PDA

View Full Version : Mediterranean Europe major source of European Neolithic?



Angela
07-03-17, 00:29
Reconciling evidence from ancient and contemporary genomes: a major source for the European Neolithic within Mediterranean Europe

B. Pereira et al
See:
https://figshare.com/collections/Supplementary_material_from_Reconciling_evidence_f rom_ancient_and_contemporary_genomes_a_major_sourc e_for_the_European_Neolithic_within_Mediterranean_ Europe_/3703558/1

Marta Costa is also an author.

The use a combination of ancient and modern whole mitogenomes.

Unfortunately, they've posted the supplement before the paper. When the paper comes out I'll post a link here.

Meanwhile, the provocative abstract:
"Important gaps remain in our understanding of the spread of farming into Europe, due partly to apparent contradictions between studies of contemporary genetic variation and ancient DNA. It seems clear that farming was introduced into central, northern and eastern Europe from the south by pioneer colonization. It is often argued that these dispersals originated in the Near East, where the potential source genetic pool resembles that of the early European farmers, but clear ancient DNA evidence from Mediterranean Europe is lacking, and there are suggestions that Mediterranean Europe may have resembled the Near East more than the rest of Europe in the Mesolithic. Here we test this proposal by dating mitogenome founder lineages from the Near East in different regions of Europe. We find that whereas the lineages date mainly to the Neolithic in central Europe and Iberia, they largely date to the Late Glacial period in central/eastern Mediterranean Europe. This supports a scenario in which the genetic pool of Mediterranean Europe was partly a result of Late Glacial expansions from a Near Eastern refuge, and that this formed an important source pool for subsequent Neolithic expansions into the rest of Europe."

You can download the pdf of the supplement here. If someone more familiar with the methodology for dating mtDna reads it, perhaps you can post your opinion here.

https://figshare.com/articles/Methods_and_supplementary_images_from_Reconciling_ evidence_from_ancient_and_contemporary_genomes_a_m ajor_source_for_the_European_Neolithic_within_Medi terranean_Europe/4697617

If it turns out to be correct, some of us did speculate about this here. In particular, we posited that when the farmers from the Near East arrived, they met their cousins.

This could explain a lot of things.

If it turns out to be incorrect, just forget I ever said that. :)

bicicleur
07-03-17, 11:48
one of the advantages of Y-DNA is that there is info available for dating the different branches
for mtDNA, acurate dating info is hard to find
I hope they'll come up with an acurate method soon

I don't understand the methodology used.
I guess they are studying modern DNA distributions and a dated pedigree.
But I wonder how they come up with the source of the migrations. I don't think modern DNA distributions can do that.
The advantage of mtDNA is easy sequencing and abundancy in anciant DNA - at least compared to nuclear DNA.
None of that anciant DNA confirms the results of this study.

bicicleur
07-03-17, 12:07
'We find that whereas the lineages date mainly to the Neolithic in central Europe and Iberia, they largely date to the Late Glacial period in central/eastern Mediterranean Europe.'

Maybe instead during early neolithic there was a mass immigration to central/eastern Mediterranean Europe while in central Europe and Iberia there was a smallscale immigration of only a few specific mtDNA branches with subsequent local expansion.

But we don't have much anciant central/eastern Mediterranean Europe DNA though, so it is possible.

What seems impossible are the plots in the supplement re migrations from northern/central Europe.

ngc598
07-03-17, 15:00
Unfortunately, they've posted the supplement before the paper.
Fine for me. I'm only interested in the data, I rarely read the stuff they are writing.
***


for mtDNA, acurate dating info is hard to find
I hope they'll come up with an acurate method soon

I fear that's not going to happen. Recall that the average mutation rate of the whole mitogenome gives you a value of one in roughly 3000 years, while the Y-chromosome donates you a new SNP in the order of approx. one (recognized and catalogued) in 100, 200 years. The time resolution is therefore at least ten times better. There are simply not enough mt-data available to produce good models, if the grid size is already greater than the resolution you want.

Altogether, mtDNA data make it extremely hard to deliver robust results. The time resolution can hardly provide a decent timing of events and the spatial resolution is smeared out by high female mobilitiy thanks to patrilocality in most societies. Keeping this in mind, conclusions about the results of any mtDNA research should be taken with precaution, no matter how accurate and sophisticated the methods are.

Maciamo
07-03-17, 15:34
I have been saying for years that a lot of subclades of haplogroups H, V, J2a1, J1c and T2 could have been present in the Balkans or Italy since the late glacial period, and would have been absorbed by Neolithic farmers as they entered Europe, and diffused by Early farmers, but from Southeast Europe (or in some cases also Anatolia, like J1c and T2), not from the Near East. So far, ancient DNA from the Near East confirms a scarcity of hg H and a complete absence of J2a1 and V.

bicicleur
07-03-17, 16:02
Altogether, mtDNA data make it extremely hard to deliver robust results. The time resolution can hardly provide a decent timing of events and the spatial resolution is smeared out by high female mobilitiy thanks to patrilocality in most societies. Keeping this in mind, conclusions about the results of any mtDNA research should be taken with precaution, no matter how accurate and sophisticated the methods are.

I agree. ..

bicicleur
07-03-17, 16:11
I have been saying for years that a lot of subclades of haplogroups H, V, J2a1, J1c and T2 could have been present in the Balkans or Italy since the late glacial period, and would have been absorbed by Neolithic farmers as they entered Europe, and diffused by Early farmers, but from Southeast Europe (or in some cases also Anatolia, like J1c and T2), not from the Near East. So far, ancient DNA from the Near East confirms a scarcity of hg H and a complete absence of J2a1 and V.

we don't have data from the Balkan, just a little bit from Greece
but in Barcin, we have I2 but not European mtDNA U (U2, U5, U4, U8a, U8c)
so I2 in LBK/Cardial ware could be both European or Anatolian, but European mtDNA U didn't exist in Anatolia and probably neither in Greece
Iberian EN has very little (only 2) European mtDNA U but in Iberian EN it increases
German LBK has some more European mtDNA U than Starcevo/Köros, and French RRBP has even more
with increasing European mtDNA U, also WHG admixture into EEF increases
so Anatolian I2 was probably EEF autosomaly, not WHG

Angela
23-03-17, 16:16
The paper has been published but it's behind a paywall. How annoying.

Even the Supplement, to which I linked before, is not very informative.
https://figshare.com/articles/Methods_and_supplementary_images_from_Reconciling_ evidence_from_ancient_and_contemporary_genomes_a_m ajor_source_for_the_European_Neolithic_within_Medi terranean_Europe/4697617

They're basically looking at J/T. What it also says is that this is all based on HVS I, so the findings are provisional, imo.

I don't understand the hub-bub on the net about this. We already knew we had some "Near Eastern" looking mtDna in Mesolithic Greece. So, maybe, they got swamped by their cousins.

As I mentioned upthread, this is something that has been suggested on this Board many times in the past, i.e. that there was an expansion from the Near East before the Neolithic, and that it probably went at least into Greece, and perhaps also into Italy, and that therefore this genetic "signature" may have been in Europe for a very long time.

This would tie in with the studies which showed population increase in the Middle East tied to the Natufian hunter-gatherers before there was actual domestication of plants and animals. This video I recently posted by John Hawkes explains how the area was blessed with an abundance of food resources, leading to large population increases. He's much less boring than Kagan, btw! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQtzwoOYrkE

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


One of the only sensible comments I've seen on the study (do some people post and blog when drunk or something?:)) on the internet is that this is different from saying these people necessarily are the ancestors of modern Europeans.

epoch
30-03-17, 20:14
As I mentioned upthread, this is something that has been suggested on this Board many times in the past, i.e. that there was an expansion from the Near East before the Neolithic, and that it probably went at least into Greece, and perhaps also into Italy, and that therefore this genetic "signature" may have been in Europe for a very long time.

