and-jews-3000-years-of-common-history/)

LeBrok
04-05-16, 16:43
That's exactly what he's saying isn't? Also, whether you call it "garbage" or not, there's total consensus that natural selection is purging it from the human genome; if it were beneficial that wouldn't be happening.I think it was all beneficial, it just that a better option comes with time. Like updating of OS. :) Our original HSS genome has been replaced with new mutations, new alleles. Does that mean that original one was harmful? No, just better mutations came along.

LeBrok
04-05-16, 16:48
If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?

Also, where did it come from? I know Dienekes was always going on about a refugium in Arabia, but I don't know how likely that is, and, as I said, when did it arrive? Wouldn't the Natufians have already had it? Also, if it came from there it would have traveled south to north.Anatolia and South Balkans fit the best.

bicicleur
04-05-16, 16:49
This is what the media is reporting, but is this actually what Reich is saying in those interviews? The part about "WHG" definitely coming from Turkey isn't found in the paper.
http://www.archaeology.org/news/4426-160502-europe-population-changes

"CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS—BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36150502) reports that a new genetic study of the remains of 51 Europeans between 45,000 and 7,000 years old has been led by David Reich at Harvard Medical School. The results suggests that beginning 37,00 years ago, all Europeans came from a single founding population that developed deep branches in different parts of Europe. At the end of the last Ice Age some 19,000 years ago, people thought to have come from Spain spread northward. Then some 14,000 years ago, populations from Turkey and Greece spread westward into Europe and replaced the first group. “We see multiple, huge movements of people displacing previous ones,” said Reich. The analysis also suggests that Ice Age Europeans had dark complexions and brown eyes until about 14,000 years ago, when blue eyes began to spread across the population. Pale skin began to appear after 7,000 years ago. Earlier populations also had more Neanderthal DNA than present-day people, which is consistent with the idea that it may have had harmful effects on modern humans and was lost over time through natural selection."

Razib Khan is also on the WHG from the Near East bandwagon:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-last-glacial-maximum-dictated-europes-genetic-history/#comments

If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?

Also, where did it come from? I know Dienekes was always going on about a refugium in Arabia, but I don't know how likely that is, and, as I said, when did it arrive? Wouldn't the Natufians have already had it? Also, if it came from there it would have traveled south to north.

this paper suggests gravettian spread during LGM from middle Danube (Vestonice?) to refuges in the Balkans and Anatolia : http://maajournal.com/Issues/2004/Vol-1/Full1.pdf

apart from the single R1b all Villabruna are I or C1a, same as Vestonice and El Miron
could this gravettian in SW Anatolia, in the Antalya area (Karain B and Öküzini Caves) be the source of Villabruna?
it was one of the areas that was forested soon after LGM

the paper also says the Gravettian in SW Anatolia was geographically seperated from the Kebaran/Natufian, the presumed source of farming

Fire Haired14
04-05-16, 17:01
@Everyone,

The media reporting all of Europe being repopulated after 14,000 years ago from people originating in the Near East are a result of their unfamiliarity with the subject. We don't have enough ancient DNA to say this is correct or not. The El Miron cluster, which genomes from Spain and Germany dating 19,000-15,000 years old belong to, is very closely related to WHG. It's not WHG, but very related. So, WHG wasn't a complete forigner to Europe who then repopulated it after 14,000 years ago.

Furthermore in terms of mtDNA/Y DNA, there's plenty of evidence WHG originated deep in Europe. We see mtDNA U5b and Y DNA I in the El Miron cluster 19,000-15,000 years ago, and we see mtDNA pre-U5 and pre-I and C1a2 in the Vestonice cluster 30,000 years ago. The relation between the Middle East(especially EEF and modern Middle East) to WHG could be because the Middle East and Europe was one big breeding ground. Treating them as two completely distinct worlds is stupid. It's one continuous piece of land. We shouldn't assume affinity between Europe and the Middle East means there was migration from the Middle East to Europe. Why can't it be migration from Europe to the Middle East?

I find it very likely that 30,000-40,000 years ago the same "West Eurasian" family which populated Europe was also in the Middle East. "West Eurasian" had distant relatives(ANE) living deep in Northern Asia and maybe even in America, so it's in no way unlikely they were living as far east as India.

Angela
04-05-16, 17:03
this paper suggests gravettian spread during LGM from middle Danube to refuges in the Balkans and Anatolia : http://maajournal.com/Issues/2004/Vol-1/Full1.pdf

apart from the single R1b all Villabruna are I or C1a
could this gravettian in SW Anatolia, in the Antalya area (Karain B and Öküzini Caves) be the source of Villabruna?
it was one of the areas that was forested soon after LGM

My reading of the paper and supplement indicates that Gravettian and Villabruna are distinct. In fact, they seem to be saying that Gravettian people left almost no autosomal trace in modern Europeans. That doesn't mean modern Europeans don't carry some of their mtDna, for example, but that's a different issue. You can carry a uniparental line associated with X autosomal group and not be similar to them autosomally at all. (The usual R1b Chadian example comes to mind.)

However, I went and checked the chronology. This WHG "out of the Near East" scenario is possible if the WHG like people were already in Europe by or before 20,000 YBP*, and the Basal Eurasian arrived in most of the Near East after that. Of course, the results could also be explained by some WHG moving into the northern Near East after the LGM.

So, that's why in the paper, at least, the authors aren't definitely choosing one scenario over another. The answers will only come with ancient dna from the pre-Neolithic Near East.

*Logically, of course, these distinctions are meaningless imo. Anatolia and Europe were one land mass in this era, so to call one Europe and one the Near East doesn't make much sense to me. These particular hunter-gatherers could have roamed from Italy to Anatolia and west into the Balkans.

Given that we're dealing with the Reich Lab, it's possible that they have already analyzed some really old Anatolian samples and we know they've been working on Iberian Bell Beaker for quite some time, so perhaps, although they don't want to tip their hand until they've totally worked all this out, they may be leaning more one way than the other.

Just when I start to lose interest in this whole field, they just pull me back in. :)

Goga
04-05-16, 17:06
If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?

Also, where did it come from? I know Dienekes was always going on about a refugium in Arabia, but I don't know how likely that is, and, as I said, when did it arrive? Wouldn't the Natufians have already had it? Also, if it came from there it would have traveled south to north.
I'm more puzzled than you are. And I don't have any concrete answers, but there can be an explanation, Basal Eurasian could be native to the Caucasus Mountains.

They found that CHG fella in Georgia, Caucasus Mountains. Basal Eurasian could be part of the most ARCHAIC humanoids who survived high in the Caucasus Mountains. (Caucasus Mountains are higher then the Alps.)


R1b never lived in the Caucasus, but he evolved from the hg. R1* somewhere on the Iranian Plateau. There is no Basal Eurasian in that Villabruna-fella because he was never in the Caucasus Mountains at the first place.


http://s32.postimg.org/4w5khzt5x/image.jpg


Like R1a* also R1b* is from the Iranian Plateau.

About R1*

" Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran. "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html


Why I'm thinking that R1b is from the Iranian Plateau? Because in the NorthEastern side of the Iranian Plateau * SouthCentral Asia there is not only R1*, R1a*, R1b*, but also R2*, R2a, etc..

bicicleur
04-05-16, 17:45
My reading of the paper and supplement indicates that Gravettian and Villabruna are distinct. In fact, they seem to be saying that Gravettian people left almost no autosomal trace in modern Europeans.

you mean this?

http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screenshot-2016-05-04-00.23.421.png
there are 3 branches, Kostenki Goyet and Villabruna
and Vestonice, El Miron and Loschbourg are resulting from admixtures

in that case all I in El Miron and Vestonice should be I* and only Villabruna should have subclades of I which still exist today ; maybe that is the case, Genetiker hasn't found any subclades there yet : https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/y-snp-calls-from-ice-age-europe/

Silesian
04-05-16, 18:12
I'm more puzzled than you are. And I don't have any concrete answers, but there can be an explanation, Basal Eurasian could be native to the Caucasus Mountains.

They found that CHG fella in Georgia, Caucasus Mountains. Basal Eurasian could be part of the most ARCHAIC humanoids who survived high in the Caucasus Mountains. (Caucasus Mountains are higher then the Alps.)

R1b never lived in the Caucasus, but he evolved from the hg. R1* somewhere on the Iranian Plateau. There is no Basal Eurasian in that Villabruna-fella because he was never in the Caucasus Mountains at the first place.


http://s32.postimg.org/4w5khzt5x/image.jpg

Why I'm thinking that R1b is from the Iranian Plateau? Because in the NorthEastern side of the Iranian Plateau * SouthCentral Asia there is not only R1*, R1a*, R1b*, but also R2*, R2a, etc..


It looks like the rules of the name game are being changed mid-point into the game. No one every suspected WHG was from the middle East; did you? Not one person ever pointed out when all the plots were being done that it came from the middle East. However now that 1 R1b 14k sample was found in Italy everything changes:laughing: Name changes and all. People can't accept the pan European marker R1b which outnumbers all others, does not have close ties with ancient Europe:laughing: Middle East, Africa anywhere but native/ autochthonous Europe. I can remember the exact same thing happened when Yamnaya came back R1b-Z2103 and the HG came back M-73[Eastern Europe], nobody could believe it was found together on Steppe. So they made a division using WHG and Near East. Now the worst scenario nightmare R1b rules that category also, what to do? They have backed themselves into a corner and can't explain why things are coming about the way they are.
Any enough of me babbling, lets have your prediction on what Maikop, is going to be, that is the real test, predicting something bold, and being scorned by everyone, and banished for expressing your views on your family history. Only later only to be proven correct.:good_job:

Goga
04-05-16, 18:35
It looks like the rules of the name game are being changed mid-point into the game. No one every suspected WHG was from the middle East; did you? Not one person ever pointed out when all the plots were being done that it came from the middle East. However now that 1 R1b 14k sample was found in Italy everything changes:laughing: Name changes and all. People can't accept the pan European marker R1b which outnumbers all others, does not have close ties with ancient Europe:laughing: Middle East, Africa anywhere but native/ autochthonous Europe. I can remember the exact same thing happened when Yamnaya came back R1b-Z2103 and the HG came back M-73[Eastern Europe], nobody could believe it was found together on Steppe. So they made a division using WHG and Near East. Now the worst scenario nightmare R1b rules that category also, what to do? They have backed themselves into a corner and can't explain why things are coming about the way they are.
Any enough of me babbling, lets have your prediction on what Maikop, is going to be, that is the real test, predicting something bold, and being scorned by everyone, and banished for expressing your views on your family history. Only later only to be proven correct.:good_job:
Well, the most humanoids who live in Europe are eventually from the Middle East. And the most humanoids who live in the Middle East/SouthCentral Asia are eventually direct from Africa.

R1b1 can't be originally from Europe. Some of his descendants (subclades) are indeed native European. Like Maciamo explained that the first R1b migration into Europe could be from the Eastern Russian Steppes or like I honestly believe from the Iranian Plateau.

These new findings changed my perception only at 1 point. And that is that R1b in Africa could be from Europe. And that even the acient Egypt could be related to R1b from Europe! But then again I don't know how much European or West-Asian auDNA there is in Africa.


My dear friend, I don't dare to make any prediction for money on Maykop culture. It is very possible that it was very mixed (F*, J*, G*, R1*). But I think that R1b was among the Maykop culture folks. And more precisely not only 1 subtype of R1b*, but many subtypes of R1b, like the oldest M269*, L23*, Z2103*, Z2106* and Z2109*.

Fire Haired14
04-05-16, 21:46
2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1) (http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf)

He had the same mtDNA/Y DNA haplogroups as me :). They mention he has very similar skull morphology to a individual from Switzerland who was about as old. We also have the Swiss guy's DNA, and he like VillaBruna was WHG. Villabruna's skeleton is very well preserved. They say his body proportions are most like North Africans and his skull is Caucasian.

Here's his skull.
http://tinypic.com/r/6nz8dc/9

Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.
http://www.rts.ch/2015/11/16/15/37/5864567.image?w=700&h=393

Here's facial reconstruction of a much younger WHG(8,000 years old) from Luxembourg.
http://im9.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/CORP/2014/09/18/KMO_111307_08348_1_t218_144834.jpg

Fire Haired14
04-05-16, 21:55
It's surprising that Magdalonian people from Spain and Germany form a distinct cluster that while closely related to WHG is distinct from WHG. I actually went to an exhibit on the Lascaux cave paintings/Magdalonian a few years ago. When you walked into the cave, you'd be surprised/scared by life-like Lascaux people starring and pointing at you. I think the people might have actually been reconstructions of skeletons, not an artist's imagination.

http://schoolpress.cdn.whipplehill.net/stjohns80/48/files/2014/02/lascaux-2-225x300.png

They had the entire skeleton of a woman who died 17,000 years ago in France on display with her facial reconstruction.


http://www.trbimg.com/img-5148e605/turbine/chi-field-museum-stone-age-20130319-001/600/600x338

Now we can be pretty confident the people who made the Lascux cave paintings were apart of the "El Miron" cluster. The reconstructions have most of them with Light skin and Blue eyes, but now that we have their DNA we know they had Dark Brown skin and Brown eyes. Blue eyes looks like a primary WHG trait and Light skin something that became uniform in the Bronze age, but they didn't have the DNA when making the reconstructions.

Angela
04-05-16, 23:08
you mean this?

http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screenshot-2016-05-04-00.23.421.png
there are 3 branches, Kostenki Goyet and Villabruna
and Vestonice, El Miron and Loschbourg are resulting from admixtures

in that case all I in El Miron and Vestonice should be I* and only Villabruna should have subclades of I which still exist today ; maybe that is the case, Genetiker hasn't found any subclades there yet : https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/y-snp-calls-from-ice-age-europe/

If you go to Section 6 and 7 of the Supplement you'll see all the modeling and graphs. One chart shows that Bichon and Rochedane are 100% Villabruna, Loschbour 84% Villabruna, and La Brana 80% Villabruna. The minority ancestry all seems to come from Magdalenian types, however, and before that to GoyetQ116. Vestonice types seem to be a dead end from what I can see.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf

I also think I'm back to square one with the whole WHG from the Near East thing. I thought the lack of Basal Eurasian in Villabruna could be explained by a movement, if it actually took place, before the LGM. However, I re-read the paper, and that doesn't seem to be what they're proposing. They're talking about a movement AFTER the LGM in a warm period, so I don't know where Basal Eurasian could have been. If this happened, maybe it was further north near the Caucasus? That's certainly counter-intuitive though. Or maybe the better option is that it was substructure in Europe, and as I said above, the Villabruna type were southern and southeaster European hunter-gatherers. From there, some of that genetic material could have spilled over into the Near East, as it was really a contiguous land mass at that point.

"Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of mitochondrial DNA turnover26,36. One scenario that could explain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern European or west Asian refugia AFTER the Glacial Maximum, drawing together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East."
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Publications_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf


The same sort of point is made in a release from the Broad Institute at Harvard. You would think they ran it by Reich before it went out, but who knows.
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/8150

@Fire-Haired,
I like looking at the reconstructions, but I don't take them all that seriously anymore. They're not just wrong about pigmentation. They also make all sorts of guesses about soft tissue. A lot of times they just make them look like modern people of the countries where the bones were found, or they're based on various stereotypes.

Tomenable
04-05-16, 23:14
The paper also had some things to say about the decline in Neanderthal ancestry, and Dienekes opined upon it.

"Using one statistic, we estimate a decline from 4.3–5.7% from a time shortly after introgression to 1.1–2.2% in Eurasians today (Fig. 2). This is remarkable because it shows that most of the Neandertal ancestry of the earliest AMH in Europe was gone by the Mesolithic. It really seems that Neandertal genes were bred out of the gene pool over time. Will this trend continue into the future? Perhaps only minute traces of Neandertal DNA will remain in humans in 10,000 more years. Some of Neandertal DNA may yet prove to be neutral or beneficial, so at the limit the percentage may be more than zero. Nonetheless, the historical trend does suggest that modern humans inherited mostly genetic garbage from Neandertals and evolution is more than halfway through the process of getting rid of it.

As a corollary, there may have been other episodes of archaic admixture that are no longer detectable. Perhaps our modern human lineage has repeatedly admixed with other species, but traces of those admixtures are long gone by the action of natural selection. The reason for our relative homogeneity as a species may not be that we avoided intermixing with others, but that, sadly, most others had not much that was beneficial to offer to our ancestors."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/neandertal-ancestry-going-going-gone.html

I don't see how the statement exactly flows from statistics that don't refer to the levels in the Mesolithic, but I get the point.

Ed. I take it back. :) I see from the supplement that the levels were indeed down to that by the Mesolithic.

That gradual decline of Neanderthal ancestry in Europe was not necessarily due to selection.

It could be due to subsequent immigrations of less Neanderthal-admixed humans to Europe.

If Neanderthals intebred with humans inside Europe (as Oase1 did), Paleolithic Europeans could have above-average levels of Neanderthal ancestry, which could be later reduced by immigration of new people to Europe from other continents (Asia and Africa).

After all those Paleolithic Europeans were largely replaced by subsequent waves of immigration.

Today we have Sub-Saharan immigrants who are also reducing average Neanderthal ancestry.

Angela
05-05-16, 00:11
That gradual decline of Neanderthal ancestry in Europe was not necessarily due to selection.

It could be due to subsequent immigrations of less Neanderthal-admixed humans to Europe.

If Neanderthals intebred with humans inside Europe (as Oase1 did), Paleolithic Europeans could have above-average levels of Neanderthal ancestry, which could be later reduced by immigration of new people to Europe from other continents (Asia and Africa).

After all those Paleolithic Europeans were largely replaced by subsequent waves of immigration.

Today we have Sub-Saharan immigrants who are also reducing average Neanderthal ancestry.

I don't see how any of that is relevant. It might have been phrased a little more felicitously, but as I mentioned upthread when I retracted my criticism of Dienekes' statement, a big portion of the drop they see was already complete by the end of the LGM, as their analysis of the individual samples shows.

From the paper:
"Natural selection reduced Neanderthal ancestry over time We used two previously published statistics3,7,21 to test if the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians changed over the last 45,000 years. Whereas on the order of 2% of present-day Eurasian DNA is of Neanderthal origin (Extended Data Table 2), the ancient modern human genomes carry significantly more Neanderthal DNA (Fig. 2) (P≪10−12). Using one statistic, we estimate a decline from 4.3–5.7% from a time shortly after introgression to 1.1–2.2% in Eurasians today (Fig. 2). Using the other statistic, we estimate a decline from 3.2–4.2% to 1.8–2.3% (Extended Data Fig. 1 and Extended Data Table 3). Because all of the European individuals we analysed dating to between 37,000 and 14,000 years ago are consistent with descent from a single found population, admixture with populations with lower Neanderthal ancestry cannot explain the steady decrease in Neanderthal-derived DNA that we detect during this period, showing that natural selection against Neanderthal DNA must have driven this phenomenon (Fig. 2). We also obtained an independent line of evidence for selection from our observation that the decrease in Neanderthal-derived alleles is more marked near genes than in less constrained regions of the genome (P=0.010) "

Figure 2 shows the slope of the line by date. What they're also seeing, as numerous other recent papers have pointed out, is that there is a decrease of Neanderthal genes around areas related to function.

Also see Section 3 of the supplement for an explanation of the method, citations, and data for individual samples.

As Paabo explains it:
"The team determined that Europeans who lived between 37,000 and 14,000 years ago were part of a single founding population that didn’t significantly interbreed with other populations. Since the drop in Neanderthal DNA couldn’t be explained by population mixing, the authors argue that the genetic material was forced out through natural selection.Further evidence bolstered this theory when the researchers found that Neanderthal DNA got culled more often near genes than in other parts of the genome.
“The Neanderthal population, because of its small size, may have accumulated many slightly bad mutations,” said Pääbo. “It has taken tens of thousands of years to remove them from the modern human population, and it may still be going on.”
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/8150

I don't pretend to know more about the Neanderthals than the people at the Max Plank Institute, so for now I'll go with that.

Silesian
05-05-16, 00:28
Well, the most humanoids who live in Europe are eventually from the Middle East. And the most humanoids who live in the Middle East/SouthCentral Asia are eventually direct from Africa.

https://myvoyagethroughtime.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/haplogroup-r-migration-map.jpg


In my opinion, with what I understand, this route for R1b, looks most probable with known data. How does it work for you?


R1b1 can't be originally from Europe. Some of his descendants (subclades) are indeed native European. Like Maciamo explained that the first R1b migration into Europe could be from the Eastern Russian Steppes or like I honestly believe from the Iranian Plateau

Possible, but with more and more samples it is looking less likely. However I'd be willing to give you more than benefit of doubt.
.


These new findings changed my perception only at 1 point. And that is that R1b in Africa could be from Europe. And that even the acient Egypt could be related to R1b from Europe! But then again I don't know how much European or West-Asian auDNA there is in Africa.

This is what startled me a couple of weeks ago, when I realized what Gioiello was trying to bring to everyones attention. The age and variance of R1b V-88 of places,in remote Island- Cagliari, Sardinia! Nigeria, Saudi, Kuwait are all down stream. R1b-V88 is generally considered quite old[formed 17200 ybp, TMRCA 10200 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-V88/)]. Same with R1b-M73 found almost exclusive on Steppe. BTW some Egyptian samples have never been made officially public, King Tut for example.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V88/

We also have more variance.
Previously I've pointed out, that some of the most basal lineages of L51 can be found in Sardinia:

http://s32.postimg.org/xhctnmn2t/Sardinian_L51.png
Look at all the Variance between Sardinia and the Steppe! It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream.



My dear friend, I don't dare to make any prediction for money on Maykop culture. It is very possible that it was very mixed (F*, J*, G*, R1*). But I think that R1b was among the Maykop culture folks. And more precisely not only 1 subtype of R1b*, but many subtypes of R1b, like the oldest M269*, L23*, Z2103*, Z2106* and Z2109*.
What about autosomally? Would you venture a guess if Maikop will plot with Iranians, modern Caucasus, or Steppe?

Tomenable
05-05-16, 01:00
It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream.

R1b-M269/L23 can IMO be strongly associated with CHG admixture and with the spread of furnace metallurgy:

Furnace smelting of copper was invented by "semi-nomadic people", probably from the Caucasus:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy?p=479609&viewfull=1#post479609

http://s32.postimg.org/aa7laxhph/Earliest_furnace_smelting.png

Why is it that in Khvalynsk - the first Steppe culture with substantial CHG - the R1b man had 80% of the copper?:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy?p=479597&viewfull=1#post479597


Y- 10122 / SVP35 (grave 12)

Male (confirmed genetically), age 20-30, positioned on his back with raised knees, with 293
copper artifacts, mostly beads, amounting to 80% of the copper objects in the combined
cemeteries of Khvalynsk I and II. Probably a high-status individual, his Y-chromosome
haplotype, R1b1 (...)

It seems obvious that he was either a smith and/or a mobile trader of copper objects.

Smiths were considered to have "magical abilities", and thus had the richest graves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo#t=6m20s

Silesian
05-05-16, 01:59
R1b-M269/L23 can IMO be strongly associated with CHG admixture and with the spread of furnace metallurgy:......

First of all, you have to be a little bit more specific. The exact identification scientific# of the graves that had R1b and copper. Then we can go further to test your theory. One is SVP35 Khvalynsk. The other one is-Yamnaya, which one was that again?
SVP58/I0444 buried with a blunt mace 48 cm long, 767 g in weight, cast/annealed and made of pure copper, like most Yamnaya metal objects.
SVP35-4700-4000BC R1b1 M415 Imported copper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA 11:50
SVP58/I0444 3300-2700 BC R1b1a2a2 (Z2103)CTS-1078/Z2103,L150+,M415+

Almost no R1bZ2109-KMS75 exist in the Middle East in Assyrian or Iran projects. The vast majority is found among modern day Bashkirs. That means R1b-Z2109-KMS75 has been in the same place for the last 5000+/- years.

http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_02_11_30_2015.png
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 page 30
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf page 10


The R1b samples

LeBrok
05-05-16, 03:11
It looks like the rules of the name game are being changed mid-point into the game. No one every suspected WHG was from the middle East; did you? Not one person ever pointed out when all the plots were being done that it came from the middle East. However now that 1 R1b 14k sample was found in Italy everything changes:laughing: Name changes and all.Perhaps you should read Eupedia posts more often. Some of us, for some times, acknowledged that movement of HGs was very likely from Balkans to Anatolia, through the land bridge. Of course Levant was out of question because it was a homeland of Natufians-Neolithic Farmers, but Anatolia was always a fair game for WHG. Last year research of EN of Anatolia came with 10% admixture of WHG. It was surely a giveaway that Early Farmers met WHG in Anatolia first, then in Balkans and rest or Europe later.