The Villabruna cluster shows affinity with the ME, but lacks even a trace of Basal Eurasian. That means either Basal Eurasian admixted into levantines after 14.000 or Villabruna is related to someting that admixted into levantines. I have a good candidate for the latter: Levantine Aurignacian, a culture from the levant that shows remarkable cultural affinity to European Aurignacians, dated from 33.000 ya on, quite a bit later than European Aurignacians. The culture appears to have been contemporary to Ahmarian, which seems completely unrelated to Aurignacians.

The fact that the Red Lady of El Miron, who lived at the end of LGM, already has a third Villabruna, has U5b - a tracer for Villabruna complex according to Johannes Krause 2016 - and she has a bit Middle Eastern affinity accdording to Fu et al 2016 makes the case for this, I think.

MarkoZ
31-03-17, 21:56
The Villabruna cluster shows affinity with the ME, but lacks even a trace of Basal Eurasian. That means either Basal Eurasian admixted into levantines after 14.000 or Villabruna is related to someting that admixted into levantines. I have a good candidate for the latter: Levantine Aurignacian, a culture from the levant that shows remarkable cultural affinity to European Aurignacians, dated from 33.000 ya on, quite a bit later than European Aurignacians. The culture appears to have been contemporary to Ahmarian, which seems completely unrelated to Aurignacians.

The fact that the Red Lady of El Miron, who lived at the end of LGM, already has a third Villabruna, has U5b - a tracer for Villabruna complex according to Johannes Krause 2016 - and she has a bit Middle Eastern affinity accdording to Fu et al 2016 makes the case for this, I think.

Considering the affinity of Vestonice and Kostenki in Fu et al., it's highly unlikely that there was a backmigration from Europe before the Gravettian - and even in the latter case said backmigration probably didn't extend much further than Anatolia. More importantly, there's no reason to invoke an ill-defined 'Levantine Aurignacian' when there's ample evidence of movement in the opposite direction.

epoch
01-04-17, 06:55
Considering the affinity of Vestonice and Kostenki in Fu et al., it's highly unlikely that there was a backmigration from Europe before the Gravettian - and even in the latter case said backmigration probably didn't extend much further than Anatolia. More importantly, there's no reason to invoke an ill-defined 'Levantine Aurignacian' when there's ample evidence of movement in the opposite direction.

All old samples in Lazardis 2016 can be modelled as WHG + Basal. And I would say the very existence of the Levantine Aurignac - not so ill-defined as you say, by the way as its toolkit contains typical Aurignacian retouched points - is evidence for that. But the find that U6 in Muierii is ancestral to U6 in the Middle-East and North Africa is basically proof that at least some back migration took place:
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

What ample evidence for movement in the opposite direction is there?

MarkoZ
01-04-17, 12:30
All old samples in Lazardis 2016 can be modelled as WHG + Basal. And I would say the very existence of the Levantine Aurignac - not so ill-defined as you say, by the way as its toolkit contains typical Aurignacian retouched points - is evidence for that. But the find that U6 in Muierii is ancestral to U6 in the Middle-East and North Africa is basically proof that at least some back migration took place:What ample evidence for movement in the opposite direction is there?Not sure what you mean by *typical* Aurignacian retouched points, since these lightly retouched bladelets were common in the early Ahmarian as well. The Aurignacoid endscrapers with carination that can be found in the Northern Levant were in use as far as the Altai, so you'll have to explain why their presence is indicates a European backmigration to you. They made but a brief appearance in the Northern Levant however, hence it's quite misleading to speak of a Levantine Aurignacian phase.

Of course, how all of this relates to an unrelated Epigravettian specimen from Italy is a mystery to me.

epoch
01-04-17, 14:59
Not sure what you mean by *typical* Aurignacian retouched points, since these lightly retouched bladelets were common in the early Ahmarian as well. The Aurignacoid endscrapers with carination that can be found in the Northern Levant were in use as far as the Altai, so you'll have to explain why their presence is indicates a European backmigration to you. They made but a brief appearance in the Northern Levant however, hence it's quite misleading to speak of a Levantine Aurignacian phase.

Even then a clear Aurignacian toolkit can be found:



Indeed by adhering to the original definitions of the Aurignacian in the Levant we can
more readily observe the fascinating phenomenon of the appearance of a geographically (and
chronologically?) limited cluster of assemblages of the classic Aurignacian variety. These are
so similar to assemblages from southwest France at the other end of the Mediterranean, that
one is tempted to view them literally as well as figuratively having just disembarked from the
boat! They appear, “out-of-the-blue”, in the midst of other, endemic, Upper Paleolithic line
ages (e.g. the Ahmarian) with few, if any, obvious ties to the preceding and succeeding Levantine industries.


http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/45/19.pdf


Of course, how all of this relates to an unrelated Epigravettian specimen from Italy is a mystery to me.

Villabruna cluster - I will use the term WHG for the cluster - showed a Middle-Eastern affinity. If you check Fu et al 2016 you'll notice that El Miron (19.000 yo, during or just after LGM) already shows a Middle-Eastern affinity. She also clearly has a WHG part. Neither has a Basal Eurasian affinity, as can be read in the same paper. However, the paper mentions that, while they use Iraqi Jew as proxy for the Middle East the affinity can be shown with a lot of other samples, which means that whatever it is, it's evenly spread in the Middle East. This affinity can be caused by 3 things:

1) Some groups came from the Middle East and admixted into Euro HG's
2) WHG went to the Middle East and admixted with locals
3) Both WHG and Middle East received admixture from an unknown group.

Option 1 requires one to believe that a Middle Eastern group which would have no Basal Eurasian would migrate to an isolated refuge in Iberia during the later phase of LGM. It also requires one to believe Basal Eurasian admixted into Middle-Easterners after that event.

Option 2 is basically refuted by the fact that the M.E. affinity is evenly spread.

So option 3 is the one to go. But since the affinity can be shown to be rather evenly spread in the Middle East it has to be an old one there. I think a yet unsampled Aurignacian people, different from Goyet116, survived just as Goyet116 did in a LGM refuge and became part of the ancestors of WHG.

The Aurignac was a very diverse era, so I think that is possible.

MarkoZ
05-04-17, 00:04
Even then a clear Aurignacian toolkit can be found:


http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/45/19.pdf

That's not quite accurate - I assume this very imaginative description is based on dated references. In many ways, the Aurignacoid cultures of the Near East and Central Asia have an inverse relationship with the European Aurignacian, while of course being familiar with the same technologies.


Under these conditions, the inclusion oflithic assemblages such as those at Klisouraand Karain B in a scenario of expansion ofthe Aurignacian from an area to another isstill problematic. Similarities anddifferences do not appear to constituterelevant patterns. For example, similarities exist between Klisoura and layer II ofKostenki I (presence of splintered pieces,end-scrapers more common than burins,absence or rarity of carinated burins), butthere are also differences (greater degree ofblade technology at Kostenki, absence ofDufour bladelets at Klisoura). Similarly,Karain B presents similarities withassemblage I at Mitoc-Malu Galben(presence of carinated end-scrapers andburins, bladelet cores), but also differences(presence of retouched blades and bladeletsin Anatolia and not in Romania, whereflake production is less marked).

Along the eastern Mediterranean coast, theLevantine Aurignacian43 derives perhapsfrom the Baradostian44. While there aresimilarities with Karain B (although againthe identification is not total), the breakseems clear with the Aurignacian of EasternEurope: flake production is more importantin the Near East (and in Anatolia). Therealso seems to have been an inversedevelopment of the end-scraper–burin ratio:burins become rarer in time at Mitoc, whilethe inverse is true at Ksar Akil.

http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/14/719/9098.pdf


Villabruna cluster - I will use the term WHG for the cluster - showed a Middle-Eastern affinity. If you check Fu et al 2016 you'll notice that El Miron (19.000 yo, during or just after LGM) already shows a Middle-Eastern affinity. She also clearly has a WHG part. Neither has a Basal Eurasian affinity, as can be read in the same paper. However, the paper mentions that, while they use Iraqi Jew as proxy for the Middle East the affinity can be shown with a lot of other samples, which means that whatever it is, it's evenly spread in the Middle East. This affinity can be caused by 3 things:

1) Some groups came from the Middle East and admixted into Euro HG's
2) WHG went to the Middle East and admixted with locals
3) Both WHG and Middle East received admixture from an unknown group.

Option 1 requires one to believe that a Middle Eastern group which would have no Basal Eurasian would migrate to an isolated refuge in Iberia during the later phase of LGM. It also requires one to believe Basal Eurasian admixted into Middle-Easterners after that event.

Option 2 is basically refuted by the fact that the M.E. affinity is evenly spread.

So option 3 is the one to go. But since the affinity can be shown to be rather evenly spread in the Middle East it has to be an old one there. I think a yet unsampled Aurignacian people, different from Goyet116, survived just as Goyet116 did in a LGM refuge and became part of the ancestors of WHG.

The Aurignac was a very diverse era, so I think that is possible.

I cannot be bothered to look up the paper right now, because frankly I think your speculation doesn't have much merit, but IIRC Fu et al. specifically single out the Kotias-Satsurbalia (sans Basal Eurasian) as a source of this affinity. Thus, the Near Eastern affinity in Villabrunna would be related to a component seperate from the major West Eurasian branch of the Aurignacian hunters in Fu's model, which should be reason enough to doubt your hypothesis.

They also mention that the Villabruna Epigravettian is the first sample that shows this affinity. The Epigravettian-Mesolithic Villabruna cluster thus appears to diverge from the Magdalenian El Miron cluster in more than just the Near Eastern affinity of the former. Just like the Gravettians were superseded by the Magdalenians, the Mesolithic sees the Magdalenians being replaced by yet another distinctive group of hunter gatherers. That the El Miron woman is closer to the Mesolithic groups doesn't necessarily mean that she already carries said Near Eastern affinity, and I don't believe Fu et al. think she does for that matter.

bix
05-04-17, 04:48
From Fu et. al. Just for a reminder.

El Miron is close to the upper reaches of the Ebro catchment, my hunch is that whatever the 'Near-East' component is in El Miron, at least, it came from down the Ebro valley.
8607

epoch
05-04-17, 06:59
I cannot be bothered to look up the paper right now, because frankly I think your speculation doesn't have much merit

I did though.


but IIRC Fu et al. specifically single out the Kotias-Satsurbalia (sans Basal Eurasian) as a source of this affinity. Thus, the Near Eastern affinity in Villabrunna would be related to a component seperate from the major West Eurasian branch of the Aurignacian hunters in Fu's model, which should be reason enough to doubt your hypothesis.

No, they show that whatever admixted into Villabruna also admixted into Satsurblia:


The Satsurblia Cluster individuals from the Caucasus dating to ~13,000–10,000 years ago2 share more alleles with the Villabruna Cluster individuals than they do with earlier Europeans, indicating that they are related to the population that contributed new alleles to people in the Villabruna Cluster, although they cannot be the direct source of the gene flow. One reason for this is that the Satsurblia Cluster carries large amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster individuals do not


They also mention that the Villabruna Epigravettian is the first sample that shows this affinity.

True.


The Epigravettian-Mesolithic Villabruna cluster thus appears to diverge from the Magdalenian El Miron cluster in more than just the Near Eastern affinity of the former. Just like the Gravettians were superseded by the Magdalenians, the Mesolithic sees the Magdalenians being replaced by yet another distinctive group of hunter gatherers. That the El Miron woman is closer to the Mesolithic groups doesn't necessarily mean that she already carries said Near Eastern affinity, and I don't believe Fu et al. think she does for that matter.

But their own D-stats shows a different picture. See figure 4b, that bix posted above:


From Fu et. al. Just for a reminder.

El Miron is close to the upper reaches of the Ebro catchment, my hunch is that whatever the 'Near-East' component is in El Miron, at least, it came from down the Ebro valley.
8607

epoch
05-04-17, 08:51
That's not quite accurate - I assume this very imaginative description is based on dated references. In many ways, the Aurignacoid cultures of the Near East and Central Asia have an inverse relationship with the European Aurignacian, while of course being familiar with the same technologies.


http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/14/719/9098.pdf

Such an inverse relationship doesn't, IMHO, necessarily refute what I proposed. Another thing is that the article uses dates that, IIRC, have been adjusted recently. For instance, it dates Kostenki 14 at 32.000 BP, whereas I currently read 38.000 - 36.000 BP.

MarkoZ
05-04-17, 13:06
No, they show that whatever admixted into Villabruna also admixted into Satsurblia:



Hence 'sans Basal Eurasian'.



It does seem like the Magdalenian cluster already has a slight Near Eastern affinity, since the Belgian Goyet individualhas it as well. Though it's rather small when compared with the Mesolithic cluster - so gene flow from the Near East (or the Balkans) must have been continuous. Not sure how you want to square that with an Aurignacian backmigration, especially when the Magdalenian populations that are being replaced generally show a more marked Aurignacian affinity than the Villabruna cluster that succeeds them.


Such an inverse relationship doesn't, IMHO, necessarily refute what I proposed. Another thing is that the article uses dates that, IIRC, have been adjusted recently. For instance, it dates Kostenki 14 at 32.000 BP, whereas I currently read 38.000 - 36.000 BP.

It doesn't, but I don't see a reason to believe there was a backmigration either. Aurignacoid technologies must have come to Europe with a migration of hunter gatherers from the east who replaced the Oase populations, likely via Central Asia through the Zagros, which would be the most parsimonious point of origin for the corresponding Levantine cultures.

The paper was published before 2009, so all dates are a bit off.

bicicleur
05-04-17, 14:24
It doesn't, but I don't see a reason to believe there was a backmigration either. Aurignacoid technologies must have come to Europe with a migration of hunter gatherers from the east who replaced the Oase populations, likely via Central Asia through the Zagros, which would be the most parsimonious point of origin for the corresponding Levantine cultures.

The paper was published before 2009, so all dates are a bit off.

what oase population?
IMO he was a loner, not a whole population
his cultural affiliation is unknwon, his DNA doesn't fit with any other DNA

MarkoZ
05-04-17, 15:25
what oase population?IMO he was a loner, not a whole populationhis cultural affiliation is unknwon, his DNA doesn't fit with any other DNAAfaik it was more like a family. Population is the wrong word perhaps, but then again we're talking about H&Gs.

bicicleur
05-04-17, 16:48
Afaik it was more like a family. Population is the wrong word perhaps, but then again we're talking about H&Gs.

yes, I don't think much replacement was required, and no Oase admixture remained
Aurignacians were allready at the Danube in Austria 43.5 ka, probably derived from the proto-Aurignacians further down south
http://www.aggsbach.de/2014/09/new-data-from-willendorf-and-the-beginning-of-the-classic-aurignacian-in-central-europe/
ca 42 ka they were in the Swäbische Alp, southeren Germany and ca 39.5 ka they expanded west to France and east till the Don river
a bit later they also expanded to Mediterranean Europe, where proto-Aurignacian was before

LeBrok
05-04-17, 16:58
what oase population?
IMO he was a loner, not a whole population
his cultural affiliation is unknwon, his DNA doesn't fit with any other DNAIt is not that. Oase and Ust-Ishim are the oldest HSS samples ever tested. They are both 45 thousand years old. So old that even though they both live a continent away from each other they look like coming from same tribe. Although Oase have already more NE Euro. They are so old that they didn't developed local mutations as we know them today. That's why Oasis doesn't look like ancestor of European, but he as well might be.