LeBrok
05-05-16, 03:20
2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1) (http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf)

He had the same mtDNA/Y DNA haplogroups as me :). They mention he has very similar skull morphology to a individual from Switzerland who was about as old. We also have the Swiss guy's DNA, and he like VillaBruna was WHG. Villabruna's skeleton is very well preserved. They say his body proportions are most like North Africans and his skull is Caucasian.

Here's his skull.
http://tinypic.com/r/6nz8dc/9

Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.
http://www.rts.ch/2015/11/16/15/37/5864567.image?w=700&h=393

Here's facial reconstruction of a much younger WHG(8,000 years old) from Luxembourg.

Stubby nose typical for WHGs and ANE. Still fairly defined eyebrows. Fairly big teeth. Slanted forehead. I would love to see good profile and frontal though.
I think it has a very interesting bump in the middle of his forehead. He still looks like a hunter gatherer and like many northern Europeans today, but not very archaic like some old hunter gatherers.

LeBrok
05-05-16, 04:22
As Paabo explains it:
"The team determined that Europeans who lived between 37,000 and 14,000 years ago were part of a single founding population that didn’t significantly interbreed with other populations. Since the drop in Neanderthal DNA couldn’t be explained by population mixing, the authors argue that the genetic material was forced out through natural selection.Further evidence bolstered this theory when the researchers found that Neanderthal DNA got culled more often near genes than in other parts of the genome.
“The Neanderthal population, because of its small size, may have accumulated many slightly bad mutations,” said Pääbo. “It has taken tens of thousands of years to remove them from the modern human population, and it may still be going on.” The question is why would it take 20k years or longer to remove it?
Another interesting question is why Aurignacians went the way of Neanderthals? Almost extinct, except for a small part of our genome. Who knows, maybe Neanderthals and Aurignacians were tuned up for Ace Age? When warm period came the genome from the south, like Near East, ruled.
When another Ice Age comes we could see rebound in Neanderthal DNA..., perhaps.

LeBrok
05-05-16, 04:30
https://myvoyagethroughtime.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/haplogroup-r-migration-map.jpg
It would say, very roughly, right. It would be funny if it turned out that Eve lived in West Africa and she never met Adam. lol


[QUOTE]Look at all the Variance between Sardinia and the Steppe! It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream. How come? To my understanding, it is quite possible that R1b started expansion from Kurdistan area, or anywhere in 2k km radius. And who knows as original cow herders or blacksmiths?

Greying Wanderer
05-05-16, 05:08
After so many years on this site I firstly expected ancient R1b in Europe. But everyone was saying that there is no ancient R1b in Europe. So I let go that idea.

But now after so many here on this site this is HUGE and unexpected!

Yeah, purely from the geography and modern distribution it seemed like the obvious R1a / R1b split would be east /west, split by the ice age but when no dna was found it had to be dropped - now it's confusing again.

Greying Wanderer
05-05-16, 06:20
I cannot see how he was correct. Gioiello was only concerned about his particular subclade of R1b found commonly in the North of Italy. There are hundreds of subclades of R1b in Europe, and elsewhere. Finding one subclade in Europe among ancient Europeans does not prove Gioiello right. Personally his whole argument about R1b in Europe and Italy in ancient times was based purely on his own jingoistic bias and his own haplogroup.

I don't know the whole history of this but until recently he was the only one I know of (and Maju?) who was still talking about early R1b in the west so i think he deserves some kudos.

Angela
05-05-16, 06:24
The question is why would it take 20k years or longer to remove it?
Another interesting question is why Aurignacians went the way of Neanderthals? Almost extinct, except for a small part of our genome. Who knows, maybe Neanderthals and Aurignacians were tuned up for Ace Age? When warm period came the genome from the south, like Near East, ruled.
When another Ice Age comes we could see rebound in Neanderthal DNA..., perhaps.

Perhaps it's taking so long because although there's a good number of them, they are "small effect" genes, i.e. genes that won't kill you before you reproduce? Wasn't schizophrenia implicated? Schizophrenia may devastate your life and the lives of those around you, but it doesn't stop you from pro-creating, necessarily. The same goes for various autoimmune diseases. By the time they kick in you might have already had children. You may have fewer, of course.

It's interesting about the Aurignacians, and even more about the Vestonice Gravettians, since they've left no trace at all apparently. At least the Aurignacians, through input into what became the Magdalenians, account for a small percentage of the European genome. The authors are saying the Aurignacians and Gravettians were definitely from one founding population, so you wouldn't say it was "genetic superiority", would you?

Perhaps with such small groups a certain cluster can become, like the Neanderthals, so inbred that they're not all that fit. Maybe the Spanish El Miron people survived because they got more admixture from the Villabruna type than Vestonice did. I'm realizing more and more that the small numbers which are all that can be supported by the hunter-gatherer lifestyle are a problem not only because these small groups are always on the verge of actual extinction, but because they inevitably lead to inbreeding and reduced fitness.

Have you ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert? A big part of the "philosophical underpinning" of the books is just this fact that only through large population expansions and admixtures is there an opportunity for beneficial mutations to arise and thrive.

Or was it a question of a different technology making the difference? I don't know.

I do think it seems that the Neanderthal genes that are definitely enriched in modern Europeans and East Asians are those giving some sort of benefit in cold weather. The thing is, though, I don't see how we would get more Neanderthal genes no matter how cold it becomes, as once purged, those genes are purged forever.

bicicleur
05-05-16, 07:34
If you go to Section 6 and 7 of the Supplement you'll see all the modeling and graphs. One chart shows that Bichon and Rochedane are 100% Villabruna, Loschbour 84% Villabruna, and La Brana 80% Villabruna. The minority ancestry all seems to come from Magdalenian types, however, and before that to GoyetQ116. Vestonice types seem to be a dead end from what I can see.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf

I also think I'm back to square one with the whole WHG from the Near East thing. I thought the lack of Basal Eurasian in Villabruna could be explained by a movement, if it actually took place, before the LGM. However, I re-read the paper, and that doesn't seem to be what they're proposing. They're talking about a movement AFTER the LGM in a warm period, so I don't know where Basal Eurasian could have been. If this happened, maybe it was further north near the Caucasus? That's certainly counter-intuitive though. Or maybe the better option is that it was substructure in Europe, and as I said above, the Villabruna type were southern and southeaster European hunter-gatherers. From there, some of that genetic material could have spilled over into the Near East, as it was really a contiguous land mass at that point.

"Thus, the appearance of the Villabruna Cluster may reflect migrations or population shifts within Europe at the end of the Ice Age, an observation that is also consistent with the evidence of mitochondrial DNA turnover26,36. One scenario that could explain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern European or west Asian refugia AFTER the Glacial Maximum, drawing together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East."
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Publications_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf


The same sort of point is made in a release from the Broad Institute at Harvard. You would think they ran it by Reich before it went out, but who knows.
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/8150

@Fire-Haired,
I like looking at the reconstructions, but I don't take them all that seriously anymore. They're not just wrong about pigmentation. They also make all sorts of guesses about soft tissue. A lot of times they just make them look like modern people of the countries where the bones were found, or they're based on various stereotypes.

The many models show there are still some pieces missing to the puzzle.
But also some surprising new elements arose in this study.
One is the large influence Kostenki seems to have had on Gravettian.
Another is the influence of Aurignacian on Magdalenian.
And finally the replacement of all former by Villabruna.
As for Villabruna, it is the population in which I2 split, with estimated TRMCA 21.7 and 21.4 ka https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/
There is no mention of any I1 so we don't know whether the I1-I2 split with estimated TRMCA 27.5 ka happened within the Villabruna population.

Maciamo
05-05-16, 08:13
If that's the case, as I pointed out early in the thread, there's a Basal Eurasian problem. Villabruna doesn't have any Basal Eurasian. Did WHG leave the Near East before it arrived? CHG is 13,300 before present, yes? It already had about 32% Basal Eurasian according to this paper. How could Villabruna, dated 14,000 YBP have avoided it? Isn't that cutting it a little close?

Villabruna cannot be Near Eastern without Basal Eurasian (ENF) admxiture. And according to David's PCA chart, Villabruna clusters perfectly with other Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic Western Europeans (WHG). Villabruna is as remote from CHG as from ENF, but is typical WHG without clustering with older Paleolithic European samples.

In other words, the Villabruna R1b1 is a typical Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer related to mtDNA U5 and Y-DNA I2 rich populations. It confirms exactly my suspicion that this R1b1 lineage was originally a EHG and was integrated (probably any centuries or millennia earlier) into U5+I2 tribes in Eastern Europe before U5+I2 moved west and replaced Aurignacian and Gravettian lineages in central and western Europe. This is the first major wave from the Steppe I was referring to, which took place about 10,000 years before Yamna.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-__GUm8RXvGs/VylDi7PA8fI/AAAAAAAAEZI/YfLOiT0z_agHsLzY2yEWlvHy32GbhNt6gCLcB/s450/Fu_etal_samples_PCA.png (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQcGpXODdlWGI4c2s/view)

Greying Wanderer
05-05-16, 08:19
response to random comments from the thread

#

Neanderthals

If they were specifically adapted for anything it would be the ice age so I think the idea that their dna was necessarily junk is very stupid. It seems far more likely they had dna that was very useful to survive the ice but gradually became less so over time as the climate warmed up - for example a warming higher metabolism and greater physical size and strength that could only be supported by megafauna size calorie packages.

This obviously makes more sense than the idea that people who survived the Ice Age were some kind of genetic waste dump.

I think the clear desire to play down the role of Neanderthals is because the base Out of Africa theory is wrong and humans needed that archaic DNA to adapt to the new environments - at least at the time - and that idea triggers a PC reaction.

could be wrong but proof may come when there's enough dna to calculate the rate at which it dropped - if slow at the beginning and fast later it might support the cost/benefit of neanderthal dna being climate dependent.

(edit: i always get a bit cranky about people attacking neanderthals as for some reason it always makes me feel people are attacking my relatives lol. if too cranky sounding, apologies)

#

Ukraine as a refugia

We know humans can survive from marine resources further north than otherwise (e.g Eskimo) so it seems to me that would apply during the LGM as well, so not the land part of Ukraine per se but the parts around the Black Sea maybe.

Similarly the various now sunken lands seem like the best candidates for other refugia for the same reason, marine resources less affected by the colder climate
- adriatic
- aegean
- Doggerland
- Franco-Cantabria

#

I've never understood why at least some OoA along the west coast of Africa over to Iberia is always discounted.

I don't believe it never happened - especially when the sea level was lowest.

#

WHG / R1b etc from the middle east feels like a repeat of the media flurry to report European replacement by neolithic farmers from Turkey - it's connected to current politics imo and partly acts as a distortion - although having the possibility in the paper guarantees publicity so can't blame them.

The WHG part could work if "Basal Eurasian" came from the CHG region and the CHG repopulated the middle east after the WHG spread west.

(which is possible)

but again i'd take the near east aspect with a pinch of salt first and wait to see if it stands up after the flurry has moved on.

#

With the Italian find I've gone back to thinking Doggerland/Cantabria/Iberia may be more to do with this than seemed possible recently so WHG (maybe coming in from the east) mixing with the mystery ancient population from the Atlantic coast.

Be interesting to hear Maju's take as I think this was always his thing until the lack of evidence seemed overwhelming.

Yamnaya R1b and SW Europe R1b - separate chain of events?

#

edit - missed one

i don't think east asian ancestry implies near east origin at all

pottery was apparently east asian first and seems to have arrived in the west via the steppe route

which if you look at the physical geography makes sense imo - before sailing the steppe route looks dramatically easier

berun
05-05-16, 10:23
An interesting thing about the origin of the R1b guy, taking into account that i don't master admixtures, is that having not basal Euroasian but having Near Eastern... a steppe route is not tenable as the Euroasian split might be somewhere in Central Asia (as the Indian subcontinent is not the place), so as to have Near Eastern DNA but lacking a share with East Asian, the origin or route left is before the splitting area of Euroasian, and that is Anatolia, Levant; also the Caucasus would be possible and would give some reasonable cause: maybe the Euroasian formed north of it as the genetic contact with the south is more difficult to keep. But Central Asian deserts also are a good place to lose genetic contact.

Angela
05-05-16, 17:18
+
Greying Wanderer;479639]response to random comments from the thread

#

Neanderthals

If they were specifically adapted for anything it would be the ice age so I think the idea that their dna was necessarily junk is very stupid. It seems far more likely they had dna that was very useful to survive the ice but gradually became less so over time as the climate warmed up - for example a warming higher metabolism and greater physical size and strength that could only be supported by megafauna size calorie packages.

This obviously makes more sense than the idea that people who survived the Ice Age were some kind of genetic waste dump.

I think the clear desire to play down the role of Neanderthals is because the base Out of Africa theory is wrong and humans needed that archaic DNA to adapt to the new environments - at least at the time - and that idea triggers a PC reaction.

could be wrong but proof may come when there's enough dna to calculate the rate at which it dropped - if slow at the beginning and fast later it might support the cost/benefit of neanderthal dna being climate dependent.

(edit: i always get a bit cranky about people attacking neanderthals as for some reason it always makes me feel people are attacking my relatives lol. if too cranky sounding, apologies)

They're not saying it was all "junk". :) They're saying the stuff that helps for cold climates we've kept and the stuff that isn't helpful is being culled over time. That seems to me to be exactly how natural selection works. I don't see how the fact that there is Neanderthal depletion or decrease of genes over time at certain specific loci relating to function can be explained away.

As for taking it personally, I try never to take discussions like this personally, or at least I try never to let my personal feelings one way or another affect my analysis or the logic of the argument. That may partly be because I spent my work life having to do that. Also, it's just too long ago, and too small a part of our dna, even if I'm half sort of "quasi-Tuscan", and last time I checked Tuscans have a good healthy dose of Neanderthal dna. :) My concern is for the modern humans affected adversely by this dna.
#


Ukraine as a refugia

We know humans can survive from marine resources further north than otherwise (e.g Eskimo) so it seems to me that would apply during the LGM as well, so not the land part of Ukraine per se but the parts around the Black Sea maybe.

Similarly the various now sunken lands seem like the best candidates for other refugia for the same reason, marine resources less affected by the colder climate
- adriatic
- aegean
- Doggerland
- Franco-Cantabria

I agree in general, although the terrain, flora, fauna, and the temperature in certain of these areas might have still been relatively more conducive to long term survival than in others.




WHG / R1b etc from the middle east feels like a repeat of the media flurry to report European replacement by neolithic farmers from Turkey - it's connected to current politics imo and partly acts as a distortion - although having the possibility in the paper guarantees publicity so can't blame them.

The WHG part could work if "Basal Eurasian" came from the CHG region and the CHG repopulated the middle east after the WHG spread west.

(which is possible)

but again i'd take the near east aspect with a pinch of salt first and wait to see if it stands up after the flurry has moved on.

I'm also taking a wait and see attitude, as indeed are the authors of the study if their claims in the paper are taken at face value. We need similarly old samples from far eastern Europe and the Near East (including around the Caucasus).

As for your quasi-conspiracy theory, I sincerely doubt it. A Chinese researcher now working in Beijing wants to push a Near East to Europe population movement in the absence of data? You also forget that indeed farmers coming from the Near East did largely replace the WHG, or perhaps we should now call them "Villabrunians" in large parts of Europe. All of these groups, including the Aurignacians, originally came from elsewhere. Using modern, cultural-political designations to assign "identity" to 14,000 year old humans doesn't make any sense to me. Do you think some hunter-gatherer band following their food sources suddenly became "Near Eastern" if they moved from Greece to Turkey, or "European" if they moved in the other direction? The same would apply to Mal'ta descendants too, btw.


i don't think east asian ancestry implies near east origin at all

pottery was apparently east asian first and seems to have arrived in the west via the steppe route

which if you look at the physical geography makes sense imo - before sailing the steppe route looks dramatically easier


The authors specifically said that these were two separate population movements. The East Asian gene flow is completely separate from the possible "Near Eastern" one.

Again, here's the direct link:
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

A relevant quote:
"Second, we detect an excess of allele sharingwith east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals—beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—asrevealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti)(Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese sharemore alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour andLaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantlynegative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han,Mbuti)4. This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of BasalEurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistentwith zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findingscannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry (as we discuss earlier),and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations relatedto east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans."

The Villabrunian samples which show this affinity are Bichon and Loschbour, not Villabruna himself.

Interestingly, the highest level of East Asian is in Mal'ta, if I remember correctly. So, the anthropologists might have been correct to see "Mongolian" features in the remains.

Goga
05-05-16, 20:16
In my opinion, with what I understand, this route for R1b, looks most probable with known data. How does it work for you?

Look at all the Variance between Sardinia and the Steppe! It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream.



What about autosomally? Would you venture a guess if Maikop will plot with Iranians, modern Caucasus, or Steppe?
Maybe it is possible, I don’t know. But I doubt it. All the major academic studies of the recent times on DNA are concluding all the same that R1* went into the Iranian Plateau.


Very simple. They would be not very different from that Bronze Age fella from Armenia. But a lttle bit more with Steppes ancestry, because Mayko was bordering the Steppes. So, there was a some kind of minor gene flow from the Steppes into the Maykop. But culturally Maykop was very West Asian in nature. And it was in Northern Caucasus. Yamnaya was genetically heavily influenced by folks from Maykop. And there was also a lot West Asian auDNA in the Yamnaya Horizon. Maykop would have twice more (2x) West Asian auDNA than the Yamnaya Horizon.

Modern WEST Iranians and modern Caucasians are very close and similar to each other. Modern Caucasians have a little bit more Steppes ancestry because they are closer to the Steppes. While West Iranians have a little bit SouthWest (Semitic) ancestry, because West Asians live closer to the Semites. The closest people to West Iranians are actually South Caucasians.

epoch
05-05-16, 20:35
There were distinct populations in Ice age Europe(besides WHG and EHG). Here are the conclusions by the authors based on treemix and admixturegraph.


Conclusion
>Paleo Euros as clade opposed to MA1
>Vestonice is mostly Kostinki with minor Goyet.
>El Miron is mostly Goyet with minor Villabruna.’
>Loschbour is mostly Villabruna with minor Goyet.


Vestonice: 30,000 years old Czech Republic(Central Europe).
Kostinki: 36,000 years old Russia(Western egde).
Goyet: 30,000 years old Beligium.
El Miron: 20,000 years old Spain.
Villabruna: 14,000 years old Northern Italy.
Loschbour: 8,000 years old Luxembourg.


Goyet is 35.000 years old. It makes him Aurignacian and nearly comtemporary to Kostenki 14

epoch
05-05-16, 20:45
So, while admixture isn't going to show this "Near Eastern" affinity, formal stats do show it. What's being lost in the renewed R1a vs R1b wars as to who is the most Indo-European of them all, is that the authors leave open two possibilities: one that the Villabruna set was in Europe as early as the "Gravettian" group, and just represents substructure in Europe, and one that they arrived in Europe somewhere around 14000 YBP from the southeast, through Greece perhaps.

If the former was true, why all this Near Eastern "affinity", unless there was some inflow that changed them slightly perhaps?

Kostenki14 shows in a lot of formal stats as well as ADMIXTURE a clear Middle-Eastern signal. In f3 stats for instance Sardinia is high among other WHG. It shows in all kind of D-stats. However, the paper makes a point of showing no Basal Eurasian admixture was shown in Kostenki14. Then what is that signal? It could be part of WHG was another branch from Kostenki14 in which, other than the rest, a number of SNPs are available that drifted away in other decendants of Kostenki14. Suppose that WHG added to Middle-Eastern DNA, then we might come up with this result. Anatolian ENF showed WHG admixture, so there was contact.


Maybe they are just being really cautious. I guess we need to stay tuned.

It doesn't seem then that Magdalenian expansions left all that large a trace; most "European hunter-gatherer" ancestry is WHG or related to the Villabruna group.

Twitter-Iosif Lazaridis (one of the co-authors)

"It seems that there was a hunter-gatherer "reset" ~14,000 years ago that left only the "Villabruna cluster" as the inheritors of Europe..."

I don't know. El Miron shows a Villabruna signal. But that could very well be shared drift, which would mean that the typical GoyetQ116 signal in all of us may be just 5-8%, but the total inheritance may be a tad larger. And yes, I'm biased as that gives me the "we have always been here" tingling sense ;)

Greying Wanderer
05-05-16, 23:11
@Angela

Yes, I was a bit annoyed at the time from reading a lot of comments on various sites so I'll wait for a bit.

The main thing is


Twitter-Iosif Lazaridis (one of the co-authors)

"It seems that there was a hunter-gatherer "reset" ~14,000 years ago that left only the "Villabruna cluster" as the inheritors of Europe..."




(Epoch:)I don't know. El Miron shows a Villabruna signal. But that could very well be shared drift, which would mean that the typical GoyetQ116 signal in all of us may be just 5-8%, but the total inheritance may be a tad larger. And yes, I'm biased as that gives me the "we have always been here" tingling sense ;)

I've always felt (from rock climbing years ago) that there was (small amounts of) something odd and old in pockets along the Atlantic coast so the Gotye thing is a big deal to me but seemed to be drowned out by the media's usual spin.

But yes, best to be calm :)

Greying Wanderer
06-05-16, 00:58
An interesting thing about the origin of the R1b guy, taking into account that i don't master admixtures, is that having not basal Euroasian but having Near Eastern... a steppe route is not tenable as the Euroasian split might be somewhere in Central Asia (as the Indian subcontinent is not the place), so as to have Near Eastern DNA but lacking a share with East Asian, the origin or route left is before the splitting area of Euroasian, and that is Anatolia, Levant; also the Caucasus would be possible and would give some reasonable cause: maybe the Euroasian formed north of it as the genetic contact with the south is more difficult to keep. But Central Asian deserts also are a good place to lose genetic contact.

I'm not sure this will be easy to explain without a diagram - which i suck at anyway - but...


I mostly view these things geographically with population split into ecozones so the way i think the data *might* fit is to imagine three zones


1) mammoth steppe zone extending in a crescent all the way from Doggerland to Siberia (ydna R)


2) mountain/hill zone along the edge of the steppe in the east including Caucasus/Altai (CHG, basal)


3) southerly zone (WHG)


something like


SSSSSSSSSSSS
WWWWCCCCCC
WWWWWWWW

(where S = mammoth steppe, W = WHG, C = CHG)


so the mammoth steppe people bordering the WHG people in the west but separated from them by CHG people further east


this way the italian dude could be
- autosomal WHG (whether from near east or not)
- ydna mammoth steppe
- east asian connection from steppe dudes (if EA connection was via steppe bypassing CHG)
- no CHG so no basal


This model would require the near east to have had a CHG expansion later to explain the basal there now.

Silesian
06-05-16, 01:44
How come? To my understanding, it is quite possible that R1b started expansion from Kurdistan area, or anywhere in 2k km radius. And who knows as original cow herders or blacksmiths?
Ancestor's with R1b who had copper on Steppe- plotted in 3D. 1000years+ R1b copper on Steppe.
SVP58/I0444 buried with a blunt mace 48 cm long, 767 g in weight, cast/annealed and made of pure copper, like most Yamnaya metal objects.
SVP35-4700-4000BC R1b1 M415 Imported copper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA 11:50
SVP58/I0444 3300-2700 BC R1b1a2a2 (Z2103)CTS-1078/Z2103,L150+,M415+


http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Ice_Age_Eurasians_PC_plot_1-2-3.html & Eurogenes Ice Age run.
7719
77207721

In distance, the 2 R1b samples with copper were relatively close.

berun
06-05-16, 07:08
Would not be more easy or economic to explain the actual East Asian genes as the result of admixture of old Paleolithics with recent ones from Near East? As somehow seems to display some guys of Villabruna cluster.