F999935
K-M526

T732095
Oase1


Ust'-Ishim, Siberia
45kya

Romania, Central Balkans
40kya


Run time
21.09

Run time
4.52


S-Indian
26.72

S-Indian
26.35


Baloch
8.4

Baloch
6.99


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
2.19


NE-Euro
6.51

NE-Euro
16.81


SE-Asian
12.11

SE-Asian
14.75


Siberian
2.05

Siberian
0.22


NE-Asian
3.84

NE-Asian
1.21


Papuan
10.9

Papuan
9.3


American
1.13

American
-


Beringian
2.7

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
8.14

Mediterranean
7.61


SW-Asian
4.65

SW-Asian
2.94


San
2.44

San
5.62


E-African
7.27

E-African
3.02


Pygmy
1.74

Pygmy
-


W-African
1.39

W-African
2.99

epoch
05-04-17, 17:14
Hence 'sans Basal Eurasian'.

Yes, and there the problem lies.


It does seem like the Magdalenian cluster already has a slight Near Eastern affinity, since the Belgian Goyet individualhas it as well. Though it's rather small when compared with the Mesolithic cluster - so gene flow from the Near East (or the Balkans) must have been continuous.

We have a number of papers that show that European hunter-gatherers went through an extreme bottle neck during LGM. Nevertheless you propose a constant trickle of fresh gene flow into that same LGM refuge? That cannot both be true.



Not sure how you want to square that with an Aurignacian backmigration, especially when the Magdalenian populations that are being replaced generally show a more marked Aurignacian affinity than the Villabruna cluster that succeeds them.

I have a hunch that the messy classification of the Aurignac points to more than one population.


It doesn't, but I don't see a reason to believe there was a backmigration either. Aurignacoid technologies must have come to Europe with a migration of hunter gatherers from the east who replaced the Oase populations, likely via Central Asia through the Zagros, which would be the most parsimonious point of origin for the corresponding Levantine cultures.

There is more than one piece of evidence pointing to some sort of back migration. Haplogroup U6's oldest form is found in Muierii. The bottle neck argument above. The reasons I gave a few posts back with the three options on how the admixture may have come about. If you consider Zagros Aurignacian the source of Levantine you basically already half way of what I propose.


The paper was published before 2009, so all dates are a bit off.

Never mind, stuff gets updated.


Afaik it was more like a family. Population is the wrong word perhaps, but then again we're talking about H&Gs.

Oase 1 left no trace in Europeans. However, Kostenki 14, which at the very best may be a couple of thousand years younger than Oase 1 but most likely for all practical purposes can be considered contemporary to it, was clearly an European. Furthermore, if I were to hunt mammoths I would naturally follow herds from Kostenki , though the Moravian passage to South Germany and France, 44.000 to 40.000 (see bicicleur's post above) years ago. So it may very well be not via the Iron Gate that Europe got populated.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/05/following-mammoth-herds.html

epoch
05-04-17, 17:26
It is not that. Oase and Ust-Ishim are the oldest HSS samples ever tested. They are both 45 thousand years old. So old that even though they both live a continent away from each other they look like coming from same tribe. Although Oase have already more NE Euro. They are so old that they didn't developed local mutations as we know them today. That's why Oasis doesn't look like ancestor of European, but he as well might be.



F999935
K-M526

T732095
Oase1


Ust'-Ishim, Siberia
45kya

Romania, Central Balkans
40kya


Run time
21.09

Run time
4.52


S-Indian
26.72

S-Indian
26.35


Baloch
8.4

Baloch
6.99


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
2.19


NE-Euro
6.51

NE-Euro
16.81


SE-Asian
12.11

SE-Asian
14.75


Siberian
2.05

Siberian
0.22


NE-Asian
3.84

NE-Asian
1.21


Papuan
10.9

Papuan
9.3


American
1.13

American
-


Beringian
2.7

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
8.14

Mediterranean
7.61


SW-Asian
4.65

SW-Asian
2.94


San
2.44

San
5.62


E-African
7.27

E-African
3.02


Pygmy
1.74

Pygmy
-


W-African
1.39

W-African
2.99




The Oase 1 paper estimated it 42.000 - 37.000 yo. Kostenki 14 differs not much in age. You should add K14.

EDIT: Also, lumping Oase 1 and Ust'-Ishim together doesn't work well. UI chooses everything over Oase 1 in D-stats. Oase 1 doesn't seem to choose.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/images/nature14558-st1.jpg

bicicleur
05-04-17, 17:38
The Oase 1 paper estimated it 42.000 - 37.000 yo. Kostenki 14 differs not much in age. You should add K14.

I bet Kostenki 14 will look more ancestral to Europeans, allthough comparing these very old samples with contemporary ones may be misleading. Somehow you want to total 100 % while these anciant samples don't match to a 100 % mix of contemporary people.
These very old samples should be compared to paleolithic Europe and other paleolithic populations.

LeBrok
05-04-17, 17:43
Here are changes through time. We can see dropping S Indian, dropping SE Asian, rising NE Euro and rising Mediterranean. Changes which developed WHG.


T732095
Oase1

F999936
C-V199




M225927


M325047
KO1, I-L68


Romania, Central Balkans
40kya

Kostenki
37kya

Vestonice, Czech 24Kya
El Miron Spain
18 kya

Hungarian, Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
7.7 kya


Run time
4.52

Run time
18.02

Run time


Run time
6.76

Run time
9.43


S-Indian
26.35

S-Indian
13.18

S-Indian
14.06

S-Indian
5.3

S-Indian
-


Baloch
6.99

Baloch
12.49

Baloch
1.68

Baloch
-

Baloch
-


Caucasian
2.19

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
16.81

NE-Euro
29.02

NE-Euro
41.3

NE-Euro
54.59

NE-Euro
80.37


SE-Asian
14.75

SE-Asian
4.28

SE-Asian
0.8

SE-Asian
5.79

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.22

Siberian
1.75

Siberian
3.98

Siberian
0.82

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
1.21

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
9.3

Papuan
5.16

Papuan
4.65

Papuan
2.84

Papuan
0.53


American
-

American
3.32

American
3.75

American
1.27

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
1.43

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
7.61

Mediterranean
18.76

Mediterranean
23.93

Mediterranean
28.84

Mediterranean
18.59


SW-Asian
2.94

SW-Asian
5.89

SW-Asian
2.99

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
5.62

San
1.24

San
1.27

San
0.12

San
-


E-African
3.02

E-African
1.82

E-African
0.42

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.92

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
2.99

W-African
0.73

W-African
1.18

W-African
0.42

W-African
0.5

epoch
05-04-17, 21:56
Here are changes through time. We can see dropping S Indian, dropping SE Asian, rising NE Euro and rising Mediterranean. Changes which developed WHG.

The point is that this is a match against modern populations. This blotches everything. For instance, the Baloch component eats up ANE as well as Iranian_N. NE_Euro will eat up both ANE and WHG. Mediterranean will sweep up WHG and EEF/Anatolian. We pretty much know Anatolian is a mix of some European HG and Basal. When did these admix? How much from that Mediterranean will come via either admixtures?

bicicleur
05-04-17, 23:23
Here are changes through time. We can see dropping S Indian, dropping SE Asian, rising NE Euro and rising Mediterranean. Changes which developed WHG.

we see S.Indian going down and NE Euro and Medeiterranean going up, except for the Mediterranean in the KO1 WHG.
how would you explain that?

LeBrok
06-04-17, 03:37
we see S.Indian going down and NE Euro and Medeiterranean going up, except for the Mediterranean in the KO1 WHG.
how would you explain that?Med is the strongest in south Europe and weaker in Northern. These are the variations in WHG to SHG. I wish we had this Ukrainian WHG type in GedMatch.


F999915
C-V183

F999918
I-L460

M325047
KO1, I-L68
F999917
I-L416


La Braña, Spain, Leon
7 kya

Loschbour, Luxembourg
7 kya

Hungarian, Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
7.7 kya

Motala 12 Östergötland, Sweden
7 kya


Run time
8.49

Run time
14.93

Run time
9.43

Run time
8.67


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
75.79

NE-Euro
77.83

NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
90.24


SE-Asian
1.93

SE-Asian
0.44

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.07


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.54

Papuan
0.84

Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0.57


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
1.58


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
0.68


Mediterranean
21.55

Mediterranean
20.66

Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
6.83


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.17

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
0.17

W-African
0.5

W-African
-

bicicleur
06-04-17, 14:25
Med is the strongest in south Europe and weaker in Northern. These are the variations in WHG to SHG. I wish we had this Ukrainian WHG type in GedMatch.

so SHG has even more NE Euro and less Med

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8616&d=1491481384


it might be interesting to compare with this K = 14 admix

it says Ko1 is 100 WHG-like, while Motala has also some EHG-like component
in pitted ware, a 3rd component appears, which is EEF-like

Kostenki is not even 50 % EHG-like, while El Miron and Villabruna clusters are allmost 100 % WHG-like
Vestonice cluster is intermediate between Kostenki and ElMiron/Villabruna

LeBrok
06-04-17, 17:16
so SHG has even more NE Euro and less Med




it might be interesting to compare with this K = 14 admix

it says Ko1 is 100 WHG-like, while Motala has also some EHG-like component
in pitted ware, a 3rd component appears, which is EEF-like

Kostenki is not even 50 % EHG-like, while El Miron and Villabruna clusters are allmost 100 % WHG-like
Vestonice cluster is intermediate between Kostenki and ElMiron/Villabruna

Since 14kya they are rather the same, like from one tribe. However El Miron, the oldest, sticks out from this crowd.


M225927


M236020

M600205


F999918
I-L460


El Miron Spain
18 kya

Villabruna, Italy
14 kya

Bichon, Switzerland
13.6 kya

Loschbour, Luxembourg
7 kya


Run time
6.76

Run time
8.6

Run time
12.78

Run time
14.93


S-Indian
5.3

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
54.59

NE-Euro
74.57

NE-Euro
71.94

NE-Euro
77.83


SE-Asian
5.79

SE-Asian
0.65

SE-Asian
1.35

SE-Asian
0.44


Siberian
0.82

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
0.13

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
2.84

Papuan
0.31

Papuan
1.23

Papuan
0.84


American
1.27

American
-

American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
28.84

Mediterranean
23.43

Mediterranean
22.85

Mediterranean
20.66


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
0.12

San
-

San
0.29

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.07

Pygmy
0.21

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.42

W-African
0.95

W-African
2

W-African
0.17

LeBrok
06-04-17, 17:21
El Miron looks like a transition from pre LGM type to WHG. Plus it has some SE Asian and elevated Med, which could suggest that his LGM refugium could have been in Anatolia? Or perhaps a contact with Levant type/causin h-gs who migrated to NW Africa?



M561778

M225927


M236020



Vestonice, Czech 24Kya
El Miron Spain
18 kya

Villabruna, Italy
14 kya


Run time

Run time
6.76

Run time
8.6


S-Indian
14.06

S-Indian
5.3

S-Indian
-


Baloch
1.68

Baloch
-

Baloch
-


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
41.3

NE-Euro
54.59

NE-Euro
74.57


SE-Asian
0.8

SE-Asian
5.79

SE-Asian
0.65


Siberian
3.98

Siberian
0.82

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
4.65

Papuan
2.84

Papuan
0.31


American
3.75

American
1.27

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
23.93

Mediterranean
28.84

Mediterranean
23.43


SW-Asian
2.99

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
1.27

San
0.12

San
-


E-African
0.42

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.07


W-African
1.18

W-African
0.42

W-African
0.95

bix
06-04-17, 20:38
El Miron looks like a transition from pre LGM type to WHG. Plus it has some SE Asian and elevated Med, which could suggest that his LGM refugium could have been in Anatolia? Or perhaps a contact with Levant type/causin h-gs who migrated to NW Africa?

The LGM ended between 18,000 and 17,000 BP, so technically, IMO, El Miron was already in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. As I've opined before, I think there was probably a perennial Mediterranean population that was the source of this Near Eastern element/admixture down near the mouths of the Ebro and Rhone, around the Gulf of Lion to the Gulf of Genoa with connections to the Adriatic... Maybe the source of the Azilian?

epoch
06-04-17, 21:12
The LGM ended between 18,000 and 17,000 BP, so technically, IMO, El Miron was already in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. As I've opined before, I think there was probably a perennial Mediterranean population that was the source of this Near Eastern element/admixture down near the mouths of the Ebro and Rhone, around the Gulf of Lion to the Gulf of Genoa with connections to the Adriatic... Maybe the source of the Azilian?

It is such a colossal pity that Paglicci71 yielded far too few (4000) SNP's for proper analysis. Aged 19,250-18,210 bp. Yielded mtDNA U5b2b.

Must be a key sample. They should seriously attempt to resample it.

MOESAN
06-04-17, 23:45
thanks for the runs, Lebrok - I like them -

LeBrok
07-04-17, 04:21
The LGM ended between 18,000 and 17,000 BP, so technically, IMO, El Miron was already in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. As I've opined before, I think there was probably a perennial Mediterranean population that was the source of this Near Eastern element/admixture down near the mouths of the Ebro and Rhone, around the Gulf of Lion to the Gulf of Genoa with connections to the Adriatic... Maybe the source of the Azilian?Sounds believable.

LeBrok
07-04-17, 04:24
thanks for the runs, Lebrok - I like them -I'm glad to hear that. :)

bicicleur
07-04-17, 09:09
The LGM ended between 18,000 and 17,000 BP, so technically, IMO, El Miron was already in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. As I've opined before, I think there was probably a perennial Mediterranean population that was the source of this Near Eastern element/admixture down near the mouths of the Ebro and Rhone, around the Gulf of Lion to the Gulf of Genoa with connections to the Adriatic... Maybe the source of the Azilian?

25 ka shouldered points were developped in Central Europe Moravia/Middle Danube
this area was densely populated till 25 ka after which depopulation started because of the climate
those shouldered points spread all over Europe, it was also used by Solutreans and Magdalenians
so it is very likely that the El Miron cluster had at least some of that Central European admixture

MarkoZ
08-04-17, 18:43
Yes, and there the problem lies.

I don't see a problem here.



We have a number of papers that show that European hunter-gatherers went through an extreme bottle neck during LGM. Nevertheless you propose a constant trickle of fresh gene flow into that same LGM refuge? That cannot both be true.