In fact for each Spanish or Italian sample i would do x100 as this could be the demographic difference among tundra dwellers and refugia dwellers, and as the refugia ecosystem was spreading north then the refugia dwellers may follow it. Mammoth hunters would be few and out of water by then, as an Eskimo in the Italian Riviera.

Sile
06-05-16, 08:20
https://myvoyagethroughtime.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/haplogroup-r-migration-map.jpg


In my opinion, with what I understand, this route for R1b, looks most probable with known data. How does it work for you?



Possible, but with more and more samples it is looking less likely. However I'd be willing to give you more than benefit of doubt.
.



This is what startled me a couple of weeks ago, when I realized what Gioiello was trying to bring to everyones attention. The age and variance of R1b V-88 of places,in remote Island- Cagliari, Sardinia! Nigeria, Saudi, Kuwait are all down stream. R1b-V88 is generally considered quite old[formed 17200 ybp, TMRCA 10200 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-V88/)]. Same with R1b-M73 found almost exclusive on Steppe. BTW some Egyptian samples have never been made officially public, King Tut for example.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V88/

We also have more variance.
Previously I've pointed out, that some of the most basal lineages of L51 can be found in Sardinia:

http://s32.postimg.org/xhctnmn2t/Sardinian_L51.png
Look at all the Variance between Sardinia and the Steppe! It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream.



What about autosomally? Would you venture a guess if Maikop will plot with Iranians, modern Caucasus, or Steppe?

Do not use Ftdna map...........it does not even cover the Birth of R haplogroup in south-east Asia on the Karafet papers of 2014 and 2015

Greying Wanderer
06-05-16, 08:28
Would not be more easy or economic to explain the actual East Asian genes as the result of admixture of old Paleolithics with recent ones from Near East? As somehow seems to display some guys of Villabruna cluster.

In fact for each Spanish or Italian sample i would do x100 as this could be the demographic difference among tundra dwellers and refugia dwellers, and as the refugia ecosystem was spreading north then the refugia dwellers may follow it. Mammoth hunters would be few and out of water by then, as an Eskimo in the Italian Riviera.

Well (IIRC) pottery supposedly first developed in East Asia and the middle east got it *later* than the steppe which hints that it spread via the steppe route. Maybe I am remembering it wrong.

Alan
07-05-16, 01:16
http://abload.de/img/asgjb6.png

Previous studies assumed that Kostenki14 was the oldest European man with Basal Eurasian ancestry, who survived the Ice Age, but Fu et al. (2016) put it more accurately. Kostenki14 was likely to be a mixed-race individual between populations related to East Asians (hg C) and the ancestors of Europeans (hg U2). This new study also found that some of the Villabruna Cluster individuals such as Loschbour and LaBrana1 are closely associated with Han Chinese but not all Villabruna individuals have an affinity with East Asians. The ancestors of Loschbour and LaBrana1 in the Villabruna Cluster may have interbred with ancient populations related to East Asians as well, which was why excess allele sharing with East Asians was detected. Moreover, the ‘Villabruna Cluster’ is composed of 15 post-Last Glacial Maximum individuals from 14,000–7,000 years ago. Of these fifteen Villabruna samples, older twelve samples belonged Haplogroup R or R1 and haplogroups R1b and R1b1 only appear in more recent three samples, which are dated around 7,000 years ago (Table S4.2. Details of Y haplogroup SNPs in Villabruna Cluster samples).

So the R individuals turn up towards the end of the mesolithic and are not found in the older samples. Another indication for me that they do came from Southeast and combined with the Dstat results the conclusion of the paper makes sense.

Alan
07-05-16, 01:21
Good points. After all R1b wasn't found among acquired HG Y DNA by early farmers in Anatolia or Hungary. Either it was a rare mix into WHG, or lost tribe who wandered in Italy and died there, or perhaps contamination?
the thing is I don't believe it came from Anatolia as claimed many times in the past I think those Villabruna individuals got some of their ancestry via the Iranian Plateau and came through the Caucasus. This "Near Eastern ancestry" what they call is probably something that resembles CHG and not EEF.

LeBrok
07-05-16, 05:18
the thing is I don't believe it came from Anatolia as claimed many times in the past I think those Villabruna individuals got some of their ancestry via the Iranian Plateau and came through the Caucasus. This "Near Eastern ancestry" what they call is probably something that resembles CHG and not EEF.The mystery is that there was no R1b found till late Neolithic/Bronze Age in Anatolia and Balkans. If there was a serious movement of R1b HGs from Iranian Plateau or else, they got swallowed by WHGs, leaving just trace of Near Eastern. It is rather unlikely that WHG comes from Iranian Plateau, but possibly just R1b haplotype.
I'm thinking that WHG picked some R1b in refugium in Anatolia from other HGs close by, let it be R1b of Iranian Plateau or Kurdistan.

Alan
07-05-16, 11:16
The mystery is that there was no R1b found till late Neolithic/Bronze Age in Anatolia and Balkans. If there was a serious movement of R1b HGs from Iranian Plateau or else, they got swallowed by WHGs, leaving just trace of Near Eastern. It is rather unlikely that WHG comes from Iranian Plateau, but possibly just R1b haplotype.
I'm thinking that WHG picked some R1b in refugium in Anatolia from other HGs close by, let it be R1b of Iranian Plateau or Kurdistan.


I don't think it is unlikely. I also don't understand how some poeple think "this is impossible" because they believe yDNA I is all European component and backmigrated to West Asia.

If welook at the yDNA tree and take into account some studies which came out a few years ago we will see that it makes quite frankly sense.

I is the brother clade of J and both must have their ancestor evolved in the same region. This can be the Caucasus or the Iranian Plateau. But I think the Caucasus or South_Central Asia is a pass away. Than we have the very first IJ* samples on the Iranian Plateau- which indicates that at least the ancestor of both I and J must have lived in close proximity or maybe both Haplogroups diverged even there.

Now the Iranian Plateau is connected to South and Central Asia by land and this means ancient samples from there and indeed also modern samples show some affinities to East Asians.

Now the Steppes could also be the source but if the Steppes were the sources the authors wouldn't mention something very West Asian in their DNA that shows up in Dstats.

I assume the authors know already more than they presented us.

Alan
07-05-16, 11:31
Razib Khans opinion on this. Interesting allot of his points agree with my opinion.


The map and chart above is from The genetic history of Ice Age Europe (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17993.html), a new paper in Nature from the Reich lab (the new data has been posted (http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Datasets_files/FuQ.zip)). It illustrates probably the major finding of the paper, using a ~40,000 year paleogenetic transect of 51 ancient DNA samples the authors conclude that there have been at least three major population turnovers/disruptions across Pleistocene Europe. These correspond to three genetic clusters that they’ve identified in their data; the El Mirón, Věstonice, and Villabruna groups. Respectively they are the Magdalenian, Gravettian, and Epigravettian/Azilian cultures. There are also stray individuals which are harder to place, but signal other turnovers. An individual from Goyet that dates to 37,000 years ago and was presumably of the Aurignacian culture, and is somewhat sui generis. But, unlike the ~40,000 year old sample from Romania (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/oase-1-early-modern-human-from-romania.html), and the ~45,000 year old Siberian (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ancient-genomes/ust-ishim-fu-2014.html), Goyet is ancestral to some later Europeans.
http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screenshot-2016-05-04-00.23.421.png (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17993.html) The figure to the left is one interpretation of their results. It shows that the Goyet sample contributed substantial ancestry to the Magdalenian culture which flourished nearly 20,000 years later. But, Goyet did not contribute substantial ancestry to the Gravettian culture, which succeeded it! Rather, the Vestonice cluster which represents the Gravettians has only marginal admixture from other Pleistocene Europeans, but a notable affinity to the Konsteki (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1113) sample. Intriguingly, Goyet-like ancestry can be found in the Loschbour (https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2014_Nature_Lazaridis_EuropeThreeAncestries.pdf) hunter-gatherer from the Holocene.
This suggests that I was wrong in one of my predictions: I had assumed that most European hunter-gatherer ancestry dates to the Gravettian at the earliest. This is wrong. In fact, this paper suggests minimal legacy of Gravettian peoples as represented by the Vestonice cluster. Rather, earlier peoples have left their mark on modern Europeans via the Holocene “Western Hunter-Gatherers” (WHG) who mixed with incoming farmers.
There’s more. Most of Loschbour’s ancestry is not from Goyet-like groups. Rather, it is from a population with affinities to the Villabruna culture. This to some extent vindicates another prediction I made: that most European hunter-gatherer ancestry would probably date to groups which became established after the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago. That was right, as Villabruna-like affinity seems to be the dominant signal in the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/700px-Weichsel-Wu%CC%88rm-Glaciation-300x243.pngSome of the patterns above are perplexing. So at this point, I think I want to drop a conjecture which I think can be inferred from this paper, but probably will have to be explored with future results and analysis: the Villabruna cluster ~14,000 years is a product of a massive expansion of a hunter-gatherer population from the Middle East. The original papers which posited that “Early European Farmers” (EEF) were admixtures between “Basal Eurasians” (BEu) and WHG, at 40% to 60% proportions, were somewhat misleading I suspect. Rather, WHG, the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe, derive predominantly from an expansion of Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers which had larger populations in the wake of the grueling climatic regime of the Last Glacial Maximum. The WHG in EEF was not European hunter-gatherer at all, but local Middle Eastern hunter-gatherer.

The further affinities of Villabruna make a likely exotic origin obvious. As noted in the paper a Near Eastern, but not BEu, affinity of European hunter-gatherers emerges specifically with Villabruna, ~14,000 years ago. And, some individuals in this cluster likely exhibit admixture from a population related to modern East Asians. This gene flow is independent of the Middle Eastern gene flow, though I suspect that the Middle Eastern gene flow is simply an expansion of hunter-gatherers from that region, with some absorption of the local substrate. There are other explanations for why this affinity might exist (read the supplements), but other papers have indicated the possibility of this relationship, so it is probably the most likely. The Middle Eastern origin of Villabruna makes more sense of the relationship between it and “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers” (CHG). Geographically they would have been positioned near each other.

These West Eurasian clusters form a very deep clade with the Ma’lta North Eurasian population as an outgroup, with these nested together with East Eurasians, Amerindians, and Oceanians, in comparison to BEu. But if you take a look at the tree, and consider the chronology, it seems that modern Eurasians diversified into several distinct lineages over the course of 5-10 thousand years after the Out of Africa event. Individuals on the ~40,000 year time limit are no more related to all Eurasian groups, perhaps because their lineage went extinct. Ma’lta and the North Eurasians seem to have diverged from other West Eurasians very soon after these two diverged from East Eurasians; there just isn’t that much time to allow for this, but it did happen.
By about 30,000 years ago many of the pieces were in place. Much of the demographic change we see subsequent involve a set of operations to mix and match basic elements. The patchiness and segregation of these populations is probably why ancient DNA, itself spotty and poor and seeing the landscape with precision, assigns all of Europe to a particular cluster at a particular time. There were clearly other peoples, but they are not always at accessible archaeological sights, or perhaps they had retreated into the forests as a marginal folk?
There are many other interesting aspects of this paper, such as the Neanderthal admixture. But I’ll save that for another day….

Alan
07-05-16, 11:41
Razib Khans comment on a question.


What exactly is that relationship? Don’t CHG have a lot of Basal Eurasian? Yet the Villabruna didn’t have any. But the EEF had Villabruna ancestry and Basal Eurasian? But not the exact same Basal Eurasian as in CHG (diverged by more than 20,000 years)?

the villabruna/el miron share drift with CHG via the NO-basal eurasian. and i believe the issue


So the affinity these Villabruna samples show resemble the non BE ancestry of CHG more than the EHG ancestry. Another reason for me to assume that some R samples will turn up in further CHG samplings. And the East Eurasian Han like ancestry is from a different event/source which is also atypical for EHG as well CHG but support a region in close range to East Eurasian ancestry. Something tells me this might possibly even be South_Central Asia.

LeBrok
07-05-16, 16:40
Razib Khans opinion on this. Interesting allot of his points agree with my opinion.

There’s more. Most of Loschbour’s ancestry is not from Goyet-like groups. Rather, it is from a population with affinities to the Villabruna culture. This to some extent vindicates another prediction I made: that most European hunter-gatherer ancestry would probably date to groups which became established after the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago. That was right, as Villabruna-like affinity seems to be the dominant signal in the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
Well, yes and no. I believe most of us suspected that population of Europe grew back from HGs coming from refugium. We didn't expect them to be so dramatically different than before. I imagined that cold weather pushed them into refugium in first place, but this is not true (except just handful of them). They didn't go into refugium, they've froze and died out instead. Just like Neanderthals.
In this case the refugium is not really a refugium. Europe was repopulated by HGs who lived in the South like South Balkans and Anatolia, even before LGM. Well, the last statement is a bit of supposition, but should be close to the truth.

Silesian
07-05-16, 16:52
Do not use Ftdna map...........it does not even cover the Birth of R haplogroup in south-east Asia on the Karafet papers of 2014 and 2015
[URL=http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg.html]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg

Here are some positions of R and R1b, I quickly made up.There have been no R1b finds in any of the areas in red shown in the map above.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif
Els Trocs Spain-R1b
7722
Villabruna-R1b
7723
Armenian-R1b
7724
Kvhalynsk Russia-R1b
7725

Samara, Russia-R1b, close up surrounded by to many R1b-Z2103 kurgans.

Silesian
07-05-16, 17:03
Here are some positions of R and R1b, I quickly made up.There have been no R1b finds in any of the areas in red shown in the map above.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif
Els Trocs Spain-R1b
7722
Villabruna-R1b
7723
Armenian-R1b
7724
Kvhalynsk Russia-R1b
7725

Samara, Russia-R1b, close up surrounded by to many R1b-Z2103 kurgans.[/QUOTE]

Malta R*

7727

Distance and 1 possible explanation of R1b-path/ trajectory.
http://oi66.tinypic.com/10nt8np.jpg

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#4/49.58/59.94

Tomenable
07-05-16, 19:15
There have been no R1b finds in any of the areas in red shown in the map above.

Actually, there have been no Y-DNA finds in any of those areas. :smile:

We do not have any samples of any haplogroup from those areas.

Silesian
07-05-16, 20:21
Actually, there have been no Y-DNA finds in any of those areas. :smile:

We do not have any samples of any haplogroup from those areas.
Not any different than the archeological evidence of your R1b-Z2103+ copper workers, migrating from the same area. Only to bury their dead in Kurgans on top of R1b-M73 Hunter Gatherer that are 1000's of years older. The co-incidence and or luck of such a journey:thinking:You never really elaborated on the branch of R1b that were copper workers migrating to the Steppe.Any new idea's?

Spain-I
7728
Italy-I
7729
Anatolia-I
7730

Trajectory, theoretical-
http://oi65.tinypic.com/f9occ7.jpg

Sardinia variance.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/


http://oi65.tinypic.com/6enfpd.jpg

I-S6635 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S6635/)S6685 * PF3935 * PF3918+30 SNPsformed 15600 ybp, TMRCA 10200 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/I-S6635/)

I-S6635* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S6635*/)

id:ERS256250ITA [IT-CA]

Silesian
07-05-16, 20:41
R1a and R1b ancient discoveries to date. Rough guideline, for R1>
http://oi67.tinypic.com/wvvqeb.jpg

Alan
08-05-16, 02:29
I actually didn't wanted to comment on this but what the heck is going wrong with this Pax Augusta? :laughing: Since I remember he goes around from thread to thread and thumbs down my comments without giving contra arguments or even commenting whatsoever what he disagrees on. Do he really has even contra arguments or does he just not like the opinion of other and even the scientific paper itself. I know truth hurts.

I am calling you out. Come and defend your opinion instead of stalking me and thumping down anything I write. This is not how you show yourself disagreeing but it merely resembles something what I would call almost tro ll ing. It doesn't seem to have to do with the opinions itself but him having some issues with me. Makes me wonder if we are dealing here with another sockpuppet of well known guy.

Alan
08-05-16, 02:43
[URL=http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg.html]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg

Here are some positions of R and R1b, I quickly made up.There have been no R1b finds in any of the areas in red shown in the map above.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif
Els Trocs Spain-R1b
7722
Villabruna-R1b
7723
Armenian-R1b
7724
Kvhalynsk Russia-R1b
7725

Samara, Russia-R1b, close up surrounded by to many R1b-Z2103 kurgans.


Well there actually is some of the Bronze Age samples from Armenia turned up as R1b-z2103 but we don't have any Neolithic samples from that or any other region in Western Asia, only from Anatolia.

LeBrok
08-05-16, 03:59
[URL=http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg.html]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/anc%20neo_zpsroxhszwq.jpg

Here are some positions of R and R1b, I quickly made up.There have been no R1b finds in any of the areas in red shown in the map above.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif
Els Trocs Spain-R1b


Fertile Crescent full of R1b?!!! Nonsense. First farmers EEF didn't pick it up on their way to Europe? And R1b is missing from the steppe? This map needs serious updating.

Silesian
08-05-16, 05:08
Fertile Crescent full of R1b?!!! Nonsense. First farmers EEF didn't pick it up on their way to Europe? And R1b is missing from the steppe? This map needs serious updating.
I think Sile likes it; for some unkown reason perhaps?

Sile-Y-DNA haplogroup-T1a2b1a/Silesian Y- R1b-R1b1a1a2a2c1a

Silesian
08-05-16, 05:08
Well there actually is some of the Bronze Age samples from Armenia turned up as R1b-z2103 but we don't have any Neolithic samples from that region, only from Anatolia.
Really which one? You mean Rise- 397? You think being so close to your theoretical homeland; we should find some in Iran highlands possibly? After all it is found as far away as Sardinia.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/iyn4h5.jpg

Greying Wanderer
08-05-16, 07:21
Alan

Now the Steppes could also be the source but if the Steppes were the sources the authors wouldn't mention something very West Asian in their DNA that shows up in Dstats.

Thing is there's two ways round the Himalayas and so far we have data that places R1b on the steppe route. That may change but currently isn't the simplest explanation for Villabruna having ydna R1b simply that they could have been close to the border between R1b people from the mammoth steppe in the north (which included the north European plain) and WHG further south and so mixed?

And if before sailing developed the steppe route between east and west was fastest that could explain the east asian dna also.

(for example didn't the Scandinavian Motala HGs have the EDAR gene or am I remembering wrong?)

Obviously this would all change if a bunch of R1b was found further south.

Sile
08-05-16, 08:56
Fertile Crescent full of R1b?!!! Nonsense. First farmers EEF didn't pick it up on their way to Europe? And R1b is missing from the steppe? This map needs serious updating.

R-V88 formed in southern syria and the went south into Africa via Egypt @11000 years ago .....................reaching chad in 9000 years ago ( cruciani 2010) ................why do you think R1b cannot be in the fertile crescent at 7000 years ago :confused2:( did they fly over the FC to get to the levant?)

Greying Wanderer
08-05-16, 10:21
R-V88 formed in southern syria and the went south into Africa via Egypt @11000 years ago .....................reaching chad in 9000 years ago ( cruciani 2010) ................why do you think R1b cannot be in the fertile crescent at 7000 years ago :confused2:( did they fly over the FC to get to the levant?)

This touches on one aspect of the R1b argument imo - the people arguing aren't always talking about the same bit of R1b.

LeBrok
08-05-16, 18:07
R-V88 formed in southern syria and the went south into Africa via Egypt @11000 years ago .....................reaching chad in 9000 years ago ( cruciani 2010) ................why do you think R1b cannot be in the fertile crescent at 7000 years ago :confused2:( did they fly over the FC to get to the levant?)
R1b would have been picked up by farmers in great numbers, the same way I2 was picked up from WHGs in Anatolia. So far all Neolithic samples from Balkans don't have R1b. If farmers EEF are from fertile crescent then R1b can't be. R1b probably just started showing up there after 7kya but not before.

Silesian
08-05-16, 19:36
This touches on one aspect of the R1b argument imo - the people arguing aren't always talking about the same bit of R1b.
How about this one. Villabruna distance from V88 basal.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/r9lvl3.jpg

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2qdzpr7.jpghttps://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V88/

holderlin
08-05-16, 19:59
Here’s some over simplified conclusions:


This explains why EHG was showing up so far away from WHG, CHG, and ENF in the stats. All that ANE represents a population that split from the paleo-euro population very early on.
I don’t know why people are getting tangled up with the Near Eastern Allele sharing. It’s clear to me that the Villabruna population likely contributed to CHG, which contributed to other ““near-eastern/proto-ENF” populations, or, Villabruna contributed to both “near-eastern/proto-ENF” and “CHG” in separate events. What do we call the Levantine/Anatolians before they were farmers? I think the HERC2 sharing implicates the former, and this makes perfect sense for steppe/tundra HGs wondering just North of the Caucuses. The steppe lineage R1b, meaning not V-88, in Villabruna is also in support of this. I realize I will be called out on “steppe lineage R1b”, but whatever. Come at me bro. I'm only using such distinctions because V-88 is not usually associated with steppe/Europe, but I think M343 originated in Europe/steppe anyway so to me this distinction only really applies to later periods of R1b dispersal.
Also, it looks like Villabruna had the best tools. Aurignacian->Gravettian is only after admixture with Villabruna, then to Magdalenian in El Miron, And Magdalenian->Azilian in Villabruna itself. Anything Villabruna touched seemed to develop better tools. Maybe I’m missing something but this is what I’m seeing.
35k year old GoyetQ116-1 was the oldest sample showing Han allele sharing. This is supportive of a very ancient dispersion of paleoeuros across the entire steppe into Siberia.
@Tomenable I like your theory, it’s interesting. I don’t know if this affects it, but you can easily test where copper comes from and all the Khavalinsk copper comes from the Balkans. It’s not until Yamnaya proper (whatever that is) that we see it coming from the Caucuses. So earliest copper in Europe and the steppe, is European copper. And as @Silesian points out these “copper magician traders” also happen to be burying themselves like steppe people and are literally surrounded by steppe burials on all sides that have buried themselves the same way for 1000s of years.
On a random note the Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is likely the source of Anatolian Languages in a very early expansion. This would explain the Archaisms in Hittite, some of which are absent even in the reconstructed PIE. There was some discussion revolving around Tomenable’s R1b Bronze Magician theory, and I recall this thought being relevant.
@Silesian that’s interesting about the diversity of basal V88 in Sardinia and taken with all the other data is very supportive of a steppe R1b origin. But this may be lost on people.

Fire Haired14
08-05-16, 22:31
I'll provide more details later.

WHG has ANE-admixture
It looks like WHG is ANE+UP European. I and others thought the same when the only Upper Paleolithic European genome we had was Kostinki14. This is because Kostinki14 is closer to WHG than to ANE and ANE is closer to WHG than to Kostinki and WHG was slightly closer to ANE than to Kostinki14. This confirmed WHG was a mixture of Kostinki14-relative and ANE-relative.

CHG has ANE-admixture.
Some of us argued since the CHG genomes were published that they had lots of ANE admixture. The authors didn't do a lot of research on the relationship between CHG and other ancient genomes and simply labelled it as Basal Eurasian. It rejected the idea CHG had ANE ancestry. But, anyways CHG has lots of ANE ancestry. It also has lots of WHG-related admixture. I'm personally not sure exactly what CHG is. It might essentially be UP European-like+ANE+Basal Eurasian.

WHG/Mesolithic West-Europeans are not mostly descended of Magdalenian or Gravettian
None of our UP European genomes are the primary ancestor of WHG. Humans who lived in Central Europe and Southern Italy 30,000 years ago appear to be WHG's uncle or partial ancestor though. WHG's primary ancestors might not have been living in Western Europe till after 15,000 years ago, they could have been living in Eastern Europe or West Asia.

Humans in Russia and Turkey 8,000 years ago had WHG-admixture. Humans in Western Europe 19,000-15,000 years ago had WHG admixture.
The distinctiveness of WHG is very old. This is how we know our 30,000+ year old European genomes aren't important ancestors of WHG. WHG's distinctness already existed for the most part 30,000 years ago and those genomes don't have it.

WHG or at least very WHG-like admixture existed in Magdalenian Western Europeans 19,000-15,000 years ago. It also existed in Russia(EHG) and Turkey(EEF) 8,000 years ago. WHG might be the primary ancestor of modern Europeans and is an important ancestor of all Middle Easterners and even North Asians. Ancestry from actual Western European WHGs like Loschbour might be small though, like 20% tops(for Basque and Northern Europeans).

LeBrok
08-05-16, 23:33
WHG/Mesolithic West-Europeans are not mostly descended of Magdalenian or Gravettian
None of our UP European genomes are the primary ancestor of WHG. Humans who lived in Central Europe and Southern Italy 30,000 years ago appear to be WHG's uncle or partial ancestor though. WHG's primary ancestors might not have been living in Western Europe till after 15,000 years ago, they could have been living in Eastern Europe or West Asia.
.Does someone knows how much ANE is in Gravettians and Aurignacians?

holderlin
08-05-16, 23:58
WHG has ANE-admixture
It looks like WHG is ANE+UP European. I and others thought the same when the only Upper Paleolithic European genome we had was Kostinki14. This is because Kostinki14 is closer to WHG than to ANE and ANE is closer to WHG than to Kostinki and WHG was slightly closer to ANE than to Kostinki14. This confirmed WHG was a mixture of Kostinki14-relative and ANE-relative.


Now this sounds more like what the Willerslev paper was saying.

So there's some MA-1 in Loschbour? Is it contained within "Villabruna", "Goyet", or both? I'm thinking that what you're saying is that the mesolithic Villabruna signal actually contains within it distinct WHG that shares alleles with the Near East and MA-1.


CHG has ANE-admixture.
Some of us argued since the CHG genomes were published that they had lots of ANE admixture. The authors didn't do a lot of research on the relationship between CHG and other ancient genomes and simply labelled it as Basal Eurasian. It rejected the idea CHG had ANE ancestry. But, anyways CHG has lots of ANE ancestry. It also has lots of WHG-related admixture. I'm personally not sure exactly what CHG is. It might essentially be UP European-like+ANE+Basal Eurasian.

This would account for the allele sharing in meso-Euros (WHG) and near East, assuming CHG passed it on.


WHG/Mesolithic West-Europeans are not mostly descended of Magdalenian or Gravettian
None of our UP European genomes are the primary ancestor of WHG. Humans who lived in Central Europe and Southern Italy 30,000 years ago appear to be WHG's uncle or partial ancestor though. WHG's primary ancestors might not have been living in Western Europe till after 15,000 years ago, they could have been living in Eastern Europe or West Asia.

Sounds like distinct WHG was hiding in the "villabruna" signal?


Humans in Russia and Turkey 8,000 years ago had WHG-admixture. Humans in Western Europe 19,000-15,000 years ago had WHG admixture.
The distinctiveness of WHG is very old. This is how we know our 30,000+ year old European genomes aren't important ancestors of WHG. WHG's distinctness already existed for the most part 30,000 years ago and those genomes don't have it. WHG or at least very WHG-like admixture existed in Magdalenian Western Europeans 19,000-15,000 years ago. It also existed in Russia(EHG) and Turkey(EEF) 8,000 years ago. WHG might be the primary ancestor of modern Europeans and is an important ancestor of all Middle Easterners and even North Asians. Ancestry from actual Western European WHGs like Loschbour might be small though, like 20% tops(for Basque and Northern Europeans).

First guess would be Eastern Europe

holderlin
09-05-16, 00:00
Does someone knows how much ANE is in Gravettians and Aurignacians?

I think they pre-dated the arrival of distinct WHG, which contained ANE within it.

It seems like someone in reconciling the conclusions of the Earlier Willerslev (Kostenki14) paper with this most recent one.

Alan
09-05-16, 01:28
Really which one? You mean Rise- 397? You think being so close to your theoretical homeland; we should find some in Iran highlands possibly? After all it is found as far away as Sardinia.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/iyn4h5.jpg

Yes, whats wrong about that sample? You said there isn't any I said there is so sarcams isn't needed here. I haven't seen any Z2103 in ancient Sardinia yet but there is the possibility, why not? ;)



Also as Tomenable already pointed out we don't actually have any Bronze-Neolithic samples from anywhere beyond Anatolia. And as I said a milion times, I don't think Anatolia is where were we will find allot of R Haplogroups. Why should we? And why would that be such a big suprise for you? We are dealing here with two very different components just from Anatolia to Georgia (EF vs CHG)! How comes it is so hard to imagine very different Haplogroups from Anatolia to the Iranian Plateau?

But it isn't so hard to imagine the same scenario just in the North where in the Balkans we expect and see I and G Haplogroups and in Ukraine R Haplogroups in combination with other. The distance from Central Anatolia to Iranian Plateau is not smaller than the distance from Balkans to Ukraine or North Caucasus.

Alan
09-05-16, 01:34
This touches on one aspect of the R1b argument imo - the people arguing aren't always talking about the same bit of R1b.

Exactly. R Haplogroups are so old I argue that they must have been widespred across Eurasia at least by Late Neolithic already. We find R1b v88 5500 BC in a Farmer sample from Iberia. Who is going to argue that this guy came from the Steppes? It obviously came from the Levant via the North Africa route.

holderlin
09-05-16, 02:29
Exactly. R Haplogroups are so old I argue that they must have been widespred across Eurasia at least by Late Neolithic already. We find R1b v88 5500 BC in a Farmer sample from Iberia. Who is going to argue that this guy came from the Steppes? It obviously came from the Levant via the North Africa route.

That guy may have came that way, but V-88 may very well have originated on the steppe 10k years prior.

holderlin
09-05-16, 02:36
There really is a vast gaping void in West Asia when it comes to ancient genomes.

I think we have some Mesolithic from Northern Iran on the way, Harrapan, Maykop etc., but it's hugely lopsided right now with all that we have from North Eurasia. It's impossible not to have biased models.

Silesian
09-05-16, 02:49
Yes, whats wrong about that sample? You said there isn't any I said there is so sarcams isn't needed here. I haven't seen any Z2103 in ancient Sardinia yet but there is the possibility, why not? ;)
Sorry I did not mean to come across as being sarcastic. I just wanted to emphasize, one of the pitfalls of broadly labeling under R1b-Z2103.
The Armenian sample Rise-397 is pretty decent quality.
It is actually Under R1b-CTS7763. Now see if you can find any samples in the regions you think it should be; for example your Iranian plateau theory?
It is found in Sardinia, Tabarassan's , Han Chinese, and around Bashkir region, beside the ancient Armenian sample from LBA Kapan 1048-855B.C. +/- Armenia.

Eurogenes plot showing the Armenian samples pulling toward Steppe.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/x6lth1.jpg
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/08/armenian-population-structure-across.html

(http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/08/armenian-population-structure-across.html)
Rise-397>R1b-2106>CTS7763+ Ancient Armenian sample from LBA Kapan 1048-855B.C. +/- Armenia.Found in present day populations of Sardinia, Tabarassan's , Han Chinese, and Bashkir region.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/2i1o4qu.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/260sete.jpg

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS8966/
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_27_03_09_2016.pdf
(http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_27_03_09_2016.pdf)

....... How comes it is so hard to imagine very different Haplogroups from Anatolia to the Iranian Plateau?
Are you aware the R1b clade that is found among Lur's?

Silesian
09-05-16, 03:04
There really is a vast gaping void in West Asia when it comes to ancient genomes.

I think we have some Mesolithic from Northern Iran on the way, Harrapan, Maykop etc., but it's hugely lopsided right now with all that we have from North Eurasia. It's impossible not to have biased models.

Sometimes the samples have been tested but results not released. For example, we have known King Tut's blood type since 1969. However his ydna was never officially released. It would probably be pretty easy to retest his result's with up to date snp's. Just to glean more information, from different sources.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v224/n5217/abs/224325a0.html

Fire Haired14
09-05-16, 04:13
[B]

This would account for the allele sharing in meso-Euros (WHG) and near East, assuming CHG passed it on.


That could be why CHG is more related to WHG than other pre-Neolithic Europeans, but that probably isn't why modern Near Easterners are. Modern Middle Easterners are even more shifted towards WHG than CHG was. They probably have WHG ancestry, just as Neolithic Turkish did.

holderlin
09-05-16, 08:55
That could be why CHG is more related to WHG than other pre-Neolithic Europeans, but that probably isn't why modern Near Easterners are. Modern Middle Easterners are even more shifted towards WHG than CHG was. They probably have WHG ancestry, just as Neolithic Turkish did.

Apples and oranges. Moderns have had thousands of years for shit to happen.

Neolithic Turkish Lol that's like saying Neolithic American. But yeah I'm saying that in some way WHG contributed to both ENF and CHG no too long after the LGM.

Alan
09-05-16, 11:57
Sorry I did not mean to come across as being sarcastic. I just wanted to emphasize, one of the pitfalls of broadly labeling under R1b-Z2103.
Ok than, it kinda appeared different to me.


The Armenian sample Rise-397 is pretty decent quality.
It is actually Under R1b-CTS7763. Now see if you can find any samples in the regions you think it should be; for example your Iranian plateau theory?
It is found in Sardinia, Tabarassan's , Han Chinese, and around Bashkir region, beside the ancient Armenian sample from LBA Kapan 1048-855B.C. +/- Armenia.

Eurogenes plot showing the Armenian samples pulling toward Steppe.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/x6lth1.jpg
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/08/armenian-population-structure-across.html

(http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2015/08/armenian-population-structure-across.html)
Rise-397>R1b-2106>CTS7763+ Ancient Armenian sample from LBA Kapan 1048-855B.C. +/- Armenia.Found in present day populations of Sardinia, Tabarassan's , Han Chinese, and Bashkir region.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/2i1o4qu.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/260sete.jpg

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS8966/
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_27_03_09_2016.pdf
(http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b1a2_ht35_project_tree_27_03_09_2016.pdf)

Are you aware the R1b clade that is found among Lur's?

in comparison to North Caucasians or CHG the BA Armenian samples doesn't pull more significantly towards the Steppes. Steppic ancestry is relative I have seen runs where the BA Armenia samples had zero Steppic ancestry. I don't doubt that Davids work will show anything but R1 samples pulling towards the Steppes ;)

epoch
09-05-16, 19:22
None of our UP European genomes are the primary ancestor of WHG. Humans who lived in Central Europe and Southern Italy 30,000 years ago appear to be WHG's uncle or partial ancestor though. WHG's primary ancestors might not have been living in Western Europe till after 15,000 years ago, they could have been living in Eastern Europe or West Asia.


If El Miron has WHG admixture in 19.000 ya and WHG had mtDNA U5b while mesolithic Greeks had mtDNA K1c, and the first U5b found was Paglicci71 (18.000 ya), and archaeolology already considered Epigravettian Italy a distinct culture, you can safely assume that WHG originated in Italy. How it got its slight Middle-Eastern affinity as compared to the other UP Europeans? Who knows. Via Greece? Or is it an artifact, created by the decreasing Neanderthal affinity, as Chad Rohlfson suggested?

Mind you, all WHG had Aurignacian (GoyetQ116) ancestry.

epoch
09-05-16, 19:53
Razib Khans opinion on this. Interesting allot of his points agree with my opinion.



The Villabruna cluster ~14,000 years is a product of a massive expansion of a hunter-gatherer population from the Middle East. The original papers which posited that “Early European Farmers” (EEF) were admixtures between “Basal Eurasians” (BEu) and WHG, at 40% to 60% proportions, were somewhat misleading I suspect. Rather, WHG, the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe, derive predominantly from an expansion of Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers which had larger populations in the wake of the grueling climatic regime of the Last Glacial Maximum. The WHG in EEF was not European hunter-gatherer at all, but local Middle Eastern hunter-gatherer.




The WHG signal, as well as the Middle-Eastern signal is visible in the El Miron samples. El Miron itself lived at the end of the LGM. You have me believe then that Anatolian hunter-gatherers would massively overcome a desert in Anatolia, and an ice cap on the French alps, just to find a refuge?

I'v been pushing this story lately: HG's are not like pastoralists or agriculturalist. They follow the herds of what they hunt, whereas Yamnaya pastoralists take their herds with them. The transhumance wouldn't make any sense to a HG. That greatly impacts migrations. Take for instance Mammoths, the staple food on the Gravettians and ANE. Mammoths lived from France and Moravia up until Northern China and Mongolia. That fact alone makes it clear why Kostenki15 can be ancestral to Moravian Gravettians, why ANE contacted WHG, why ANE contacted East-Asians, why the resulting hybrids crossed Beringia at exactly that time.

The migration of herds explain why reindeer hunting Magdalenians [1] kept going north when the reindeer trekked north following the retreating ice caps and tundra, starting the Ahrensberg culture and beyond. It thus explains why they migrated all the way to the Baltics, where WHG admixture is high.

What hunting game trekked from West-Asia to Europe?

Also, read this: www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7107-Ice-Age-Europe-Some-stats-and-opinions&p=155609&viewfull=1#post155609 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7107-Ice-Age-Europe-Some-stats-and-opinions&p=155609&viewfull=1#post155609)

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229198263_Relationships_between_Reindeer_and_Man_i n_Southwestern_France_during_the_Magdalenian

epoch
09-05-16, 20:18
And the East Eurasian Han like ancestry is from a different event/source which is also atypical for EHG as well CHG but support a region in close range to East Eurasian ancestry. Something tells me this might possibly even be South_Central Asia.

The East-Asian signal is not found in all WHG samples. But in the ones it is, it is consistently accompanied by an American signal. That points to ANE admixture, maybe after its mingling with proto-Mongolians or maybe points to ANE admixture in East-Asians. It could even be an artifact of the fact that the Neanderthal admixture declines over time from 5% to 2%. Mind you, whatever it is: The paper clearly state that they also find an East-Asian signal in Mal'ta.

And in that respect it is noteworthy Hungarian HG KO1 and Afontova Gora 3 had the same extremely rare mtDNA haplogroup: R1b, or R3, which has only been described in one Finn, one Armenian (Family Tree database, http://www.familytreedna.com/) two Yakuts and one Bengali individual.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf

Fire Haired14
09-05-16, 21:37
If El Miron has WHG admixture in 19.000 ya and WHG had mtDNA U5b while mesolithic Greeks had mtDNA K1c, and the first U5b found was Paglicci71 (18.000 ya), and archaeolology already considered Epigravettian Italy a distinct culture, you can safely assume that WHG originated in Italy. How it got its slight Middle-Eastern affinity as compared to the other UP Europeans? Who knows. Via Greece?


You're right. The high WHG affinity in Western Europe 19,000-15,000 years ago and the mtDNA U5b in Italy 18,000 years ago, is good evidence WHG is from Central or Western Europe. WHG's closest Upper Paleolithic relative from our collection of 25,000-37,000 years old genomes are the ones from Southern Italy(one is confirmed Y DNA pre-I). This makes the idea of an origin in Italy/Balkans(They were connected back then( more interesting.

WHG's Middle Eastern affinity can be explained by WHG/WHG-related ancestry in the Middle East via European migration to the Middle East. It doesn't have to go Middle East>Europe it can be Europe>Middle East.

epoch
09-05-16, 23:35
You're right. The high WHG affinity in Western Europe 19,000-15,000 years ago and the mtDNA U5b in Italy 18,000 years ago, is good evidence WHG is from Central or Western Europe. WHG's closest Upper Paleolithic relative from our collection of 25,000-37,000 years old genomes are the ones from Southern Italy(one is confirmed Y DNA pre-I). This makes the idea of an origin in Italy/Balkans(They were connected back then( more interesting.

WHG's Middle Eastern affinity can be explained by WHG/WHG-related ancestry in the Middle East via European migration to the Middle East. It doesn't have to go Middle East>Europe it can be Europe>Middle East.

D(ElMiron, Vestonice16, Ostuni2, Mbuti) Z=1.2
D(Villabruna, Vestonice16, Ostuni2, Mbuti) Z=2.6

D(Villabruna, Vestonice16, Paglicci133, Mbuti) Z=2.7

When other WHGs are used both Italian Gravettians show a significant Z score towards fellow Gravettian Vestonice16. Still, it is very interesting. Both Italian Gravettians were found near the heel of the Italian boot.

EDIT: Those D-stats more or less show that Ostuni2 is as close to ElMiron or Villabruna as to Vestonice16, since the Z score is insignificant.

bicicleur
10-05-16, 10:06
I wonder wether the Danube rapids mesolithic fishermen were part of the Villabruna cluster.
I think it is very likely.

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf37/37_26.pdf
http://www.donsmaps.com/lepenski.html

holderlin
10-05-16, 15:47
It doesn't have to go Middle East>Europe it can be Europe>Middle East.

This is what I was getting at. If WHG really did lack "basal eurasion", then it really couldn't have gone the other direction.

Angela
10-05-16, 19:58
I apologize if this has already been covered and I just missed it, but I don't understand the statements proposing that some of these Ice Age Europeans possessed ANE.

From the paper:
"We also find no evidence for the suggestion that the Mal’ta1 lineage contributed to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans4 , because when we compute the statistic D(Test1, Test2; Mal’ta1, Mbuti), we find that the statistic is indistinguishable from zero when the Test populations are ANY pre-Neolithic Europeans beginning with Kostenki14, consistent with descent from a single founder population since separation from the lineage leading to Mal’ta1 (Supplementary Information section 9). A corollary of this finding is that the widespread presence of Mal’ta1-related ancestry in presentday Europeans15 is probably explained by migrations from the Eurasian steppe in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods9 ."

I read that to include the Villabrunians, since the finding is said to apply to any pre-Neolithic Europeans. So, who has decided this group is incorrect about this, and why?

There are other statements in the paper that are in contradiction to what I've seen posted here:

"One possible explanation for the sudden drawing together of the ancestry of Europe and the Near East at this time is long-distance migrations from the Near East into Europe. However, a plausible alternative is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe harboured multiple groups that differed in their relationship to the Near East, with the balance shifting among groups as a result of demographic changes after the Glacial Maximum."

I've seen a statement, I can't remember from whom, that even the pre-Villabruna Ice Age Europeans had this "Near Eastern" pull. That's again in contradiction to the conclusions of the paper. They're talking about a sudden drawing together around 14,000 YPB.

Their alternative to a possible flow into Europe from the Near East at this time is population structure within Europe where the Villabrunians, or the majority component of the Villabrunians, had more of a "pull" toward the Near East even before then. In this scenario, after the LGM, this sub-group of European hunter-gatherers from Italy-Balkans moved north.

Nowhere in the paper do I see any suggestion that an alternative is that there was a large migration of WHG from Europe into Anatolia. Did I miss it? It's hardly likely that the same group that analyzed the ancient farmers both in Europe and in northwest Anatolia is unaware that the farmers were about what...7% WHG? So, yes, back migration did take place, but they seem confident it doesn't explain this "drawing together" around 14,000 YBP.

Furthermore, they're definitely talking about a gene flow into the WHG.

"Figure 4b shows that it is consistent with zero (|Z|<3) for nearly all individuals dating to between about 37,000 and 14,000 years ago. However, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster, it becomes highly significantly negative in comparisons where the non-European population (Y) is Near Easterners (Fig. 4b; Extended Data Fig. 3; Supplementary Information section 11). This must reflect a contribution to the Villabruna Cluster from a lineage also found in present-day Near Easterners (Fig. 4b).

That would also explain the change anthropologically in the Villabruna sample. It looks more "modern" to me than the other Ice Age Europeans.

As I said, maybe I didn't see the explanation for the contradictions, or didn't understand them.

Also, has anyone considered that there might be a "ghost" population living on the same latitude as the non-Basal Eurasian portion of the CHG, perhaps related to them, which moved into southern Europe at some early period before 14,000:YBP, and thus regional substructure in Europe is indeed the answer?

That leaves Basal Eurasian to be explained. Maybe it entered the Near East from further south near Arabia after that move, or could it perhaps have been somewhere around the Persian Gulf?

bix
10-05-16, 21:26
Also, has anyone considered that there might be a "ghost" population living on the same latitude as the non-Basal Eurasian portion of the CHG, perhaps related to them, which moved into southern Europe at some early period before 14,000:YBP, and thus regional substructure in Europe is indeed the answer?

In Terberger's "Le Dernier Maximum glaciaire entre le Rhin et le Danube, un réexamen critique" he seemed to float the idea of an 'eastern' origin of the Badegoulian techno-complex. Is there anything to this notion?

Also, it may reflect my limited understanding, but since El Miron, at around 19,000 bp shows a sizable "Villabruna" input, doesn't that imply the that at least an element of the Villabruna population was around Franco Cantabria before 19,000? And that mid-east element seems to be elevated in El Miron even.

epoch
10-05-16, 22:11
I apologize if this has already been covered and I just missed it, but I don't understand the statements proposing that some of these Ice Age Europeans possessed ANE.

From the paper:
"We also find no evidence for the suggestion that the Mal’ta1 lineage contributed to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans4 , because when we compute the statistic D(Test1, Test2; Mal’ta1, Mbuti), we find that the statistic is indistinguishable from zero when the Test populations are ANY pre-Neolithic Europeans beginning with Kostenki14, consistent with descent from a single founder population since separation from the lineage leading to Mal’ta1 (Supplementary Information section 9). A corollary of this finding is that the widespread presence of Mal’ta1-related ancestry in presentday Europeans15 is probably explained by migrations from the Eurasian steppe in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods9 ."

I read that to include the Villabrunians, since the finding is said to apply to any pre-Neolithic Europeans. So, who has decided this group is incorrect about this, and why?

D-stats by David on Eurogenes used AfontivaGora3 and not Mal'ta, then showed significance.

Mbuti MA1 Villabruna Kostenki14 -0.0124 -2.339 644492
Mbuti MA1 Villabruna Vestonice -0.0061 -1.388 531468

AfontovaGora3 Mbuti Villabruna Kostenki14 0.0281 4.465 218311
AfontovaGora3 Mbuti Villabruna Vestonice 0.0199 3.844 213665

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html


There are other statements in the paper that are in contradiction to what I've seen posted here:

"One possible explanation for the sudden drawing together of the ancestry of Europe and the Near East at this time is long-distance migrations from the Near East into Europe. However, a plausible alternative is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe harboured multiple groups that differed in their relationship to the Near East, with the balance shifting among groups as a result of demographic changes after the Glacial Maximum."

I've seen a statement, I can't remember from whom, that even the pre-Villabruna Ice Age Europeans had this "Near Eastern" pull. That's again in contradiction to the conclusions of the paper. They're talking about a sudden drawing together around 14,000 YPB.

From the paper. See ElMiron and GoyetQ-2 in figure 4b. These are D-stats.

http://abload.de/img/asgjb6.png


Their alternative to a possible flow into Europe from the Near East at this time is population structure within Europe where the Villabrunians, or the majority component of the Villabrunians, had more of a "pull" toward the Near East even before then. In this scenario, after the LGM, this sub-group of European hunter-gatherers from Italy-Balkans moved north.

Nowhere in the paper do I see any suggestion that an alternative is that there was a large migration of WHG from Europe into Anatolia. Did I miss it? It's hardly likely that the same group that analyzed the ancient farmers both in Europe and in northwest Anatolia is unaware that the farmers were about what...7% WHG? So, yes, back migration did take place, but they seem confident it doesn't explain this "drawing together" around 14,000 YBP.

Furthermore, they're definitely talking about a gene flow into the WHG.