I haven't proposed anything - I'm merely parroting the conclusions of Fu et al., which not coincidentally best explain the available evidence.

The genetic bottle necks that affected West Eurasian hunter gatherers should be related to extreme climate change at the beginning and the end of the Ice Age that would have lead to mass extinction of plant and animal species. There were no obstacles ti Mediterranean migration in the intermediate period - in fact one wouldn't even had to travel all the way north to the Western Balkans to get into Italy (the likely epicenter of the Mediterranean Epigravettian) due to lower sea levels.



Never mind, stuff gets updated.

Yes, but Intcal calibration affects all samples.

Anyway, the most important point is that in the paper authored by Fu et al. the Near Eastern affinity doesn't come from the West Eurasian branch - see their model for the Satsurbalia-Kotias hunter gatherers:

http://i.imgur.com/5dLODM9.png

I would be extremely surprised if this affinity and the Italian Epigravettian's P1 lineage was hiding somewhere in the European Aurignacian.

epoch
09-04-17, 11:47
I don't see a problem here.

It is exactly in the admixture model Fu et al you pasted in this response. That models Satsurblia as 32% Basal Eurasian and 68% Mal'ta related ancestry. As there is no Basal in WHG, which I get from this paper, then the Middle-Eastern affinity that WHG shares with CHG must be ANE. But that is basically means that the admixture came from the north.


I haven't proposed anything - I'm merely parroting the conclusions of Fu et al., which not coincidentally best explain the available evidence.

Fu et al stays clear of proposing a migration from the Middle-East.


The genetic bottle necks that affected West Eurasian hunter gatherers should be related to extreme climate change at the beginning and the end of the Ice Age that would have lead to mass extinction of plant and animal species.

Exactly the time we see the Middle-Eastern affinity for the first time. In the red lady of El Miron, who has been modeled as 1/3 (or 2/3 in the pasted admixture graph) of WHG and lived during the LGM. So my argument stands.


There were no obstacles ti Mediterranean migration in the intermediate period - in fact one wouldn't even had to travel all the way north to the Western Balkans to get into Italy (the likely epicenter of the Mediterranean Epigravettian) due to lower sea levels.

During LGM there was a small sound between Sicily and Tunesia, which indeed could have been traversed. But then the bottle neck shouldn't have been there. Furthermore you have to assume a WHG like population in North-West Africa that had no Basal Admixture. That would all be nice and dandy but uniparental markers of ice age Europe don't provide any support for that. Unless the current population of North-West Africa have no ancestry at all of that population, i.e. it moved entirely to Italy.

Also, this population should carry ANE because of the admixture graph you pasted.


Yes, but Intcal calibration affects all samples.

Anyway, the most important point is that in the paper authored by Fu et al. the Near Eastern affinity doesn't come from the West Eurasian branch - see their model for the Satsurbalia-Kotias hunter gatherers:

http://i.imgur.com/5dLODM9.png

I would be extremely surprised if this affinity and the Italian Epigravettian's P1 lineage was hiding somewhere in the European Aurignacian.

MarkoZ
09-04-17, 12:15
It is exactly in the admixture model Fu et al you pasted in this response. That models Satsurblia as 32% Basal Eurasian and 68% Mal'ta related ancestry. As there is no Basal in WHG, which I get from this paper, then the Middle-Eastern affinity that WHG shares with CHG must be ANE. But that is basically means that the admixture came from the north.

As has been discussed here multiple times, Mal'ta boy is very diverged from that parent population which contributed to Kotias-Satsurbalia. There is no indication whatsoever that this component came from the north. South-Central Asia via Iran would perhaps be a more reasonable explanation.


Fu et al stays clear of proposing a migration from the Middle-East.

They put said admixture on either a migrating Near Eastern population or a population with that affinity that was hiding in the Balkans.


Exactly the time we see the Middle-Eastern affinity for the first time. In the red lady of El Miron, who has been modeled as 1/3 (or 2/3 in the pasted admixture graph) of WHG and lived during the LGM. So my argument stands.

No your point doesn't stand. Hunters could have walked along the northern shores of the Mediterranean without encountering desertic tundra let alone the ice fields. There was no barrier impeding gene flow whatsoever.

epoch
09-04-17, 14:48
As has been discussed here multiple times, Mal'ta boy is very diverged from that parent population which contributed to Kotias-Satsurbalia. There is no indication whatsoever that this component came from the north. South-Central Asia via Iran would perhaps be a more reasonable explanation.

But the diagram that you posted yourself models Satsurblia that way. Have a look at it.



They put said admixture on either a migrating Near Eastern population or a population with that affinity that was hiding in the Balkans.

Let me rephrase that: The Fu paper stays clear of pushing for M.E. immigration

Let's quote the exact text:


The Satsurblia Cluster individuals from the Caucasus dating to ~13,000–10,000 years ago share more alleles with the Villabruna Cluster individuals than they do with earlier Europeans, indicating that they are related to the population that contributed new alleles to people in the Villabruna Cluster, although they cannot be the direct source of the gene flow. One reason for this is that the Satsurblia Cluster carries large amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster individuals do not (Supplementary Information section 12; Extended Data Fig. 4). 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

(No word of the Balkans in the paper though)


No your point doesn't stand. Hunters could have walked along the northern shores of the Mediterranean without encountering desertic tundra let alone the ice fields. There was no barrier impeding gene flow whatsoever.

But then the bottle neck wouldn't have occurred. Because of exactly that gene flow. You can't have the cake and eat it on this. Either gene flow or extreme bottle neck.

MarkoZ
09-04-17, 16:19
But the diagram that you posted yourself models Satsurblia that way. Have a look at it.

You don't seem to understand: there's no indication that the population that coalesced with the hypothetical BE component came from the north.



Let me rephrase that: The Fu paper stays clear of pushing for M.E. immigration

Let's quote the exact text:



(No word of the Balkans in the paper though)

From the paper:


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


But then the bottle neck wouldn't have occurred. Because of exactly that gene flow. You can't have the cake and eat it on this. Either gene flow or extreme bottle neck.

That's just ridiculous. A bottleneck tells us nothing about the gene flow that occurred before and after this particular event. If a very mixed population persists during a cataclysmic event and while other populations are culled, that's still a bottleneck. That's particularly true when most models that yield LGM & Late Glacial bottlenecks are primarily based on the study of mtDNA.

EDIT: I just noticed that we've veered off of your original hypothesis of Aurignacian genetic structure, so let's just cut it here.

epoch
09-04-17, 20:21
You don't seem to understand: there's no indication that the population that coalesced with the hypothetical BE component came from the north.

So Fu et al were wrong when they present a model with 32% Basal en 68% Malta? Malta being the prime example of a population called Ancient North-Eurasians? I mean, you posted that graph and I don't see it modeled as admixed with anything else but Basal (split of before Ust Ishim) and something from which came from the same source as Malta did.

Now you may have the opinion that this is not the case and maybe that's right. But this graph is not your piece of evidence for it. May you should provide links which make the case for it.


From the paper:

Fair enough, that constitutes the Balkans and Anatolia


That's just ridiculous. A bottleneck tells us nothing about the gene flow that occurred before and after this particular event. If a very mixed population persists during a cataclysmic event and while other populations are culled, that's still a bottleneck. That's particularly true when most models that yield LGM & Late Glacial bottlenecks are primarily based on the study of mtDNA.

From Lararidis 2014: "
Through comparison of Loschbour’s two chromosomes we find that this low diversity is not due to recent inbreeding but instead due to a population bottleneck in this individual’s more distant ancestors (Extended Data Fig. 2)."