True. But their 3-way model includes: Goyet116Q-1, something unique to WHG and something which gives a Han oriented affinity. See section 13 of the supplementary info: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf


"Figure 4b shows that it is consistent with zero (|Z|<3) for nearly all individuals dating to between about 37,000 and 14,000 years ago. However, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster, it becomes highly significantly negative in comparisons where the non-European population (Y) is Near Easterners (Fig. 4b; Extended Data Fig. 3; Supplementary Information section 11). This must reflect a contribution to the Villabruna Cluster from a lineage also found in present-day Near Easterners (Fig. 4b).

That would also explain the change anthropologically in the Villabruna sample. It looks more "modern" to me than the other Ice Age Europeans.

As I said, maybe I didn't see the explanation for the contradictions, or didn't understand them.

Indeed the article states that, yet it didn't get worked out in the Supp Info. The Supp Info does, however, make clear that statiscally a unique WHG signal with two admixtures is preferable, and considers Goyet116 and Han as markers of these admixtures.


Also, has anyone considered that there might be a "ghost" population living on the same latitude as the non-Basal Eurasian portion of the CHG, perhaps related to them, which moved into southern Europe at some early period before 14,000:YBP, and thus regional substructure in Europe is indeed the answer?

But why don't we see any mtDNA that is related to CHG or Greek mesolithic popping up in WHG? We have quite a lot of that WHG mtDNA now. There is a Y-DNA J in EHG though. Mind you, this paper makes it clear that MA1/AG3 is not on the same clade as UP Europeans. That makes EHG almost certainly an admixture of WHG and ANE and therefore not a source for WHG. The perceived shared component in WHG and CHG is obviously a good candidate for ME affinity.


That leaves Basal Eurasian to be explained. Maybe it entered the Near East from further south near Arabia after that move, or could it perhaps have been somewhere around the Persian Gulf?

Greying Wanderer
10-05-16, 22:22
@Angela


Nowhere in the paper do I see any suggestion that an alternative is that there was a large migration of WHG from Europe into Anatolia. Did I miss it?

That's been a problem all along - the assumption that modern near/mid east is a proxy for ancient.

Why the assumption there's been no population turnover there - especially when we know about Sea Peoples and Hyksos etc?

Once you remove that assumption other logical possibilities immediately pop up.

epoch
10-05-16, 22:57
@Angela

The paper also suggest something Mal'ta related for the Middle-Eastern affinity.


All three of the best fitting models in Extended Data Figure 4 specify that the majority ancestry component in Satsurblia branched very deeply in the tree of West Eurasian populations, forming a clade with Malta1

Fire Haired14
11-05-16, 02:10
Look what happens when you place Vestonice16(30ky Central Europe), Villabruna, Kostinki14, Anatolia_Neolithic, CHG, and Afontova Gora3(Younger version of MA1) in a tree with East Asians and Africans and allow there to be 4 or 5 admixture events.

4 admixture events (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNk1Da3ZKMl9tTXc/view?usp=sharing)
5 admixture events. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQZVdLMXowUHd2MHM/view)

4admixture events:
Mixed populations.


PC4
Basal Eurasian
Basal WHG
Basal ANE
East Asian


CHG
33
0
67
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
64
46
0
0


Villabruna
0
66
44
0


Dai/Han
0
0
11
89



5 admixture events


PC5
Basal West Eurasian
Basal WHG
Basal ANE
East Asian
Basal Kostinki


CHG
56
0
44
0
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
72
28
0
0
0


Villabruna
0
57
43
0
0


Dai/Han
0
0
37
63
0


Ust ishim
0
0
0
75
25



5 admixture events with MA1 included.


PC6
Basal West Eurasian
Basal WHG
Very Basal ANE
Basal ANE
East Asian
Basal CHG


CHG
87
0
0
13
0
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
73
27
0
0
0
0


Villabruna
0
62
38
0
0
5


Dai/Han
0
0
0
12
88
0

epoch
11-05-16, 12:27
Wow. That last one. What is the difference between Basal ANE and Very Basal ANE?

bicicleur
11-05-16, 14:04
I suppose very basal ANE is Ma1
So all ANE in Villabruna is reduced to Ma1
Could EEF/Neolithic Anatolia have recieved West Eurasian from CHG without getting the ANE or do we have to look for a common source of West Eurasian for both EEF/Neolithic Anatolia and CHG ?

Sile
11-05-16, 20:46
R1b would have been picked up by farmers in great numbers, the same way I2 was picked up from WHGs in Anatolia. So far all Neolithic samples from Balkans don't have R1b. If farmers EEF are from fertile crescent then R1b can't be. R1b probably just started showing up there after 7kya but not before.

Who says all EEF ( 100% ) is from the fertile crescent ?

The south caucasus would be ideal for farming in the same ancient period

The black, caspian and aral seas are all fresh water seas ideal for farming in ancient times....................even when the black sea eventually broke into the Med, there was still drinkable/farming water

Angela
11-05-16, 21:08
I still haven't found the time to look at the stats carefully, but just some general thoughts.

Is it really probable that all the scientists at the two best population genetics labs in the world, with access to all the available ancient genomes, and most probably ones that have not yet been released, including people who created some of the programs that are being used, and with infinitely more computing power at their disposal, didn't look at Afontova Gora? Are we supposed to believe that because the tentative conclusions, or better, alternatives, proposed by these authors don't match the results of some experiments posted at Eurogenes these authors misunderstood their own stats?

I personally don't find it probable, especially since it seems that confusion apparently reigns over there, although I'll admit I just skimmed the posts. Of course, it's possible. For now, I'll go with what these labs propose, and wait to see whether further publications based on other ancient genomes clarify the situation.

One minor point, has it been investigated whether the relationship between Villabruna or any of the other IceAge Europeans could be explained not by the ANE but by any non ANE ancestry in Afontova Gora?

epoch
11-05-16, 22:18
I still haven't found the time to look at the stats carefully, but just some general thoughts.

Is it really probable that all the scientists at the two best population genetics labs in the world, with access to all the available ancient genomes, and most probably ones that have not yet been released, including people who created some of the programs that are being used, and with infinitely more computing power at their disposal, didn't look at Afontova Gora? Are we supposed to believe that because the tentative conclusions, or better, alternatives, proposed by these authors don't match the results of some experiments posted at Eurogenes these authors misunderstood their own stats?

Call to authority.

FWIW: I think the D-stats differences between AG3 and Mal'ta, as well as the fact that AG3 is not high coverage made them cautious. But the paper itself already hints to it itself:



The only way to explain these patterns is a history of gene flow between the ancestors of eastern non-Africans on the one hand, and the ancestors of three groups:
(a) A subset of Villabruna Cluster samples
(b) Early European farmers
(c) Mal’ta Cluster.
Such gene flow would induce a negative bias in two key statistics highlighted in Seguin-Orlando et al.
Note that for this to explain the data, three separate gene flow events are not required. Supplementary Information section 11 and Figure 4b document a link between (a)
and (b), so as few as two gene flow events may be needed. Understanding the exact gene flow history responsible for these patterns is difficult with the ancient DNA sample series
available here, but is an important question to address in future work.



I personally don't find it probable, especially since it seems that confusion apparently reigns over there, although I'll admit I just skimmed the posts. Of course, it's possible. For now, I'll go with what these labs propose, and wait to see whether further publications based on other ancient genomes clarify the situation.

One minor point, has it been investigated whether the relationship between Villabruna or any of the other IceAge Europeans could be explained not by the ANE but by any non ANE ancestry in Afontova Gora?

Don't know. Davids threads have a lot of D-stats.

holderlin
11-05-16, 22:20
One minor point, has it been investigated whether the relationship between Villabruna or any of the other IceAge Europeans could be explained not by the ANE but by any non ANE ancestry in Afontova Gora?

This is what i was thinking, and I believe that is what the stats are suggesting. The timing is right for the widespread appearance of Han alleles in euros too.

So far everything fits with WHG/ANE->CHG->ENF?

Fire Haired14
11-05-16, 22:22
Wow. That last one. What is the difference between Basal ANE and Very Basal ANE?

Very Basal ANE broke off of the ANE branch earlier than Basal ANE. ANE in these trees is Afortgova, the earlier the branch that mixes into another sample the more basal form of ANE and less related to Afortgova it is.

holderlin
11-05-16, 22:52
Dem D-stats. Seriously. Analysis is confounding with so many.

It reminds me of a pre-computer detective drama where they have a bulletin board with a web of strings connecting countless people.

"Sir the data suggests that JFK was killed by a young Jimmy Hendrix."

"He also had lots of ANE"

MOESAN
12-05-16, 00:05
This touches on one aspect of the R1b argument imo - the people arguing aren't always talking about the same bit of R1b.

Right - and even for V88 I don't have too much confidence in some chronology calculations; have they found V88 on old skeletons in Chad????
someones say V88 formed in Iberia; the discussion seems still open...
Even if data is coming up, we still need more and more to be sure

Angela
12-05-16, 02:05
epoch;479988]Call to authority.

Darn straight, Epoch. That's exactly what I did. :) If I may be so blunt, if I need medical advice for a serious issue I don't rely on some jamoke on the internet who doesn't post under his real name and whose qualifications I can't check, and who might also be somebody with an undisclosed and unsavory bias. I do an exhaustive search of a professional's education and other qualifications. If it's a doctor I find out how many malpractice suits have been filed against him or her. Not that I then just rely on them. I ultimately don't blindly trust anyone. It must be genetic. :) Just as I do here I do my own research and ask tough questions and challenge what they're saying until I'm satisfied I'm getting the best possible advice. It may not make me the ideal patient from their point of view, but that's too damn bad for them; if they don't like the color of my money I can go elsewhere. Of course, every once in a while there is an amateur who surprises everyone, including me...i.e. Gioiello! :)


FWIW: I think the D-stats differences between AG3 and Mal'ta, as well as the fact that AG3 is not high coverage made them cautious. But the paper itself already hints to it itself

A bald statement that "We also find no evidence for the suggestion that the Mal'ta lineage contributed to Upper Paleolithic Europeans..." doesn't sound like they're waffling to me. It sounds pretty darn definite. However, maybe you're correct and it is because they are being cautious because AG3 is so low coverage. By the same token, if it's so low coverage that scientists are unwilling to use it, then should anyone be drawing such vast conclusions based on it? Has anyone thought to contact the lead author and ask about it? The few times I've done that they've been remarkably forthcoming. Maybe it is as simple as AG3 indeed being too low coverage. At least we'd know. Also, has it been checked whether the relationship between AG3 and Upper Paleolithic Europeans is necessarily because of shared ANE? Could it be AG3s other ancestry that is shared?

I just don't understand all this certainty when these experiments have so often led to wrong conclusions. I get even more skeptical when I read posts which make it clear there's still uncertainty about which populations should even be plugged into these programs.

Look, don't get me wrong. All I said is that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Maybe some of these internet speculations will be proved to be correct, in which case mazel to everyone who picked up on it. I just think that we're not going to get clarity without ancient genomes from the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, and the areas around the Caucasus, genomes which the people at these labs may have already examined at least on a cursory level. The lead author here says she's been working on the genomes that are the subject of the paper for a few years.

Greying Wanderer
12-05-16, 02:14
I suppose very basal ANE is Ma1
So all ANE in Villabruna is reduced to Ma1
Could EEF/Neolithic Anatolia have recieved West Eurasian from CHG without getting the ANE or do we have to look for a common source of West Eurasian for both EEF/Neolithic Anatolia and CHG ?


If the Caucasus acted as a barrier so CHG got ANE on its northern border but Anatolia only got the unmixed version on the southern border maybe? Or some kind of timing thing?

Angela
12-05-16, 02:15
Dem D-stats. Seriously. Analysis is confounding with so many.

It reminds me of a pre-computer detective drama where they have a bulletin board with a web of strings connecting countless people.

"Sir the data suggests that JFK was killed by a young Jimmy Hendrix."

"He also had lots of ANE"

:grin::grin::grin: Good one! Sometimes they still use stickies on the bulletin boards, with magic marker lines going every which way...it's a you know what nightmare!

A. Papadimitriou
12-05-16, 02:50
1b would have been picked up by farmers in great numbers, the same way I2 was picked up from WHGs in Anatolia. So far all Neolithic samples from Balkans don't have R1b. If farmers EEF are from fertile crescent then R1b can't be. R1b probably just started showing up there after 7kya but not before.

How many Neolithic samples from Balkans do we have? Is there a list somewhere?

Alan
12-05-16, 03:33
I think this "Basal ANE" (what the heck is the difference between very Basal and just Basal??) of Eurogenes is basically a South_Central Asian component that as I said moved into the Caucasus via the Iranian Plateau, the Steppes via East of the Caspian and since the "Odd" ancetry in Villabruna resembles mostly the non Basal Eurasian ancestry in CHG, it probably also came via the Iranian Plateau-Caucasus route imo.

LeBrok
12-05-16, 03:36
Look, don't get me wrong. All I said is that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Maybe some of these internet speculations will be proved to be correct, in which case mazel to everyone who picked up on it. I just think that we're not going to get clarity without ancient genomes from the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, and the areas around the Caucasus, genomes which the people at these labs may have already examined at least on a cursory level. The lead author here says she's been working on the genomes that are the subject of the paper for a few years.My sentiment too. I love speculation and I'm there with my predictions, but admittedly it is all of low certainty at the moment. There is no other way around, but to wait for more samples to see how balls fall to correct holes.

Fire Haired14
12-05-16, 04:30
@Angela,

Most of what posters online are saying about these ancient genomes will turn out correct. They have the same tools academics do, so they're just as reliable.


My sentiment too. I love speculation and I'm there with my predictions, but admittedly it is all of low certainty at the moment. There is no other way around, but to wait for more samples to see how balls fall to correct holes.

We have a good collection. All the pieces are coming together. We just need ancient genomes from Southern Europe and Baltic/Finland/Russia to get the final details about the genetic origins of Europeans. It's incredible how much we've learned.

LeBrok
12-05-16, 05:28
@Angela,

Most of what posters online are saying about these ancient genomes will turn out correct. They have the same tools academics do, so they're just as reliable.



We have a good collection. All the pieces are coming together. We just need ancient genomes from Southern Europe and Baltic/Finland/Russia to get the final details about the genetic origins of Europeans. It's incredible how much we've learned. Yes, I like the progress and knowledge we achieved already. We also need many Near and Middle Eastern groups, the pure ENF (Natufian I suppose), the Basal Near Eastern - wherever he was hiding, need to check North Africa what was happening there and effect on WHG through Spain, and find pure Semitic one somewhere. Although the last one not important to Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe I guess. Still lots to do.

epoch
12-05-16, 08:47
If the Caucasus acted as a barrier so CHG got ANE on its northern border but Anatolia only got the unmixed version on the southern border maybe? Or some kind of timing thing?

It did have quite an ice pack during LGM, so it wasn't easily traversable.

epoch
12-05-16, 10:20
Darn straight, Epoch. That's exactly what I did. :) If I may be so blunt, if I need medical advice for a serious issue I don't rely on some jamoke on the internet who doesn't post under his real name and whose qualifications I can't check, and who might also be somebody with an undisclosed and unsavory bias.

As one of the jamokes I can assure you you can trust me. I have many, many undisclosed and unsavory biases. But since most of them firmly contradict each other the end result is zero.


I do an exhaustive search of a professional's education and other qualifications. If it's a doctor I find out how many malpractice suits have been filed against him or her. Not that I then just rely on them. I ultimately don't blindly trust anyone. It must be genetic. :) Just as I do here I do my own research and ask tough questions and challenge what they're saying until I'm satisfied I'm getting the best possible advice. It may not make me the ideal patient from their point of view, but that's too damn bad for them; if they don't like the color of my money I can go elsewhere. Of course, every once in a while there is an amateur who surprises everyone, including me...i.e. Gioiello! :)

Really, you can blindly trust me. Have I ever lied to you?


A bald statement that "We also find no evidence for the suggestion that the Mal'ta lineage contributed to Upper Paleolithic Europeans..." doesn't sound like they're waffling to me. It sounds pretty darn definite. However, maybe you're correct and it is because they are being cautious because AG3 is so low coverage. By the same token, if it's so low coverage that scientists are unwilling to use it, then should anyone be drawing such vast conclusions based on it? Has anyone thought to contact the lead author and ask about it? The few times I've done that they've been remarkably forthcoming.

Good idea.


Maybe it is as simple as AG3 indeed being too low coverage. At least we'd know. Also, has it been checked whether the relationship between AG3 and Upper Paleolithic Europeans is necessarily because of shared ANE? Could it be AG3s other ancestry that is shared?

David thinks this disproves that, as Mal'ta did not show any signal in UP Europeans.


So if we want to see if Villabruna has admixture from AG3 that Vestonice lacks, or at least has a lot less of, we do the same...

Chimp AfontovaGora3 Villabruna Vestonice -5.792

Yes, it does. And we can also check if AG3 has admixture from Villabruna that MA1 lacks.

Chimp Villabruna AfontovaGora3 MA1 -0.484


I just don't understand all this certainty when these experiments have so often led to wrong conclusions. I get even more skeptical when I read posts which make it clear there's still uncertainty about which populations should even be plugged into these programs.

Skeptical of what exactly? We are all just bumming around with ideas, data and what not. I, for one, am amusing myself to no end. I don't consider any of this as definitive.


Look, don't get me wrong. All I said is that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Maybe some of these internet speculations will be proved to be correct, in which case mazel to everyone who picked up on it. I just think that we're not going to get clarity without ancient genomes from the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, and the areas around the Caucasus, genomes which the people at these labs may have already examined at least on a cursory level. The lead author here says she's been working on the genomes that are the subject of the paper for a few years.

I think that we aren't at all disagreeing with her. The SI already suggested in section 12 something Mal'ta like in Satsurbia, but mention they can't find a signal for Mal'ta sensu stricto in UP Europeans.

MOESAN
12-05-16, 14:04
my conclusions so far :


the paleolithic European C1a2 is extinct, what is left in Europe today is neolithic C1a2 with origins in the Levant (C-V86)
I seems to have partly dissapeared during neolitisation but expanded again at the onset of the bronze age, while C1a2 remained marginal

PS : Aurignacian C1a2 had higher Neanderthal admixture than I who arrived in Europe 35 ka

Sorry I'm late - What makes you think rare today Y-C1a2 are not descendants from the paleo C1a2; naive question maybe.

bicicleur
12-05-16, 15:29
Sorry I'm late - What makes you think rare today Y-C1a2 are not descendants from the paleo C1a2; naive question maybe.

we have C1a2 from just 3 paleo/meso sites : Goyet,Vestonice and LaBrana, LaBrana did not have C-V86, Vestonice & Goyet, we don't know
we also have a lot of paleo/meso IJ and I in Europe, which seems to have replaced C1a2
we also have Hungarian neolithic C1a2, these have C-V86, as do have - afaik - C1a2 European today
split between LaBrana and V86 is some 43 ka (see YFull)

holderlin
12-05-16, 16:02
:grin::grin::grin: Good one! Sometimes they still use stickies on the bulletin boards, with magic marker lines going every which way...it's a you know what nightmare!

When there's no other scale that's exactly what looking at 50 Dstats is. You'd think with all the computing power we'd be able to generate better graphical models. They all either seem too simple, or I'm just jumping between stats. But maybe I'm just a comp bio noob.

holderlin
12-05-16, 16:08
Look what happens when you place Vestonice16(30ky Central Europe), Villabruna, Kostinki14, Anatolia_Neolithic, CHG, and Afontova Gora3(Younger version of MA1) in a tree with East Asians and Africans and allow there to be 4 or 5 admixture events.

4 admixture events (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNk1Da3ZKMl9tTXc/view?usp=sharing)
5 admixture events. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQZVdLMXowUHd2MHM/view)

4admixture events:
Mixed populations.


PC4
Basal Eurasian
Basal WHG
Basal ANE
East Asian


CHG
33
0
67
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
64
46
0
0


Villabruna
0
66
44
0


Dai/Han
0
0
11
89



5 admixture events


PC5
Basal West Eurasian
Basal WHG
Basal ANE
East Asian
Basal Kostinki


CHG
56
0
44
0
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
72
28
0
0
0


Villabruna
0
57
43
0
0


Dai/Han
0
0
37
63
0


Ust ishim
0
0
0
75
25



5 admixture events with MA1 included.


PC6
Basal West Eurasian
Basal WHG
Very Basal ANE
Basal ANE
East Asian
Basal CHG


CHG
87
0
0
13
0
0


EEF/Anatolia Neolithic
73
27
0
0
0
0


Villabruna
0
62
38
0
0
5


Dai/Han
0
0
0
12
88
0




So Ust Ishim is showing up in Kostenki now?

Angela
12-05-16, 17:28
epoch;480017]As one of the jamokes I can assure you you can trust me. I have many, many undisclosed and unsavory biases. But since most of them firmly contradict each other the end result is zero.

Says you. :) Fwiw I wasn't including you in the "jamoke" or "idiot-jerk" category. You haven't given any such indications as of yet, but time will tell.


Really, you can blindly trust me. Have I ever lied to you?

How could I possibly know? I'm the trust but verify type, and I can't verify in this situation.

“Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade.”
Hamlet

On the other hand, even with friends who have been "tried", fidarsi e' bene, non fidarsi e' meglio, or to trust is good, not to trust is better.

Of course, there are some people whose lack of integrity is so obvious that, as Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, the prudent stance is to assume that everything they say is a lie, and that includes "a" and "the".


Good idea.


Yes, I generally find it's a good idea to ask for directions when I'm lost. I do realize men have more of an issue with this. :)


We are all just bumming around with ideas, data and what not. I, for one, am amusing myself to no end. I don't consider any of this as definitive.


I'm glad to hear it. Again, I wasn't including you in my little mini rant.

As far as the substance goes, given the conclusions of the paper and the evidence available, I don't see any proof that there is Mal'ta in Villabruna, or that AG3 admixed into Villabruna. I still think, if anyone is interested in such speculations, as I did a few days ago, that there is probably some West Eurasian group similar to or perhaps parallel to the non-Basal part of Kotias that may have admixed into Villabruna, or created Villabruna. I don't know whether they were centered in the Balkans-Italy, or Anatolia, or near the Black Sea. Any back migration later into Anatolia is another issue.

epoch
12-05-16, 19:54
“Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade.”
Hamlet


The opposite of that can be found in Jackson Browne's "Cocaine (Rehab version)":



Sittin' here thinking 'bout back when
Everybody I knew, was my best friend




As far as the substance goes, given the conclusions of the paper and the evidence available, I don't see any proof that there is Mal'ta in Villabruna, or that AG3 admixed into Villabruna. I still think, if anyone is interested in such speculations, as I did a few days ago, that there is probably some West Eurasian group similar to or perhaps parallel to the non-Basal part of Kotias that may have admixed into Villabruna, or created Villabruna. I don't know whether they were centered in the Balkans-Italy, or Anatolia, or near the Black Sea. Any back migration later into Anatolia is another issue.

The biggest thing that causes me to think that the origin of WHG can't really be situated very far east is that a clear WHG signal is found in the Red Lady of El Miron and she lived before the ice retreated, i.e. during LGM. She is modeled as one third WHG, verily not a small amount, so that must have been in the neighbourhood at the time. That, in my humble vision, basically excludes massive migrations for far away, especially as the Alps were essentially an ice cap.

And if that is the case, then the growing affinity with others (Han, American, perhaps even Middle Eastern) must have been brought by admixture. And since the paper clearly state they modeled WHG as a three admixture population I tend to think of the one population can bring such divers affinity: ANE.

(EDIT: If three populations admixted to WHG, and one is related to a Belgian Aurignacian, and we would consider another from around Italy, the only good option for the rising admixture is that it all comes from one population. The best candidate would be something that came from the mammoth steppe, as that provides cause and opportunity.)

Apart from that, this whole ancient DNA thing showed one thing. Despite half a century of archaeological rethinking it turns out that cultures actually are migrations, and the Epigravettian seriously looks like an Italian culture.

My guess the first WHG is paglicci71 (mtDNA U5b2b). Bloody shame they only got 4000 SNP's.

MOESAN
12-05-16, 20:34
we have C1a2 from just 3 paleo/meso sites : Goyet,Vestonice and LaBrana, LaBrana did not have C-V86, Vestonice & Goyet, we don't know
we also have a lot of paleo/meso IJ and I in Europe, which seems to have replaced C1a2
we also have Hungarian neolithic C1a2, these have C-V86, as do have - afaik - C1a2 European today
split between LaBrana and V86 is some 43 ka (see YFull)


Thanks for kind answer
Your reasoning has some solidity but as you say we don't know concerningVestonice and Goyet. All the way 3 Y-DNA is a bit scarce. And a "dead" branch does not prove the kind of population which had it has disappeared, concerning auDNA. in a clan someones with upstream or different downstream (compared to the root) Y-haplo's can live a long time side by side in the same population.
But I agree with you that this look like a dead end in the case of La Brana

MOESAN
12-05-16, 20:53
I 've no merit here but i copy & paste some thoughts of "For what they were we are". Surely some words could have some value?


MAJU


I must also mention that previous studies found mostly I2 in Epipaleolithic samples, excepted La Braña, which carried C* (maybe some sort of C1 but unconfirmed). R1a1* was found in Karelia as well.


Synthesis: I and R1b1, the most common lineages of Europe West of the Elbe, only show up after the Last Glacial Maximum, at least as far as we know. I probably coalesced in the subcontinent, the issue of where R1b, the most common modern patrlineage of Western Europe, coalesced and how it expanded remains open but the Villabruna data point defines a terminus ante quem for this haplogroup, which MUST be older than 14,000 years necessarily, discarding some of the most outrageous recentist chronologies altogether. The great initial diversity of CT-derived lineages suffered bottlenecks with the LGM and probably also later, pruning most of them (although rare instances of some of those lines such as F* or C1 are still found among modern Europeans).



Mitochondrial DNA


Lots of interesting stuff in this issue of the matrilineages, but also some strange issues in the data that do raise eyebrows quite a bit. The full dataset is in the supplemental materials section 2.


However they do not provide clear data on how the tests were performed, just a generic listing. This is very problematic, notably when they state that El Mirón is U5b, when Hervella (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/04/19-ka-bp-old-mtdna-h-from-cantabria.html) (with more clear methodology) classified her as H just a year ago. Another similar issue is the apparent H7 (H7a1?) in Vestonice 14, which is first classified as "damaged" (based apparently on X-chr contamination, the CI for H7 is 0.9-1) and then listed as "U" in the extended table 1, with no reasoning whatsoever for the change.
Rumor is already around about a mysterious H-hater "black hand" being at play here. I can't neither confirm nor reject it but I do think that the authors should explain themselves more clearly on this most important matter, which is beginning to be more than just annoying, fueling conspiracy theories and what-not.


Another interesting issue is a possible U6 in Muierii (Gravettian Romania, CI 0.88-0.97), labeled as "damaged" again and refurbished as mere amorphous "U". This is a very important issue and is directly related with the presence of mtDNA H in Paleolithic Europe and the origin of these lineages in North Africa.


Northwestern Africa (not counting Cyrenaica) did not experience any sort of Upper Paleolithic (UP) until c. 22 Ka BP, when a new culture of very likely Iberian Solutrean affinity, the Iberomaurusian or Oranian expanded from Taforalt (Arif, North Morocco). In my understanding this is the most likely origin of mtDNA H (H*, H1, H3, H4 and H7) in North Africa and maybe also of mtDNA V, and also should be related to the bicontinental distribution of mtDNA U6 (in North Africa but also and quite diversely in Iberia) and the surely related distribution of Y-DNA E1b-M81.


While it's easy to imagine mtDNA H (and maybe also V) migrating from Europe to North Africa in this context, less clear has been so far the issue of U6 origins: as U-derived lineage it must ultimately derive from the early UP populations of West Asia but then again the first UP in the region must have arrived from SW Europe in the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) period. So something I've been wondering all this time, particularly since the crucial, rare and basal, U6c lineage was discovered to exist not just in Morocco but also in Andalusia, is if U6 actually arrived to NW Africa from Europe and not, as is often assumed, vice-versa.
So you will understand how this issue of properly identifying ancient mtDNA H and U6 lineages is important not only for the understanding of the roots of Europeans but also for those of North Africans. There are interests at play here because many geneticists have made a personal issue of "molecular clock" age estimates (whose actual scientific, empirical, value is often close to zero but are "sold" as "scientific" instead) and also of exaggerating the West Asian Neolithic influence in Europe beyond reason, leading to true quasi-ideological "DNA wars" that are totally out of place.


Please, let's be serious: there is no room for childish games on these matters, you guys and gals are grown ups with a PhD!



Otherwise a lot of U (as usual: U*, U5, U2), notable is U8c (CI 0.91-1 but declared "damaged" in spite of extremely low X-chr contamination), which, if confirmed, could offer clues about the origins of the rare Italo-Jordanian U8c (and indirectly about Basque U8a and the quite common but surely Neolithic haplogroup K). Also discarded are several samples that initially produced lineages under macro-haplogroup M, however Goyet Q116-1 was labeled as "pass" with this lineage. So there is Paleoeuropean M, or at least there was once upon a time, this one beyond any doubt.
So you will understand how this issue of properly identifying ancient mtDNA H and U6 lineages is important not only for the understanding of the roots of Europeans but also for those of North Africans. There are interests at play here because many geneticists have made a personal issue of "molecular clock" age estimates (whose actual scientific, empirical, value is often close to zero but are "sold" as "scientific" instead) and also of exaggerating the West Asian Neolithic influence in Europe beyond reason, leading to true quasi-ideological "DNA wars" that are totally out of place.


Please, let's be serious: there is no room for childish games on these matters, you guys and gals are grown ups with a PhD!



Otherwise a lot of U (as usual: U*, U5, U2), notable is U8c (CI 0.91-1 but declared "damaged" in spite of extremely low X-chr contamination), which, if confirmed, could offer clues about the origins of the rare Italo-Jordanian U8c (and indirectly about Basque U8a and the quite common but surely Neolithic haplogroup K). Also discarded are several samples that initially produced lineages under macro-haplogroup M, however Goyet Q116-1 was labeled as "pass" with this lineage. So there is Paleoeuropean M, or at least there was once upon a time, this one beyond any doubt.

So you will understand how this issue of properly identifying ancient mtDNA H and U6 lineages is important not only for the understanding of the roots of Europeans but also for those of North Africans. There are interests at play here because many geneticists have made a personal issue of "molecular clock" age estimates (whose actual scientific, empirical, value is often close to zero but are "sold" as "scientific" instead) and also of exaggerating the West Asian Neolithic influence in Europe beyond reason, leading to true quasi-ideological "DNA wars" that are totally out of place.


Please, let's be serious: there is no room for childish games on these matters, you guys and gals are grown ups with a PhD!



Otherwise a lot of U (as usual: U*, U5, U2), notable is U8c (CI 0.91-1 but declared "damaged" in spite of extremely low X-chr contamination), which, if confirmed, could offer clues about the origins of the rare Italo-Jordanian U8c (and indirectly about Basque U8a and the quite common but surely Neolithic haplogroup K). Also discarded are several samples that initially produced lineages under macro-haplogroup M, however Goyet Q116-1 was labeled as "pass" with this lineage. So there is Paleoeuropean M, or at least there was once upon a time, this one beyond any doubt.

;;; AUdna
First of all it is clear that all or most Paleoeuropeans form a unique macro-cluster (orange shaded) to the exclusion of the Mal'ta and Satsurbilia clusters and also of Early Neolithic Stuttgart (~3/4 West Asian). This macro-cluster is comparable in affinity to that of Han-Dai-Karitiana, so even the word "race" can be used. Some people have argued that "there was no Europe" back then, because the Bosporus was an isthmus, but from the genetic data it seems clear that Europe was more distinctive then than it is now, after the Neolithic massive admixture event that spanned from Europe to India with West Asian centrality.


Then we see an older "Gravettian" or blue or Vestonice cluster, that is clearly pre-LGM and that does not include however peripheral Gravettians such as Mal'ta, Kostenki or Goyet Q53-1.


But the most interesting feature is that two different populations existed at the end of the Paleolithic period: thegreen one (El Mirón) is strictly Magdalenian and vanishes with the Epipaleolithic (at least for this sample, which has mayor gaps), instead the red one (Villabruna or WHG) was initially less common in Magdalenian and spans beyond its cultural borders into Epigravettian Italy too, however it becomes the only thing around in the Epipaleolithic, suggesting the expansion of a single population in that late period, maybe with the geometric microlithism which precedes in most areas the arrival of Neolithic and may well have expanded from France.







I must also mention that previous studies found mostly I2 in Epipaleolithic samples, excepted La Braña, which carried C* (maybe some sort of C1 but unconfirmed). R1a1* was found in Karelia as well.


Synthesis: I and R1b1, the most common lineages of Europe West of the Elbe, only show up after the Last Glacial Maximum, at least as far as we know. I probably coalesced in the subcontinent, the issue of where R1b, the most common modern patrlineage of Western Europe, coalesced and how it expanded remains open but the Villabruna data point defines a terminus ante quem for this haplogroup, which MUST be older than 14,000 years necessarily, discarding some of the most outrageous recentist chronologies altogether. The great initial diversity of CT-derived lineages suffered bottlenecks with the LGM and probably also later, pruning most of them (although rare instances of some of those lines such as F* or C1 are still found among modern Europeans).



Mitochondrial DNA


Lots of interesting stuff in this issue of the matrilineages, but also some strange issues in the data that do raise eyebrows quite a bit. The full dataset is in the supplemental materials section 2.


However they do not provide clear data on how the tests were performed, just a generic listing. This is very problematic, notably when they state that El Mirón is U5b, when Hervella (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/04/19-ka-bp-old-mtdna-h-from-cantabria.html) (with more clear methodology) classified her as H just a year ago. Another similar issue is the apparent H7 (H7a1?) in Vestonice 14, which is first classified as "damaged" (based apparently on X-chr contamination, the CI for H7 is 0.9-1) and then listed as "U" in the extended table 1, with no reasoning whatsoever for the change.

epoch
12-05-16, 21:19
I 've no merit here but i copy & paste some thoughts of "For what they were we are". Surely some words could have some value?




Synthesis: I and R1b1, the most common lineages of Europe West of the Elbe, only show up after the Last Glacial Maximum, at least as far as we know.



Paglicci133, 34.500-31.000 years old, is Y-DNA I, according to the paper.

Angela
13-05-16, 03:20
Epoch:The biggest thing that causes me to think that the origin of WHG can't really be situated very far east is that a clear WHG signal is found in the Red Lady of El Miron and she lived before the ice retreated, i.e. during LGM. She is modeled as one third WHG, verily not a small amount, so that must have been in the neighbourhood at the time. That, in my humble vision, basically excludes massive migrations for far away, especially as the Alps were essentially an ice cap.

WHG being in El Miron so early would definitely be important in trying to piece together what happened. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at when you say the source population couldn't have been very far to the east or about the Alps being in the way. Do you mean it couldn't have been as far as the Ukraine? Or it couldn't have been as far to the southeast as Anatolia? Or do you mean the center of gravity for this "old" El Miron age WHG population was north of the Alps in central Europe?

Paleolithic Europe has never been my forte, so excuse any ignorance here. If Villabruna people admixed into El Miron, couldn't the Villabruna people or their ancestors have been in Italy from before that time, which was during, as you say, the LGM, and couldn't they have followed the coast route west? Is the following map accurate to your knowledge?
http://www.dandebat.dk/images/1483p.jpg

One of the biggest Paleolithic sites in Italy is at Arene Candide not far from me on the Ligurian coast. The way I recall it being described to me is that there may well have been a passage from Italy to France along the sea, but that rising sea levels may have hidden all traces of it and of other sites.

This is Arena Candide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arene_Candide

I wonder if the bones of the 23,500 year old "Il Principe" (they could just as well call him figlio di papa') are too contaminated by all the handling to be suitable for testing. The culture is described as Gravettian.

This is information on the site and the diet (about 25% of protein from the Mediterranean).
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/ARK1010/v10/undervisningsmateriale/The%20Gravettian%20burial%20known%20as%20the%20Pri nce.pdf

This is a whole list of papers on the remains and the artifacts, here labeled Epigravettian.
http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Arene_Candide

I've never understood why there's no interest in it in the Anglosphere.



And if that is the case, then the growing affinity with others (Han, American, perhaps even Middle Eastern) must have been brought by admixture. And since the paper clearly state they modeled WHG as a three admixture population I tend to think of the one population can bring such divers affinity: ANE. (EDIT: If three populations admixed to WHG, and one is related to a Belgian Aurignacian, and we would consider another from around Italy, the only good option for the rising admixture is that it all comes from one population. The best candidate would be something that came from the mammoth steppe, as that provides cause and opportunity.)

WHG weren't mammoth hunters, though, to the best of my recollection. Weren't they small game hunters and fishermen? Isn't that what all their tool assemblages show? Some of them were quite sedentary, as they were at the Danube Gates. Or are you saying that during the LGM a group followed the mammoth into Italy and when the climate changed and the mammoth died out they turned to other game and technology? Did the mammoths get all the way down to northern Italy, though? Was there unbroken suitable terrain all the way from beyond the Urals to Italy? I thought that north eastern area now covered by the Adriatic was marsh and swamp then, or is that later? Was it different during the LGM? The map above says grasslands and forest for southern Italy, so small game hunters and fishermen make sense, but doesn't show anything about that northern area. Maybe someone else knows.


Apart from that, this whole ancient DNA thing showed one thing. Despite half a century of archaeological rethinking it turns out that cultures actually are migrations, and the Epigravettian seriously looks like an Italian culture.

I hate to always be quibbling, but yes and no. According to the authors there's "Gravettian" cultural influence to some extent in Mal'ta (I think they pointed to the female figurines), but they maintain population movement didn't bring it. Then there's always pesky Remedello to explain and even Baden didn't show too much steppe genetic intrusion did it, or have I lost track of that discussion?


My guess the first WHG is paglicci71 (mtDNA U5b2b). Bloody shame they only got 4000 SNP's.
Seems like a good bet.

LeBrok
13-05-16, 03:45
[/B]

WHG weren't mammoth hunters, though, to the best of my recollection. Weren't they small game hunters and fishermen? Isn't that what all their tool assemblages show? Some of them were quite sedentary, as they were at the Danube Gates. Or are you saying that during the LGM a group followed the mammoth into Italy and when the climate changed and the mammoth died out they turned to other game and technology? Did the mammoths get all the way down to northern Italy, though? Was there unbroken suitable terrain all the way from beyond the Urals to Italy? I thought that north eastern area now covered by the Adriatic was marsh and swamp then, or is that later? Was it different during the LGM? The map above says grasslands and forest for southern Italy, so small game hunters and fishermen make sense, but doesn't show anything about that northern area. Maybe someone else knows.
I think you are right, and I also subscribe to notion that WHG was more of sedentary kind of HGs. After LGM and into warming phase, Europe is getting more forested and filling other kind of game animals, notably deer and boar. They didn't need to follow herds of animals like it happened in the steppe or tundra scenario. Instead they could stay put hunting local fauna and fishing too.
Looking at the map, one of refugium could have been Sicily, not mentioning coast of Africa so close by. So many places to hide and survive. Who knows, maybe the wondered to Anatolia relatively late?

Greying Wanderer
13-05-16, 05:38
Angela


WHG weren't mammoth hunters, though, to the best of my recollection. Weren't they small game hunters and fishermen? Isn't that what all their tool assemblages show? Some of them were quite sedentary, as they were at the Danube Gates.

I think your points about WHG are all correct. The question for me is if there was a north-south split between WHG and mammoth dudes (ANE?) what would the mammoth dudes (or at least some of them) do *after* their mammoth went extinct?

One possibility would be drift south and merge with WHG and this *might* explain Villabruna.

No doubt there are other possible explanations.

#

edit:


This is Arena Candide:

cool link

LeBrok
13-05-16, 06:28
Angela



I think your points about WHG are all correct. The question for me is if there was a north-south split between WHG and mammoth dudes (ANE?) what would the mammoth dudes (or at least some of them) do *after* their mammoth went extinct?

One possibility would be drift south and merge with WHG and this *might* explain Villabruna.

No doubt there are other possible explanations.

#

edit:



[/B]cool link
If I may. North hunters went mostly extinct with their pray. That's why WHG is mostly distinct with only some admixtures from previous and older HGs.

MOESAN
13-05-16, 10:35
always copy and paste

EUROGENES here (no time to discuss today): could make some sense?

Thursday, May 12, 2016Following the mammoth herds? (http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2016/05/following-mammoth-herds.html)


The recent Qiaomei Fu et al. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/the-genetic-history-of-ice-age-europe.html) paper on the population genomics of Ice Age Europe was a fascinating read, but its sampling strategy left a big blind spot: Eastern Europe 24-34 kyr BP. Check out what happens to the maternal lineages of Eastern European mammoths at this time.


https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zB3z0ezpijE/VzQhghDYhHI/AAAAAAAAEc4/cYbHjQKpnao3XACBn-uBE9n8kIGW6SKIwCLcB/s404/woolly_mammoth_migration_small.png (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aXMOqM8W2to/VzQhRfVKUgI/AAAAAAAAEc0/WLJO_Di3DH8EESFzeAp7ocP9TzPci2OoACLcB/s879/woolly_mammoth_migration.png)

Basically, they're replaced by lineages native to North America. During the 14-24 kyr BP period, the rest of the European mammoth population is also affected.

Of course, this is also precisely the period when the so called Villabruna hunter-gatherer cluster appears in Central Europe, probably as a result of mixture between the remnants of post-Ice Age Europeans and a population relatively closely related to Caucasus and Siberian hunter-gatherers (see post and discussion here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html)). Perhaps mammoth hunters?

No wonder then, that this is also the time when we see the first appearance of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1 in Europe; more precisely R1b1, in the ~14 kyr cal BP genome from Villabruna, northeast Italy, that defines the Villabruna cluster. After all, R is the sister clade of Q, the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup in many parts of North Asia and the Americas.

epoch
13-05-16, 10:43
WHG being in El Miron so early would definitely be important in trying to piece together what happened. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at when you say the source population couldn't have been very far to the east or about the Alps being in the way. Do you mean it couldn't have been as far as the Ukraine? Or it couldn't have been as far to the southeast as Anatolia? Or do you mean the center of gravity for this "old" El Miron age WHG population was north of the Alps in central Europe?

As Gravettian-Danubian points out: It hardly impossible to be anything Anatolian:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9185&d=1462582713 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9185&d=1462582713)
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7107-Ice-Age-Europe-Some-stats-and-opinions&p=155609&viewfull=1#post155609


Paleolithic Europe has never been my forte, so excuse any ignorance here. If Villabruna people admixed into El Miron, couldn't the Villabruna people or their ancestors have been in Italy from before that time, which was during, as you say, the LGM, and couldn't they have followed the coast route west? Is the following map accurate to your knowledge?
http://www.dandebat.dk/images/1483p.jpg


Combine that map with this, and you'll get the idea of what routes are suitable. The Vestonice and Pavlov samples all come from the so called Moravian Corridor.

http://abload.de/img/a1nspa6.jpg


One of the biggest Paleolithic sites in Italy is at Arene Candide not far from me on the Ligurian coast. The way I recall it being described to me is that there may well have been a passage from Italy to France along the sea, but that rising sea levels may have hidden all traces of it and of other sites.

This is Arena Candide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arene_Candide

I wonder if the bones of the 23,500 year old "Il Principe" (they could just as well call him figlio di papa') are too contaminated by all the handling to be suitable for testing. The culture is described as Gravettian.

This is information on the site and the diet (about 25% of protein from the Mediterranean).
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/ARK1010/v10/undervisningsmateriale/The%20Gravettian%20burial%20known%20as%20the%20Pri nce.pdf

This is a whole list of papers on the remains and the artifacts, here labeled Epigravettian.
http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Arene_Candide

I've never understood why there's no interest in it in the Anglosphere.

Well, this paper certainly will change that. And yes, that looks like a very interesting site.



WHG weren't mammoth hunters, though, to the best of my recollection. Weren't they small game hunters and fishermen? Isn't that what all their tool assemblages show?


Yes. Way into the Neolithic these peoples, that lived alongside the LBK cultures, remained fishermen.



Some of them were quite sedentary, as they were at the Danube Gates. Or are you saying that during the LGM a group followed the mammoth into Italy and when the climate changed and the mammoth died out they turned to other game and technology?

I don't know. The Han affinity/Y-DNA R1b/mtDNA R3 could have come that way as well.


Did the mammoths get all the way down to northern Italy, though?

Certainly not. David has a post up on Mammoths that is quite interesting and has maps. Furthermore, see the link above: Italy probably was unreachable

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/following-mammoth-herds.html


Was there unbroken suitable terrain all the way from beyond the Urals to Italy?

No, but there was at one point, before LGM, unbroken suitable terrain for mammoths from France all the way to Alaska.


I thought that north eastern area now covered by the Adriatic was marsh and swamp then, or is that later? Was it different during the LGM? The map above says grasslands and forest for southern Italy, so small game hunters and fishermen make sense, but doesn't show anything about that northern area. Maybe someone else knows.

Gravettian-Danubian said similar things. I think it is exactly why mesolithic HGs were so attached to fishing and shellfish. There are quite a number of mesolithic shell middens in Europe.




I hate to always be quibbling, but yes and no. According to the authors there's "Gravettian" cultural influence to some extent in Mal'ta (I think they pointed to the female figurines), but they maintain population movement didn't bring it. Then there's always pesky Remedello to explain and even Baden didn't show too much steppe genetic intrusion did it, or have I lost track of that discussion?


There are almost no absolutes in human history. But the utter and complete rehabilitation of the culture-means-people idea can hardly be denied. You are right though that this still doesn't mean it to be always the case.

The majority of Mal'ta figurines don't exactly look like European Venus-figurines, even if some are quite alike. Some actually look slightly more like Ket dolls, but that is just me. (Ket are one of the Siberian groups with the highest ANE. You are almost inclined to believe in continuity here, even if it is 24.000 year)

http://donsmaps.com/malta.html
https://www.uaf.edu/files/anlc/2011ketlandscape.pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Dolls_of_the_Ket_people.jpg

epoch
13-05-16, 10:55
If I may. North hunters went mostly extinct with their pray. That's why WHG is mostly distinct with only some admixtures from previous and older HGs.

We are talking about a very, very small amount of people. It could very well have been that they didn't expand the same way Magdalenians did. There is a pocket of U8a in Southwest France, where the IBD map of Vestonice also seems to have a minor hotspot.

http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-7-124 <- Check the Var region


http://s018.radikal.ru/i502/1605/e9/01c9b6539c74.png

Rethel
13-05-16, 13:10
I hate to always be quibbling, but yes and no. According to the authors there's "Gravettian" cultural influence to some extent in Mal'ta (I think they pointed to the female figurines), but they maintain population movement didn't bring it. Then there's always pesky Remedello to explain and even Baden didn't show too much steppe genetic intrusion did it, or have I lost track of that discussion?

Malta's guy himself is a hybrid.
Mammoths hunters were there, where were mammoths.
So they could travell (as nomads) so it should be expected
that R1 can be find everywhere between Galicia and Manjuria
in paleolithic times. That means also, that they could have contacts
with Gravettians during their migrations across Eurasia.

http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/blog/[nid]/1-s2.0-S1040618215002086-gr1ad.jpg


I think you are right, and I also subscribe to notion that WHG was more of sedentary kind of HGs.

Can you dicribed which populations were mammoth's hunters and which were not, and why?


No wonder then, that this is also the time when we see the first appearance of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1 in Europe; more precisely R1b1, in the ~14 kyr cal BP genome from Villabruna, northeast Italy, that defines the Villabruna cluster. After all, R is the sister clade of Q, the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup in many parts of North Asia and the Americas.