EDIT: I just noticed that we've veered off of your original hypothesis of Aurignacian genetic structure, so let's just cut it here.

But this is exactly why I came up with that idea. Migration from M.E. is virtually impossible because of the Basal issue. So we have two possibilities left:

1) S.E. Europe. However, a number of odd things make it less likely candidate to host the original admixture which was partly ancestral to WHG. First, we have a number of adjacent samples from 30.000 + something years ago, from Romania. They show no affinity to WHG (see Fu et al). We know that during the Mesolithic Greek HG's were of a different mtDNA: K1b.

2) Italy and South-East France. Both El Miron and Paglicci71 are mtDNA U5b, which is said to be a tracer for WHG/Villabruna cluster (Krause) and are situated at the end of LGM. El Miron has part WHG admixture and has the affinities that WHG exposes at well.

Now what culture could that have been? Perhaps the only one not sampled in Fu et al, the Solutreans. But they can't have been Gravettians since that would mean WHG would nicely and sweetly model as Gravettians. Hence something pre-Gravettian must have survived from before. And that makes it Aurignacian.

Now, completely independent from that we read that Aurignacian toolkits from the same area that the Solutrean came look like an intrusive population in the Levant some 33.000 years ago.

Now the latter is just an idea I have. But the case against M.E admixture is simple: No Basal.

epoch
09-04-17, 21:01
You don't seem to understand: there's no indication that the population that coalesced with the hypothetical BE component came from the north.

There is actually quite some indication. Lazaridis et al 2016 models CHG as Basal + EHG.



We can model CHG as a mixture of Iran_N and different European hunter-gatherer populations (Table S7.7), with an estimate of 71.6±6.0% Iran_N, 7.0±3.8% WHG, 21.4±7.7% EHG.

Table 7.6 shows that the differences between CHG and meso Iran doesn't favour any of the WHG's or EHG's. That means it may very well be old.



No strong evidence that allele frequency differences between CHG and Iran_N are strongly associated with a particular ancient West Eurasian hunter-gatherer population

The paper states that Mesolithic Iran had EHG/ANE admixture:


involving the EHG and the related Eneolithic Steppe population also from eastern Europe groups than the Neolithic. Tentatively,this might suggest that the pre-Neolithic population of Iran had an affinity to the EHG/Ancient North Eurasians that was diluted during the Neolithic, although the lack of negative f4-statistics does not allow us to discern what is the source of this dilution.

It models Anatolian as Levantine + extra WHG.

So it's not that nobody but me suggests something old akin to WHG or EHG admixted into the M.E. somehow.

MarkoZ
09-04-17, 21:08
So Fu et al were wrong when they present a model with 32% Basal en 68% Malta? Malta being the prime example of a population called Ancient North-Eurasians? I mean, you posted that graph and I don't see it modeled as admixed with anything else but Basal (split of before Ust Ishim) and something from which came from the same source as Malta did.

Now you may have the opinion that this is not the case and maybe that's right. But this graph is not your piece of evidence for it. May you should provide links which make the case for it.

The point is that the Near Eastern ancestry of the Villabruna cluster isn't related to the West Eurasian branch. This same branch coalesced with another population to give birth to the Mal'ta population, which is not ancestral the population that converged with Basal Eurasian to form Satsurbalia-Kotias and related specimens.


Through comparison of Loschbour’s two chromosomes we find that this low diversity is not due to recent inbreeding but instead due to a population bottleneck in this individual’s more distant ancestors (Extended Data Fig. 2)."

I guess we all agree that the Near Eastern admixture appeared before the Mesolithic.


But this is exactly why I came up with that idea. Migration from M.E. is virtually impossible because of the Basal issue. So we have two possibilities left:

I see no reason to believe that Basal Eurasian was spread far and wide in West Asia before and even during the Iranian Zarzian and Levantine Kebaran phases respectively. The skeletal evidence suggests that typically West Eurasian skeletons predominate before a shift into a rather African ('Mediterranean') direction occurs with the latter two cultures. See for example Hershkovitz 1995 on Ohalo II, or Stock 2005 on Wadi Mataha F-81.

Be that as it may ( I guess one can only speculate due to the lack of relevant samples), the Basal Eurasian issue is yet less relevant in the case of an Upper Paleolithic population that emanated from Central Asia or thereabouts. One doesn't have to trek through the Arabian deserts to get to Europe from Iran or Turkmenistan.


1) S.E. Europe. However, a number of odd things make it less likely candidate to host the original admixture which was partly ancestral to WHG. First, we have a number of adjacent samples from 30.000 + something years ago, from Romania. They show no affinity to WHG (see Fu et al). We know that during the Mesolithic Greek HG's were of a different mtDNA: K1b.

Didn't you cite the Mueirii samples as evidence of backmigration just a few posts earlier? In any case, we're not talking about the main ancestry of the Villabruna cluster (which is on the West Eurasian branch), but the Near Eastern influence that affected those populations. Mesolithic and early Upper Paleolithic samples aren't really relevant in this case.


Now what culture could that have been? Perhaps the only one not sampled in Fu et al, the Solutreans. But they can't have been Gravettians since that would mean WHG would nicely and sweetly model as Gravettians. Hence something pre-Gravettian must have survived from before. And that makes it Aurignacian.

That would make sense if the only thing that made the Villabruna cluster divergent was internal West Eurasian structure (as seems to be the case with, for example, Gravettian differentation with respect to the Aurignacian) but with Y-DNA P1 and a non-West-Eurasian aDNA component we're clearly talking about foreign influence.


Now the latter is just an idea I have. But the case against M.E admixture is simple: No Basal.

Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology: what's the maximum extent of the Middle East for you? Does it include Iran-Armenia-Anatolia?

MarkoZ
09-04-17, 21:18
So it's not that nobody but me suggests something old akin to WHG or EHG admixted into the M.E. somehow.

Hold on, we're in agreement that both the Middle East and Europe were affected by the same population movements of the West Eurasian branch? Of course there's old West Eurasian ancestry everywhere in the Middle East - it just didn't get there from Europe :laughing:

LeBrok
09-04-17, 21:27
Relationship of WHG and CHG seems to be through NE Euro component only. NE Euro developed in Europe and NW Asia only. However the complete lack of Med admixture in CHG is telling us that WHG wasn't the source of NE Euro in CHG. More likely the contact was with EHG instead, or most likely with central asian h-g type, because of surprising 1% of Siberian admixture in CHG. EHG had substantial American admixture but 0 Siberian.




M325047
KO1, I-L68
M551062



Hungarian, Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
7.7 kya

Kotias CHG


Run time
9.43

Run time
15.3


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.78


Baloch
-

Baloch
34.39


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
50.95


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
5.89


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.88


Siberian
-

Siberian
0.95


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0.11


American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.16


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
5.89

LeBrok
09-04-17, 21:42
There is much stronger connection of WHG to Anatolia and Levant through Mediterranean admixture. We are yet to find h-g who was the source of it.