:smile:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

bicicleur
13-05-16, 13:51
Malta's guy himself is a hybrid.
Mammoths hunters were there, where were mammoths.
So they could travell (as nomads) so it should be expected
that R1 can be find everywhere between Galicia and Manjuria
in paleolithic times. That means also, that they could have contacts
with Gravettians during their migrations across Eurasia.

http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/blog/[nid]/1-s2.0-S1040618215002086-gr1ad.jpg



Can you dicribed which populations were mammoth's hunters and which were not, and why?



:smile:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

there is very little - not to say none - archeological evidence of human presence in western Siberia before LGM
the Usht-Ishim bone found is an exception
I doubt there was any exchange of human DNA between the Altaï area and Europe before LGM
this study now seems to confirm that
from earlier studies we know there was exchange during mesolithic
during LGM travelling across western Siberia was impossible for humans and I suspect even for Mammoths, while south of the icecaps there was permafrost not allowing any plants to grow on which mammoths could feed
there was a corridor though along the northern mountain slopes between the Hindu Kush and the Altaï Mountains which was frequently used by paleolithic men

in western Europe mammoths went extinct allread during early Magdalenean, when the first huters started turining north

LeBrok
13-05-16, 15:55
We are talking about a very, very small amount of people. It could very well have been that they didn't expand the same way Magdalenians did. There is a pocket of U8a in Southwest France, where the IBD map of Vestonice also seems to have a minor hotspot.
Certainly a higher population ratio of WHG to pre LGM populations HGs could explain the final "product". Also, genetic game of genomic adaptation and selection can do this job too. WHG genome could have been positively selected as more suitable to post glacial scenario, even if initial mixing events were 50/50. Same way Neanderthal genome seems to be weeded out with time passing by.

LeBrok
13-05-16, 15:58
Can you dicribed which populations were mammoth's hunters and which were not, and why?


Post 214 should have been self-explanatory, check post 218 too.

epoch
13-05-16, 16:39
Certainly a higher population ratio of WHG to pre LGM populations HGs could explain the final "product". Also, genetic game of genomic adaptation and selection can do this job too. WHG genome could have been positively selected as more suitable to post glacial scenario, even if initial mixing events were 50/50. Same way Neanderthal genome seems to be weeded out with time passing by.

Yes. And there is even a paper out one that.
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

However, the amount of genes, SNP's and what not that don't do a thing is far larger than coding genes, so I gather this will have only a tiny effect, if visible at all.

epoch
13-05-16, 17:15
there is very little - not to say none - archeological evidence of human presence in western Siberia before LGM
the Usht-Ishim bone found is an exception
I doubt there was any exchange of human DNA between the Altaï area and Europe before LGM
this study now seems to confirm that
from earlier studies we know there was exchange during mesolithic
during LGM travelling across western Siberia was impossible for humans and I suspect even for Mammoths, while south of the icecaps there was permafrost not allowing any plants to grow on which mammoths could feed
there was a corridor though along the northern mountain slopes between the Hindu Kush and the Altaï Mountains which was frequently used by paleolithic men

in western Europe mammoths went extinct allread during early Magdalenean, when the first huters started turining north


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago


When they dated the remains, the researchers got another surprise: The mammoth died 45,000 years ago. That means that humans lived in the Arctic more than 10,000 years earlier than scientists believed, according to a new study.

Angela
14-05-16, 17:41
@Epoch,

I took a look at the mammoth paper to which Moesan provided a link, and indeed up until around 14,000 YBP, the approximate date of the Villabruna man, there were mammoths still in Europe, although only north of the Alps in central Europe and far to the east on the steppe. Where there were mammoths there were probably mammoth hunters. However, why, absent ancient dna from them, would we assume that they were the same as the Villabrunians?

Let's leave aside for now the fact that the authors of the paper don't see any indication of Mal'ta type gene flow into the Villabrunians.

Looking just at the culture, at approximately the same time that the mammoths died out didn't the Villabrunians already have a very different culture, one adapted to a different climate and different flora and fauna?
The epigravettian in northeastern Italy is dated to 18,000 YBP.

Isn't it the case that only when the climate changed in the north did they themselves move north? Upon reaching those areas they might have encountered some survivors of the prior cultures. Couldn't that be the reason that the hunter-gatherers who show East Asian admixture are in the north?

In terms of Italy itself, there are Aurignacian sites, and Gravettian sites (Bilancino in Toscana is dated to 29,000 to 20,000 YBP)and the conventional wisdom has been that they populated Italy from north to south. I’m not sure that I think that’s necessarily true any longer. Even if it is, that’s no evidence that the same was true of the Villabrunians.

It seems to me that the evidence points to new people, adapted to a new culture, moving from south to north, whether they are the result of admixture or not.

The skeletal features of these Villabrunians/WHGs are quite different from those of the Aurignacians/Gravettians who preceded them according to the researchers who actually examined the remains, more “modern” looking, and indeed from the remains of Mal'ta, who the anthropologists who examined those remains claimed had some "Mongoloid" features. There were howls of denial all over some blogs, but the ancient dna now shows that indeed the anthropologists may have been onto something because there is definitely East Asian affinity in Mal'ta, not to mention the fact that EDAR showed up in the SHG. Indeed, according to this paper, if I'm remembering it correctly, the Mal'ta lineage isn't even considered West Eurasian any longer is it? I practically got virtually attacked for suggesting such a thing when the Lazaridis paper came out. Perhaps, as Rethel mentioned upthread Mal'ta himself is actually a mix of ENA with some more western lineage.

It would certainly help if they tested these earlier remains from Italy.

Not that I know any more than anyone else where that source is actually located. I’m just brainstorming here. Given that their culture, technology, was adapted to southern refugia, somewhere around the Mediterranean and the Black Seas is probably a good bet. So, perhaps indeed Italy, or areas around the Crimea, or parts of Anatolia, despite the fact that Gravetto-Danubian seems to feel there weren't many settlements there. The same was said of Italy, let's not forget.

Everyone had me convinced that Italy was virtually uninhabited in the Paleolithic. Yet there is Villabruna, and the Arene Candide and Pagliacci. Italy and Anatolia and the Balkans have been densely inhabited for millennia. Civilization lies on top of civilization. We can't plow up a field without hitting Roman and Etruscan remains, and in my area, the older statue stele. Who knows what's buried even further down. In Fivizzano about a half hour from where I was born there are natural grottoes and caverns. I’ve seen dates of 57,000 to 29,000 years ago for some of the area, with remains of dhole and leopards, cave bears, wolves and foxes. Lithic assemblages have been found from the Mousterian, but there are some things from the Neolithic as well. The excavations were sporadically and haphazardly done.It may be that it has been so continuously used that it won’t provide very clear answers, but somebody should give it a shot.

(Guido Barbujani, when he was hosting the 2014 Evolution conference in Firenze, took some of the participants to visit the Equi grottoes, and gives an overview here on pages 11-14. There are also come great pictures.
http://eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE_3_2014_Florence.pdf)

As to how Villabruna like people might have made it to northern Iberia, the modern topographical map you posted gives a slightly wrong impression, I think. This is my backyard, and I’ve hiked this area all my life, and I’m no mountain climber. It’s perfectly normal to hike from Portovenere near LaSpezia to Riomaggiore in the Cinque Terre (5 hours), from there to Monte Rosso al Mare (3 hours), and from there to Levanto in three more hours, and so on to Finale Ligure, near which we find the Arene Candide site. From there it’s a short distance to what is now the French Riviera. (The times I’ve given are on more modern man-made trails-I just posted a video on the travel section- so traversing the trails further inland would be longer, although you can also use the small river valleys.)
http://www.maphill.com/italy/liguria/detailed-maps/terrain-map/

Even the highest points of the Ligurian Alps can be reached relatively easily because the entire area is criss-crossed by small rivers and their valleys, as this guide explains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTnzXoXF4s

Regardless, in the LGM, while it was a hell of a lot colder, there was a narrow coastal strip.
7736

Fire Haired14
15-05-16, 04:12
from the remains of Mal'ta, who the anthropologists who examined those remains claimed had some "Mongoloid" features. There were howls of denial all over some blogs, but the ancient dna now shows that indeed the anthropologists may have been onto something because there is definitely East Asian affinity in Mal'ta, not to mention the fact that EDAR showed up in the SHG. Indeed, according to this paper, if I'm remembering it correctly, the Mal'ta lineage isn't even considered West Eurasian any longer is it? I practically got virtually attacked for suggesting such a thing when the Lazaridis paper came out. Perhaps, as Rethel mentioned upthread Mal'ta himself is actually a mix of ENA with some more western lineage.

MA1 having East Asian affinity would be news to me. If he does it's very small. Paleolithic Europeans form a clade as opposed to him, but he's still apart of the big family they are, he's like their cousin. I doubt Mal'ta's people would be classified as having European features because I would guess Euro or West Eurasian specific features come from much more specific ancestors like WHG, Basal Eurasian/UHG hyprid, etc. MA1's people being non-Caucasian might be wrongly classified as East Asian. There's no way MA1's people looked Eastern Asian, no way at all.

LeBrok
15-05-16, 05:31
@Epoch,


Everyone had me convinced that Italy was virtually uninhabited in the Paleolithic. Yet there is Villabruna, and the Arene Candide and Pagliacci. Italy and Anatolia and the Balkans have been densely inhabited for millennia. Civilization lies on top of civilization. We can't plow up a field without hitting Roman and Etruscan remains, and in my area, the older statue stele. Who knows what's buried even further down. In Fivizzano about a half hour from where I was born there are natural grottoes and caverns. I’ve seen dates of 57,000 to 29,000 years ago for some of the area, with remains of dhole and leopards, cave bears, wolves and foxes. Lithic assemblages have been found from the Mousterian, but there are some things from the Neolithic as well. The excavations were sporadically and haphazardly done.It may be that it has been so continuously used that it won’t provide very clear answers, but somebody should give it a shot.

I always found it unbelievable too, together with uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited Balkans.

epoch
15-05-16, 09:27
@Epoch,

I took a look at the mammoth paper to which Moesan provided a link, and indeed up until around 14,000 YBP, the approximate date of the Villabruna man, there were mammoths still in Europe, although only north of the Alps in central Europe and far to the east on the steppe. Where there were mammoths there were probably mammoth hunters. However, why, absent ancient dna from them, would we assume that they were the same as the Villabrunians?

The idea was that the mammoth connection would serve as a route for the perceived ANE/Han like admixture in proto-Villabruna, rather than Villabruna proper. But at David more oddities pop up:

Chimp Mbuti Hungary_HG Muierii2 -0.0272 -2.402
Chimp Mbuti Hungary_HG Paglicci133 -0.0273 -2.329
Chimp Mbuti Hungary_HG Pavlov1 -0.0097 -0.695
Chimp Mbuti Hungary_HG Vestonice16 -0.017 -3.736

and

Chimp Mbuti Vestonice16 Ust_Ishim -0.0045 -1.041 613349
Chimp Mbuti Villabruna Ust_Ishim -0.0116 -2.978 734472

and

Chimp Yoruba Vestonice16 Ust_Ishim -0.0077 -1.717 613349
Chimp Yoruba Villabruna Ust_Ishim -0.0152 -3.83 734472

So it looks like Villabruna likes everything post-LGM (as AG3 is) over pre-LGM (as Mal'ta is).


Let's leave aside for now the fact that the authors of the paper don't see any indication of Mal'ta type gene flow into the Villabrunians.

Looking just at the culture, at approximately the same time that the mammoths died out didn't the Villabrunians already have a very different culture, one adapted to a different climate and different flora and fauna?
The epigravettian in northeastern Italy is dated to 18,000 YBP.

Isn't it the case that only when the climate changed in the north did they themselves move north? Upon reaching those areas they might have encountered some survivors of the prior cultures. Couldn't that be the reason that the hunter-gatherers who show East Asian admixture are in the north?

In terms of Italy itself, there are Aurignacian sites, and Gravettian sites (Bilancino in Toscana is dated to 29,000 to 20,000 YBP)and the conventional wisdom has been that they populated Italy from north to south. I’m not sure that I think that’s necessarily true any longer. Even if it is, that’s no evidence that the same was true of the Villabrunians.

It seems to me that the evidence points to new people, adapted to a new culture, moving from south to north, whether they are the result of admixture or not.

The skeletal features of these Villabrunians/WHGs are quite different from those of the Aurignacians/Gravettians who preceded them according to the researchers who actually examined the remains, more “modern” looking, and indeed from the remains of Mal'ta, who the anthropologists who examined those remains claimed had some "Mongoloid" features. There were howls of denial all over some blogs, but the ancient dna now shows that indeed the anthropologists may have been onto something because there is definitely East Asian affinity in Mal'ta, not to mention the fact that EDAR showed up in the SHG. Indeed, according to this paper, if I'm remembering it correctly, the Mal'ta lineage isn't even considered West Eurasian any longer is it? I practically got virtually attacked for suggesting such a thing when the Lazaridis paper came out. Perhaps, as Rethel mentioned upthread Mal'ta himself is actually a mix of ENA with some more western lineage.

IIRC it was Kristiina who mentioned it. The man that excavated the site conferred Mongolid features on Mal'ta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal'ta-Buret'_culture#Archaelogical_evidence

However, why wasn't it seen in Mal'ta's genome? Fins have a tad noticeable ENA admixture without showing any features.


It would certainly help if they tested these earlier remains from Italy.

Yes. And again, pity Paglicci71 was only 4000 SNPs.


Not that I know any more than anyone else where that source is actually located. I’m just brainstorming here. Given that their culture, technology, was adapted to southern refugia, somewhere around the Mediterranean and the Black Seas is probably a good bet. So, perhaps indeed Italy, or areas around the Crimea, or parts of Anatolia, despite the fact that Gravetto-Danubian seems to feel there weren't many settlements there. The same was said of Italy, let's not forget.

Everyone had me convinced that Italy was virtually uninhabited in the Paleolithic. Yet there is Villabruna, and the Arene Candide and Pagliacci. Italy and Anatolia and the Balkans have been densely inhabited for millennia. Civilization lies on top of civilization. We can't plow up a field without hitting Roman and Etruscan remains, and in my area, the older statue stele. Who knows what's buried even further down. In Fivizzano about a half hour from where I was born there are natural grottoes and caverns. I’ve seen dates of 57,000 to 29,000 years ago for some of the area, with remains of dhole and leopards, cave bears, wolves and foxes. Lithic assemblages have been found from the Mousterian, but there are some things from the Neolithic as well. The excavations were sporadically and haphazardly done.It may be that it has been so continuously used that it won’t provide very clear answers, but somebody should give it a shot.

(Guido Barbujani, when he was hosting the 2014 Evolution conference in Firenze, took some of the participants to visit the Equi grottoes, and gives an overview here on pages 11-14. There are also come great pictures.
http://eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE_3_2014_Florence.pdf)


There is also Fumane
http://www.ice-age-europe.eu/visit-us/network-members/fumane-cave.html
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/fumane-cave-paintings.htm

Is there evidence for wild horses in Italy?



As to how Villabruna like people might have made it to northern Iberia, the modern topographical map you posted gives a slightly wrong impression, I think. This is my backyard, and I’ve hiked this area all my life, and I’m no mountain climber. It’s perfectly normal to hike from Portovenere near LaSpezia to Riomaggiore in the Cinque Terre (5 hours), from there to Monte Rosso al Mare (3 hours), and from there to Levanto in three more hours, and so on to Finale Ligure, near which we find the Arene Candide site. From there it’s a short distance to what is now the French Riviera. (The times I’ve given are on more modern man-made trails-I just posted a video on the travel section- so traversing the trails further inland would be longer, although you can also use the small river valleys.)

I think mountains wouldn't have stopped anyone, but the mountains were mostly covered with ice caps IIUC and there were - quite importantly - arctic deserts, even if I am not sure this was the case in the Mediterranean Alps. Also, Loess deposits point to vegetationless floodplains.




http://www.maphill.com/italy/liguria/detailed-maps/terrain-map/

Even the highest points of the Ligurian Alps can be reached relatively easily because the entire area is criss-crossed by small rivers and their valleys, as this guide explains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTnzXoXF4s

Regardless, in the LGM, while it was a hell of a lot colder, there was a narrow coastal strip.



Is there anything known from that strip?

epoch
15-05-16, 12:05
@Angela

What if the scenario for Italy would be a similar one as for the Fanco-Cantabrian refuge: A resurge of Aurignacian Italians?

epoch
15-05-16, 12:35
I always found it unbelievable too, together with uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited Balkans.

We have genomes from early Romania: Muerii, Cioclovina. If anything they show affinity to Vestonice16, especially to the exclusion of KO1. See table S5.10

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature17993-s1.pdf

Angela
15-05-16, 19:27
@Angela

What if the scenario for Italy would be a similar one as for the Fanco-Cantabrian refuge: A resurge of Aurignacian Italians?

The Villabrunians don't look like Aurignacian people to me, though. They don't even look like Gravettians. Granted, you're hearing that from someone whose training in physical anthropology consists of one university class in it and whatever reading I've done on my own, so I'm no authority. :) That's why I keep posting pictures on the anthropology section and asking questions of Moesan, who knows a heck of a lot more about it than I do. Unfortunately there's no substitute for examining the remains, and even the pictures I find don't show all views, or the measurements aren't posted in the article. Then there's all the disagreement in the field itself.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29518-Collection-of-skulls?p=480126#post480126

Still, all the indications to me are that Villabruna comes from a different looking bunch, shorter, with a different skull shape, narrower jaw, etc., adapted to a different climate and flora and fauna, I think. My hunch is that the majority of his ancestry is from a line that diverged pretty early from the prior inhabitants of Europe, although a couple of thousand years of drift could also explain it. He could well have some ancestry from the prior groups, of course.

As we discussed upthread somewhere, in the majority of cases a total change of subsistence strategy, technology, etc. comes with a major genetic change, i.e. new people.

I do think it's possible that this Villabrunian group moved north from Italy or from the Balkans or the Crimea or other Black Sea areas if they were also there. In terms of Italy, the majority of them could have gone around the east end of the Alps, or they could have gone into the marsh lands and then moved on from there.

In that regard, while we can't know precisely what the once marshy areas of the northern Adriatic were like during the LGM or early post-LGM period, if they were anything at all like modern marshy areas they would have been a cornucopia of good things to eat, from fish and birds to small game. I also don't think we know if, like modern marshy areas in places like Louisiana in the U.S., for example, there were bits of land above the water where shelters could have been built.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d9/ae/c3/d9aec33480904420c0b9cef30d1656b2.jpg

Regardless, it could relatively easily be traversed.

LeBrok
15-05-16, 19:52
Is there anything known from that strip? Let's keep it in perspective. At about same time a group of hunter gatherers made it through Bering "Bridge" from Siberia to America. At least 1,000 km through arctic wasteland and very close to Glacial Edge. However difficult the journey was they made it, men and women together. In this case, passing Alps through the coast was a "walk in the park" for WHGs.

epoch
15-05-16, 20:33
Let's keep it in perspective. At about same time a group of hunter gatherers made it through Bering "Bridge" from Siberia to America. At least 1,000 km through arctic wasteland and very close to Glacial Edge. However difficult the journey was they made it, men and women together. In this case, passing Alps through the coast was a "walk in the park" for WHGs.

I think they followed the Mammoths. It is wat Eurogenes post makes clear. As there was mammoth gene flow up and forth Beringia there also was human gene flow.


The fact that Aurrignacian admixture is different (higher) in West-European WHG than more east makes the case for partial isolation between WHG and Magdalenian. EDIT: No, not true. A third admixture is proof of proper contact.

Were there horses in Italy? It is one of the Magdalenian game animals.

bix
15-05-16, 20:43
My two cents… for what it’s worth.
From a geographical perspective It would seem that southern Italian/Sicilian peninsula would be an ideal place for a population to be isolated for a very long time regardless of the status of the Adriatic basin, eh?

They could’ve worked out their small game and marine resources chops. In the end, that skill would've been most advantageous. Always fish, birds and rabbits... deer, horse?

What if Italy had more to offer in that regard, could it not have supported a larger population than previously thought if such things were on their menu?

Pagliacci was also an Aurignacian site, too.

Maybe some went farther south? And obviously sooner or later some went west along the Ligurian coast, probably all the way to the Gulf of Lion where they met Goyet-ish Aurignacian ancestors of El Miron.

Sile
15-05-16, 21:45
Were there horses in Italy? It is one of the Magdalenian game animals.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153004

Angela
16-05-16, 00:22
My two cents… for what it’s worth.
From a geographical perspective It would seem that southern Italian/Sicilian peninsula would be an ideal place for a population to be isolated for a very long time regardless of the status of the Adriatic basin, eh?

They could’ve worked out their small game and marine resources chops. In the end, that skill would've been most advantageous. Always fish, birds and rabbits... deer, horse?

What if Italy had more to offer in that regard, could it not have supported a larger population than previously thought if such things were on their menu?

Pagliacci was also an Aurignacian site, too.

Maybe some went farther south? And obviously sooner or later some went west along the Ligurian coast, probably all the way to the Gulf of Lion where they met Goyet-ish Aurignacian ancestors of El Miron.

It certainly seems like a rather parsimonious version of how things could have gone.

Angela
16-05-16, 00:22
epoch;480116]The idea was that the mammoth connection would serve as a route for the perceived ANE/Han like admixture in proto-Villabruna, rather than Villabruna proper.


Ok. That's slightly different then. Still, as I said, from the paper:
"Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14"
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

They seem to me to be proposing that the direct Villabruna line doesn't have any, or appreciably any, of this ancestry, and instead it enters the cluster later and in a more northerly locale with Bichon. That would mean this ancestry either existed in those more northerly regions in the remnants of the prior groups, or this "East Asian" flow came west across the steppes in the very late stages of the LGM or post LGM. That makes much more sense to me from an archaeological point of view. I don't know of any evidence showing Mal'ta like influence in lithics etc moving west into central Europe, do you?


IIRC it was Kristiina who mentioned it. The man that excavated the site conferred Mongolid features on Mal'ta.

My apologies to Kristiina if she reads this. The first mention of that idea that I remember reading is from Rethel's post upthread.


However, why wasn't it seen in Mal'ta's genome? Fins have a tad noticeable ENA admixture without showing any features.

I've been wondering about that too. I don't know if this makes sense but could it have something to do with the fact that "East Asian", as a group or cluster is really a Post LGM composite? I have never followed the population genetics papers relating to East Asia, so that could be totally off base. If it isn't, could it be that Mal'ta is so old that what it has is a lot of ENA, which is only part of what went in to make "East Asian"?


Is there evidence for wild horses in Italy?

There were apparently lots of them. There were wild horses in various places around Europe. The numbers waxed and waned depending on the time period and the climate and flora. They apparently increased in places where there was open grassland, which we would assume, and when it was cooler and drier apparently.

Anyway, this is an old anthropology text which talks about caves in Italy being littered with horse bones. It's outdated in many ways, but I presume that horse bones are horse bones.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vozQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=pzK6N51yUT&sig=ydVJwDA8p1Addb5bikooH7oLUDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3-fuX5dzMAhWGJiYKHSxKB4QQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


This is a more recent text:
https://books.google.com/books?id=tcwAuKwSSz4C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=uV43uUQldJ&sig=_udXI8R1a0PQ1cKnMguKo-pXQCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC-e6n39zMAhWCOD4KHWFpDcsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


I think mountains wouldn't have stopped anyone, but the mountains were mostly covered with ice caps IIUC and there were - quite importantly - arctic deserts, even if I am not sure this was the case in the Mediterranean Alps. Also, Loess deposits point to vegetationless floodplains.

Is there anything known from that strip?

From the map, the ice cap didn't reach the coast. The coastal strip is marked as having vegetation, so how terrible could it have been? It may have been at certain periods, but certainly not in the period depicted on this map. We also don't know when these hypothetical proto-Villabrunians made his trek to northern Spain in time to create El Miron. If they made it at the time depicted in the map or one like it, I think it was hardly all that difficult a route, especially as they were always in reach of the sea and all those resources.

Here is the map again for those who have joined us late.
7737
You can take a look at the paper from which it came. There's a wealth of data for all of Europe.
http://129.187.45.33/CartoMasterNew/fileadmin/user_upload/Jaunsproge_Report.pdf

Angela
16-05-16, 00:32
epoch;480116]The idea was that the mammoth connection would serve as a route for the perceived ANE/Han like admixture in proto-Villabruna, rather than Villabruna proper.


Ok. That's slightly different then. Still, as I said, from the paper:
"Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14"
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

They seem to me to be proposing that the direct Villabruna line doesn't have any, or appreciably any, of this ancestry, and instead it enters the cluster later and in a more northerly locale with Bichon. That would mean this ancestry either existed in those more northerly regions in the remnants of the prior groups, or this "East Asian" flow came west across the steppes in the very late stages of the LGM or post LGM. That makes much more sense to me from an archaeological point of view. I don't know of any evidence showing Mal'ta like influence in lithics etc moving west into central Europe, do you?


IIRC it was Kristiina who mentioned it. The man that excavated the site conferred Mongolid features on Mal'ta.

My apologies to Kristiina if she reads this. The first mention of that idea that I remembered reading is from Rethel's post upthread.


However, why wasn't it seen in Mal'ta's genome? Fins have a tad noticeable ENA admixture without showing any features.

I've been wondering about that too. I don't know if this makes sense but could it have something to do with the fact that "East Asian", as a group or cluster is really a Post LGM composite? I have never followed the population genetics papers relating to East Asia, so that could be totally off base. If it isn't, could it be that Mal'ta is so old that what it has is a lot of ENA, which is only part of what went in to make "East Asian"?


Is there evidence for wild horses in Italy?

There were apparently lots of them. There were wild horses in various places around Europe. The numbers waxed and waned depending on the time period and the climate and flora. They apparently increased in places where there was open grassland, which we would assume, and when it was cooler and drier apparently.

Anyway, this is an old anthropology text which talks about caves in Italy being littered with horse bones. It's outdated in many ways, but I presume that horse bones are horse bones.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vozQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=pzK6N51yUT&sig=ydVJwDA8p1Addb5bikooH7oLUDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3-fuX5dzMAhWGJiYKHSxKB4QQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


This is a more recent text:
https://books.google.com/books?id=tcwAuKwSSz4C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=uV43uUQldJ&sig=_udXI8R1a0PQ1cKnMguKo-pXQCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC-e6n39zMAhWCOD4KHWFpDcsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


I think mountains wouldn't have stopped anyone, but the mountains were mostly covered with ice caps IIUC and there were - quite importantly - arctic deserts, even if I am not sure this was the case in the Mediterranean Alps. Also, Loess deposits point to vegetationless floodplains.

Is there anything known from that strip?

From the map, the ice cap didn't reach the coast. The coastal strip is marked as having vegetation, from the map legend, so how terrible could it have been? It may have been at certain periods, but certainly not in the period depicted on this map. We also don't know when these hypothetical proto-Villabrunians made their trek to northern Spain in time to create El Miron. If they made it at the time depicted in the map or one like it, I think it was hardly all that difficult a route, especially as they were always in reach of the sea and all those resources.

You can take a look at the paper from which it came. There's a wealth of data for all of Europe.
http://129.187.45.33/CartoMasterNew/fileadmin/user_upload/Jaunsproge_Report.pdf

LeBrok
16-05-16, 00:57
I think they followed the Mammoths. It is wat Eurogenes post makes clear. As there was mammoth gene flow up and forth Beringia there also was human gene flow.
No problem with this. As long as people can find food on their way they can survive and travel. If big part of WHG food was of marine source they could easily cross Alps along the coast. As long as there was grass in summer they could have hunt deer, horse, rabbits, birds, etc.
I'm not sure why you doubt in ability of HGs to pass through?

bix
16-05-16, 01:43
It certainly seems like a rather parsimonious version of how things could have gone.

Parsimonious indeed, the notion needs work--a lot of work.

And thank you for the maps and thesis links, btw.

But I guess I have to like the idea that people, hanging out down in the south of Italy, or wherever it was, quietly (and probably quite flexibly) hunting and gathering timid little woodland creatures and fishing, would ultimately prevail, while their sexier, attention grabbing mammoth, bison, aurochs, reindeer and or whatever big game there was hunting cousins up north would ultimately hunt themselves out of food, and/or be unable to adapt quickly enough to changing climatic conditions... Gravettians, Solutreans and Magdalenians haven't made as significant impact upon the population genetics of modern Europe.

That could just be human nature, I suppose, that we get so overspecialized that we find ourselves redundant, or we're inflexible in the face of changing conditions we fail to learn new, adaptive behavior.

Fire Haired14
16-05-16, 04:19
@Angela, epoch

If ANE had had a lot in common with East Asians we'd know. We don't know much about East Asian origins yet because of a lack of ancient genomes from there, however even if East Asians are a mixture of multiple distinct Crown Eurasians, and if MA1 shared significant decent from one of those branches we'd know. MA1 clearly is a brother to Paleolithic Europeans. If researchers decades ago said his people had Mongoloid features, they were mistaken. There's no point to discussing this, it is impossible for his people to have had East Asian skeletal features. His people had little in common with East Asians besides being Crown Eurasians, and therefore could not have had East Asian skeletal features.

Chances are they had Caucasoid or generic human features and were mistaken as Mongoloid. Native Americans are a good place to look because they're 40% ANE. Some of them look East Asian and some don't. Maybe their non-East Asian like features are from ANE.

epoch
16-05-16, 09:15
Ok. That's slightly different then. Still, as I said, from the paper:
"Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14"
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

They seem to me to be proposing that the direct Villabruna line doesn't have any, or appreciably any, of this ancestry, and instead it enters the cluster later and in a more northerly locale with Bichon. That would mean this ancestry either existed in those more northerly regions in the remnants of the prior groups, or this "East Asian" flow came west across the steppes in the very late stages of the LGM or post LGM. That makes much more sense to me from an archaeological point of view. I don't know of any evidence showing Mal'ta like influence in lithics etc moving west into central Europe, do you?

It used to be the pet theory of Alan of Anthrogenica. However, this is what he said:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=157276&viewfull=1#post157276



The culture Mal'ta boy was a very late member of had a stone tool technology which was very different from the Gravetians of Europe. So, on that basis I looked to see if something similar to it appeared further south and west in the early LGM period when it was disappearing in Mal'ta boy's region. I found nothing.





My apologies to Kristiina if she reads this. The first mention of that idea that I remembered reading is from Rethel's post upthread.

I've been wondering about that too. I don't know if this makes sense but could it have something to do with the fact that "East Asian", as a group or cluster is really a Post LGM composite? I have never followed the population genetics papers relating to East Asia, so that could be totally off base. If it isn't, could it be that Mal'ta is so old that what it has is a lot of ENA, which is only part of what went in to make "East Asian"?

I also entertain myself with the idea it could be an undetected DNA deterioration or something similar. The fact that Villabruna loves a lot of past-LGM genomes over pre-LGM ones still is interesting. It might be something technical, some strange artifact we don't realize is there.



There were apparently lots of them. There were wild horses in various places around Europe. The numbers waxed and waned depending on the time period and the climate and flora. They apparently increased in places where there was open grassland, which we would assume, and when it was cooler and drier apparently.

Anyway, this is an old anthropology text which talks about caves in Italy being littered with horse bones. It's outdated in many ways, but I presume that horse bones are horse bones.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vozQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=pzK6N51yUT&sig=ydVJwDA8p1Addb5bikooH7oLUDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3-fuX5dzMAhWGJiYKHSxKB4QQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


This is a more recent text:
https://books.google.com/books?id=tcwAuKwSSz4C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Wild+horses+in+Paleolithic+Italy&source=bl&ots=uV43uUQldJ&sig=_udXI8R1a0PQ1cKnMguKo-pXQCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC-e6n39zMAhWCOD4KHWFpDcsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=Wild%20horses%20in%20Paleolithic%20Italy&f=false


From the map, the ice cap didn't reach the coast. The coastal strip is marked as having vegetation, from the map legend, so how terrible could it have been? It may have been at certain periods, but certainly not in the period depicted on this map. We also don't know when these hypothetical proto-Villabrunians made their trek to northern Spain in time to create El Miron. If they made it at the time depicted in the map or one like it, I think it was hardly all that difficult a route, especially as they were always in reach of the sea and all those resources.

You can take a look at the paper from which it came. There's a wealth of data for all of Europe.
http://129.187.45.33/CartoMasterNew/fileadmin/user_upload/Jaunsproge_Report.pdf

Thanks. Horses are good. We now have a sensible link between the Italian Epigravettian and the Magdalenian.

PS: Did the reply in the message box reach you?

epoch
16-05-16, 09:21
No problem with this. As long as people can find food on their way they can survive and travel. If big part of WHG food was of marine source they could easily cross Alps along the coast. As long as there was grass in summer they could have hunt deer, horse, rabbits, birds, etc.
I'm not sure why you doubt in ability of HGs to pass through?

I have this private own theory that these people followed herds. Kind of what until recently all kinds of arctic peoples such as Ket, Yakuts or Sami did: They followed reindeer herds. I don't doubt the ability of these people to travel anywhere. But the reindeer didn't and they didn't.

Until the 20th century, that is.

epoch
16-05-16, 20:40
The Villabrunians don't look like Aurignacian people to me, though. They don't even look like Gravettians. Granted, you're hearing that from someone whose training in physical anthropology consists of one university class in it and whatever reading I've done on my own, so I'm no authority. :) That's why I keep posting pictures on the anthropology section and asking questions of Moesan, who knows a heck of a lot more about it than I do. Unfortunately there's no substitute for examining the remains, and even the pictures I find don't show all views, or the measurements aren't posted in the article. Then there's all the disagreement in the field itself.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29518-Collection-of-skulls?p=480126#post480126

Still, all the indications to me are that Villabruna comes from a different looking bunch, shorter, with a different skull shape, narrower jaw, etc., adapted to a different climate and flora and fauna, I think. My hunch is that the majority of his ancestry is from a line that diverged pretty early from the prior inhabitants of Europe, although a couple of thousand years of drift could also explain it. He could well have some ancestry from the prior groups, of course.

As we discussed upthread somewhere, in the majority of cases a total change of subsistence strategy, technology, etc. comes with a major genetic change, i.e. new people.

I do think it's possible that this Villabrunian group moved north from Italy or from the Balkans or the Crimea or other Black Sea areas if they were also there. In terms of Italy, the majority of them could have gone around the east end of the Alps, or they could have gone into the marsh lands and then moved on from there.

In that regard, while we can't know precisely what the once marshy areas of the northern Adriatic were like during the LGM or early post-LGM period, if they were anything at all like modern marshy areas they would have been a cornucopia of good things to eat, from fish and birds to small game. I also don't think we know if, like modern marshy areas in places like Louisiana in the U.S., for example, there were bits of land above the water where shelters could have been built.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d9/ae/c3/d9aec33480904420c0b9cef30d1656b2.jpg

Regardless, it could relatively easily be traversed.

I just realized that there is more than 7.500 years between the latest Gravettian find and the earliest Magdalenian find in the paper:

Goyet Q56-16 Belgium 26,600–26,040 Gravettian
El Mirón Spain 18,830–18,610 Magdalenian

That is the entire Solutrean period.

Angela
16-05-16, 22:01
Parsimonious indeed, the notion needs work--a lot of work.

And thank you for the maps and thesis links, btw.

But I guess I have to like the idea that people, hanging out down in the south of Italy, or wherever it was, quietly (and probably quite flexibly) hunting and gathering timid little woodland creatures and fishing, would ultimately prevail, while their sexier, attention grabbing mammoth, bison, aurochs, reindeer and or whatever big game there was hunting cousins up north would ultimately hunt themselves out of food, and/or be unable to adapt quickly enough to changing climatic conditions... Gravettians, Solutreans and Magdalenians haven't made as significant impact upon the population genetics of modern Europe.

That could just be human nature, I suppose, that we get so overspecialized that we find ourselves redundant, or we're inflexible in the face of changing conditions we fail to learn new, adaptive behavior.

You're very welcome. I totally agree with you that the cultures which survive are the ones whose people have the ability to be flexible and to adapt to changing conditions. However, sometimes even native intelligence and flexibility aren't enough. I've seen speculation, whether it's true or not I don't know, that part of the problem for Neanderthals was that a difference in anatomy meant that homo sapiens sapiens had the ability to throw projectile spears at their prey, something that was more difficult for Neanderthals, and gave their competitors an advantage.

Then, hunter-gatherers in general had and have a difficult time in adopting the farming lifestyle, even the WHG. It's not so simple as just teaching them what to do. It's a whole different way of looking at the world, a whole new mode of life, requiring different skills and attributes. The Native Americans have not totally adapted in over three hundred years, and there are lots of other examples.

To get back to the WHG, the following is from a book on Paleolithic and Mesolithic Italy by Margherita Mussi:
https://books.google.com/booksid=0dQLBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=site+of+Villabruna+remains&source=bl&ots=oOKYGieeEt&sig=LNo7S_hCwi2U_ntJyhVKCbUZWxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7xKXr8N7MAhXDWD4KHc3pAycQ6AEIMjAD#v=on epage&q=site%20of%20Villabruna%20remains&f=false

It's difficult to get a totally complete and accurate picture from google books because so many pages are missing (so don't take this to the bank), but she seems to be drawing a picture where the changing subsistence strategy moved from south to north along with the climate change and the different animals.

By the time we get to the late Epigravettian in northeastern Italy we have people who first, and even later at hunting camps at higher altitudes hunted ibex, a type of wild goat. Later, as the land and climate changed, they hunted roe deer. They also fished a great deal, of which there apparently is much less evidence in the Gravettian, so perhaps they made advancements in the technology, like hooks, or nets, etc.

They carried pouches, and since there are remains that indicate they were increasingly consuming snails, mussels, and other shellfish, hazelnuts etc., they probably were making baskets.

All of the above can be found on page 338.

On page 315 she seems to be saying that up until 12,000 ybp they were hunting mostly ibex. After that, as the land changed, they switched to red deer. There were almost no equids, few bovines, whereas in other parts of Italy there were a lot of equids.

I get the picture of, as you said, a very flexible group of people who could vary their hunting styles and create new technology to take advantage of changing conditions.

This is another paper which says basically the same thing. It's about another Epigravettian site in northeastern Italy. In this one, the researchers describe a group of people who built a shelter or work space in the mountains, an area described as an open Alpine prairie where pines and larches were beginning to appear, for summer and fall hunting and the preparing of hides. They used grinding stones for this. At colder times of the year they utilized the conifer forests further down the mountain, and in winter the resources on the Brenta valley floor. In the mountains they hunted ibex, like Otzi thousands of years later, but also occasionally chamois, bear, caught birds, and fished.
http://www3.arch.cam.ac.uk/clark/PDFs/jfa37_1_Cristiani.pdf

This is the period called the Bolling and Allerod temperate interstadial discussed by the authors of the paper.

epoch
16-05-16, 22:11
@Angela

The Alleröd interstadial is also when reindeer hunters appeared north to become the Ahrensburg Culture. This culture had the marks of Magdalenian culture, but was on the verge of the Mesolithicum.

Another piece of evidence: Apparently the fish harpoon was an Magdalenian invention.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=M_jWCgAAQBAJ

Angela
16-05-16, 23:16
The Mussi book also gives some information about mammoths. According to her, the only (or perhaps the overwhelming number of cases, I can't tell because I don't have the whole book in front of me) evidence of mammoth hunting in Italy is in a Mousterian context. I don't know why that would be...

As a result, she maintains that the only ivory artifacts found are in Liguria, some ivory pendants at Arene Candide and 2 female figurines at the Balzi Rossi caves.

In fact, what she says on page 262 is that "ivory items are exceedingly rare and not found outside Liguria, the area adjoining the ice free corridor connecting the Italian peninsula to western Europe. They are not found in southeastern France either."

Before that last sentence I thought perhaps the ivory came through southeastern France, but perhaps not.

This talk about an ice free corridor is very interesting. That seems to bolster the findings by the map maker I referenced above who showed vegetation along the coast there even in the LGM.It wouldn't at all surprise me. Liguria's climate and floral and fauna is an anomaly even today. Alone in northern Italy it has a Mediterranean climate and flora and fauna, relatively warm in the winter, capable of growing oranges and lemons, etc., and yet a half hour drive to an hour drive inland and you are in areas where a "continental" climate prevails. It's the only area of northern Italy that is like this, and it is all due to the fact that it has the Apennines at its back, and faces the Sea.

There's a great deal in the book about disputes as to the grouping of lithics into various clusters. She takes exception to some of the classifications of the French researcher LaPlace. They both seem to feel that the Epigravettian starts around 20,000 ybp, and that the Early Epigravettian overlaps with the Solutrean. She disagrees with him though in part because she thinks that the latter part of the Early Epigravettian, the shouldered tools period, also overlaps with the Magdalenian, because those tools were made until 16,000 ybp.

Without the whole text in front of me I don't want to come to any grand conclusions. She does often seem to group the lithics of northwestern Italy with those of Provence. At a certain point there is a split, however. That's discussed around page 269. There seems to be a real break between Provence and Liguria when shouldered tools appeared in the Italian Epigravettian.

She makes a comment on page 207 that the Aurignacian has a different and wider distribution all over Italy, although they are concentrated on the Tyrrhenian coast starting with Liguria. I'm sure she talks about the distribution of the Gravettian geographically and perhaps talks about the earliest Epigravettian, but I couldn't find it. That would be good to know. I did see a statement to the effect that in Northern Italy between the Alps and the Appennines (i.e.northeastern Italy), there is no major campsite for the Early Epigravettian, although she acknowledges that a lot of areas are under the Po or the Adriatic. If I had the whole text and could nail that down, that would raise the interesting possibility that it did move south to north.

epoch
16-05-16, 23:37
@Angela

The Aurignacian had retouched blades, relatively rough. The Solutrean however had some of the most splendid lithic craftmanship ever seen in Europe. These are unlike anything else. The Magdalenian however had even rougher lithic industry than the Aurignacian. Their excellence was bone artifacts and especially bone art.

On account of the south to north: 33.000 year old Paglicci133 clusters somewhat with Vestonice16. David lumped together the late Gravettian Paglicci108, which has less than the required 10.000 SNP harvested, with Paglicci133. We ran D-stats and it shows no discernible difference with just Paglicci133.

Mbuti Paglicci_combined ElMiron Vestonice16 Z=3.342
ElMiron, Vestonice16; Paglicci133, Mbuti Z=-3.5 <- From the paper.

If adding or removing Paglicci108 doesn't shift D-stats, it is similar to Paglicci133. That means that the Italian Gravettian basically continued unchanged to 28.000 years ago. And 14.000 years ago WHG appears. They weren't the same. Would France be a good origin? Or the Balkans?

Angela
17-05-16, 00:58
@Angela

The Aurignacian had retouched blades, relatively rough. The Solutrean however had some of the most splendid lithic craftmanship ever seen in Europe. These are unlike anything else. The Magdalenian however had even rougher lithic industry than the Aurignacian. Their excellence was bone artifacts and especially bone art.

On account of the south to north: 33.000 year old Paglicci133 clusters somewhat with Vestonice16. David lumped together the late Gravettian Paglicci108, which has less than the required 10.000 SNP harvested, with Paglicci133. We ran D-stats and it shows no discernible difference with just Paglicci133.

Mbuti Paglicci_combined ElMiron Vestonice16 Z=3.342
ElMiron, Vestonice16; Paglicci133, Mbuti Z=-3.5 <- From the paper.

If adding or removing Paglicci108 doesn't shift D-stats, it is similar to Paglicci133. That means that the Italian Gravettian basically continued unchanged to 28.000 years ago. And 14.000 years ago WHG appears. They weren't the same. Would France be a good origin? Or the Balkans?

Oldest Gravettian in Italy is Paglicci, and that's only 28,000 years ago, so did it come to Italy late?*

Mussi says that there are "tentative" indications that a new people arrived in Paglicci, but I think she's talking about Early Epigravettian. Even if the time periods are close, it's very different lithics, yes?

As for France, what do you know about the Arenian? Mussi says that Provence and Liguria both had it until Liguria got the Early Epigravettian, not very sophisticated at that early stage, apparently.

I saw one statement from her about the Balkans and it was in the context of the Epigravettian. She seemed to say there were no sites there either in the early period, just like in Northeastern Italy, but again there's the caveat that some of it is now underwater.

Ed. Hold that thought.:) There doesn't even seem to be agreement about that. What a mess! That came from one paper. The one I just found (published in 2014) dates a Gravettian site in NE Italy to about 29,000 ybp.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/

When I get a chance to read it, I'll post.

Angela
17-05-16, 01:38
The people who wrote this should go to the Supreme Court if they get tired of this profession; they also decline, on occasion, to address the thornier issues. :) Sahra Talamo et al
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/

"One of the most debated issue is whether the Gravettian developed from a local Aurignacian [5] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Klima1)–[8] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Valoch1) or results from immigration or cultural diffusion processes through various corridors between European regions [4] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Mussi1), [9] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Gambassini1)–[11] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Borgia1). This paper will not enter into this broader issue, instead it will deal with the Northern Italian evidence and the role of two possible passageways, one from the west (France) and one from the east (Balkan region) [9] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Gambassini1), [12] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Mussi2)–[14] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Wierer1)."

I guess it's up to genetics.

"The earliest Italian Gravettian groups is documented around 28,00014C BP in Paglicci Cave in the southern end of the Peninsula[15] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-PalmadiCesnola1)–[17] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Boscato1), and the majority of the sites, adjacent to the two opposite Italian coasts, are recorded at 26,000–24,000 14C BP (Figure 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/figure/pone-0095376-g001/)) [12] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Mussi2).

"The earliest Italian Gravettian groups is documented around 28,00014C BP in Paglicci Cave in the southern end of the Peninsula[15] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-PalmadiCesnola1)–[17] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Boscato1), and the majority of the sites, adjacent to the two opposite Italian coasts, are recorded at 26,000–24,000 14C BP (Figure 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/figure/pone-0095376-g001/)) [12] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Mussi2)."

"The earliest Italian Gravettian groups is documented around 28,00014C BP in Paglicci Cave in the southern end of the Peninsula[15] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-PalmadiCesnola1)–[17] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Boscato1), and the majority of the sites, adjacent to the two opposite Italian coasts, are recorded at 26,000–24,000 14C BP (Figure 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/figure/pone-0095376-g001/)) [12] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Mussi2)."

There aren't very many sites. Mussi seemed to say something about the Aurignacian being apparently better represented. I don't know if that's correct. This is what they have to say about the Gravettian in general:

"The appearance of the early Gravettian in Europe predates the last phases of the Aurignacian [49] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Svoboda2). Although some similarities have been detected with the Ahmarian assemblages of the Near East[49] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Svoboda2), a local development of the Gravettian technological innovations from the Aurignacian substrate was suggested at Geiβenklösterle in layer AH II [50] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Moreau2) and at Abri Pataud in layer 6[51] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997387/#pone.0095376-Pesesse1). "

There doesn't seem to be anything about any mammoth hunters from far northern Eurasia. Again, as I said upthread, Mussi claims that they're only tied to the Mousterian in Italy. Also, there's the claim about the tie to the Near Eastern Ahmarian, which I've seen before.

The big point of the paper is that this northeast Italian site is, according to their testing, a little bit older than Paglicci.

bix
17-05-16, 02:09
Paleolithic and Mesolithic Italy by Margherita Mussi:

Thank You, again. I can get the print copy at a library I spend an inordinate amount of time at--tomorrow, I know right where to look on the shelf.

Also, I found this a rather interesting read, sorry I cannot post the link.

Borgia, V., et al., Bone and antler working at Grotta Paglicci (Rignano Garganico, Foggia, southern Italy),Quaternary International (2015),