M325047
KO1, I-L68
M041601
Merged

M936428
I0709

EN Jordan, .Ain Ghazal
7.5k BC


Hungarian, Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
7.7 kya

Natufian


Anatolian EF

M632231
I1707


Run time
9.43

Run time
6.39

Run time
12.82

Run time
3.31


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
13.98

Caucasian
36.48

Caucasian
27.79


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
0.96

NE-Euro
2.52


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.08

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0.68

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
27.39

Mediterranean
48.79

Mediterranean
34.48


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
53.62

SW-Asian
13.49

SW-Asian
34.6


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.51


E-African
-

E-African
4.33

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
-

W-African
0.16

W-African
0.1

bicicleur
09-04-17, 21:57
There is much stronger connection of WHG to Anatolia and Levant through Mediterranean admixture. We are yet to find h-g who was the source of it.


we know that the origin of the European farmers was (G2a2) central Anatolian, not (Natufian) Levant and not Zagros (Iran Neo)
therefore the Mediterranean in EN Jordan may be to some extent derived from admixture with Central Anatolians

Sile
09-04-17, 22:25
we know that the origin of the European farmers was (G2a2) central Anatolian, not (Natufian) Levant and not Zagros (Iran Neo)
therefore the Mediterranean in EN Jordan may be to some extent derived from admixture with Central Anatolians

All Natufian samples have caucasian % ...........this fits with all Ydna haplogroups from K origins are north of the Zargos mountains

LeBrok
09-04-17, 22:30
we know that the origin of the European farmers was (G2a2) central Anatolian, not (Natufian) Levant and not Zagros (Iran Neo)
therefore the Mediterranean in EN Jordan may be to some extent derived from admixture with Central AnatoliansWe need to find Central Anatolian HG.

epoch
10-04-17, 11:53
The point is that the Near Eastern ancestry of the Villabruna cluster isn't related to the West Eurasian branch. This same branch coalesced with another population to give birth to the Mal'ta population, which is not ancestral the population that converged with Basal Eurasian to form Satsurbalia-Kotias and related specimens.

These are three assumptions that need at least some evidence. You assume:

1) Near Eastern ancestry of the Villabruna cluster isn't related to the West Eurasian branch
2) This same branch coalesced with another population to give birth to the Mal'ta population
3) Mal'ta population is not ancestral the population that converged with Basal Eurasian to form Satsurbalia-Kotias and related specimens

I don't see any of these three assumptions proven.


I see no reason to believe that Basal Eurasian was spread far and wide in West Asia before and even during the Iranian Zarzian and Levantine Kebaran phases respectively. The skeletal evidence suggests that typically West Eurasian skeletons predominate before a shift into a rather African ('Mediterranean') direction occurs with the latter two cultures. See for example Hershkovitz 1995 on Ohalo II, or Stock 2005 on Wadi Mataha F-81.

Mesolithic Hotu samples already showed basal. Upper Paleolithic CHG (13,300 years old) had it. Are you suggesting these were islands of Basal? Or that 13.000 years ago Basal was in the Caucasus but not Iran?


Be that as it may ( I guess one can only speculate due to the lack of relevant samples), the Basal Eurasian issue is yet less relevant in the case of an Upper Paleolithic population that emanated from Central Asia or thereabouts. One doesn't have to trek through the Arabian deserts to get to Europe from Iran or Turkmenistan.

But what makes you think it went that way?


Didn't you cite the Mueirii samples as evidence of backmigration just a few posts earlier? In any case, we're not talking about the main ancestry of the Villabruna cluster (which is on the West Eurasian branch), but the Near Eastern influence that affected those populations. Mesolithic and early Upper Paleolithic samples aren't really relevant in this case.



That would make sense if the only thing that made the Villabruna cluster divergent was internal West Eurasian structure (as seems to be the case with, for example, Gravettian differentation with respect to the Aurignacian) but with Y-DNA P1 and a non-West-Eurasian aDNA component we're clearly talking about foreign influence.

Y-DNA R1b1b could have been coming from ANE as well. It is prevalent among populations which all show ANE admixture. WHGa has been modeled as partly ANE by Lazaridis 2016 and Davidski. KO1's mtDNA can also be found in Afontova Gora 3, so contact with ANE seems logical. Han has been modeled a partly ANE so that explains the tad Asian affinity. No need for a bypass via Iran here.


Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology: what's the maximum extent of the Middle East for you? Does it include Iran-Armenia-Anatolia?

MarkoZ
10-04-17, 14:57
These are three assumptions that need at least some evidence. You assume:

1) Near Eastern ancestry of the Villabruna cluster isn't related to the West Eurasian branch
2) This same branch coalesced with another population to give birth to the Mal'ta population
3) Mal'ta population is not ancestral the population that converged with Basal Eurasian to form Satsurbalia-Kotias and related specimens

I don't see any of these three assumptions proven.

I don't assume these things, these are literally in the tree.

Edit: I think those results were replicated by the authors of the recent Baltic paper, with the exception that they sought to model the Karelian hunters. I'll see if I can find it.


Mesolithic Hotu samples already showed basal. Upper Paleolithic CHG (13,300 years old) had it. Are you suggesting these were islands of Basal? Or that 13.000 years ago Basal was in the Caucasus but not Iran?

But what makes you think it went that way?

Apart from the skeletal evidence, we can narrow down the timeframe of Basal Eurasian dispersal by look at the European evidence. The beginning of the Gravettian in sees Middle Eastern Ahmarian-Lagaman-Dabba blade industries appearing in along the Danubian and in the North Caucasus. I think that we can say with near-certitude that these dynamics brought at least some gene flow into the aforementioned areas. Since we do not see a subsequent increase in Basal Eurasian affinity, I guess we can safely assume that 30k-22k BC is the terminus post quem for this hypothetical component in Jordan-Israel and vicinity.

epoch
10-04-17, 16:00
I don't assume these things, these are literally in the tree.

Not the way you interpret it a number of posts ago. That lineage is clearly ANE.


As has been discussed here multiple times, Mal'ta boy is very diverged from that parent population which contributed to Kotias-Satsurbalia. There is no indication whatsoever that this component came from the north. South-Central Asia via Iran would perhaps be a more reasonable explanation.




Apart from the skeletal evidence, we can narrow down the timeframe of Basal Eurasian dispersal by look at the European evidence. The beginning of the Gravettian in sees Middle Eastern Ahmarian-Lagaman-Dabba blade industries appearing in along the Danubian and in the North Caucasus. I think that we can say with near-certitude that these dynamics brought at least some gene flow into the aforementioned areas. Since we do not see a subsequent increase in Basal Eurasian affinity, I think we can safely say that 30k-22k BC is the terminus post quem for this affinity in Jordan-Israel and vicinity.

I read more papers claiming an Ahmarian origin for the Gravettian. But we have a large amount of Gravettian DNA and it shows no M.E. affinity. I think we can say with near-certitude that this fact disproves the theory.

https://paleo.revues.org/607#tocto1n2

MarkoZ
10-04-17, 16:07
Not the way you interpret it a number of posts ago. That lineage is clearly ANE.

ANE was coined for the Mal'ta boy, but it doesn't lead to Satsurbalia-Kotias in Fu's tree. In fact it is highly diverged from the source population.


I read more papers claiming an Ahmarian origin for the Gravettian. But we have a large amount of Gravettian DNA and it shows no M.E. affinity. I think we can say with near-certitude that this fact disproves the theory.

https://paleo.revues.org/607#tocto1n2

That's exactly the point. Middle East until 22k BC = fully or mostly West Eurasian.

How frustrating. Am I being trolled?

epoch
22-04-17, 14:13
ANE was coined for the Mal'ta boy, but it doesn't lead to Satsurbalia-Kotias in Fu's tree. In fact it is highly diverged from the source population.

But the exact same way is how they show Goyet116's relation to El Miron and Kostenki14's relation to Vestonice16, both of which are considered ancestral in the text.


That's exactly the point. Middle East until 22k BC = fully or mostly West Eurasian.

I am really making an effort to see your point. Let's assume that at 22k BC something fully Eurasian was in Iran. From what I read the UP culture also shows connection to the Aurignacians. Then, 22k BC, something Basal Eurasian comes in and introduces it admixture. 3000 years later an affinity to the Middle-East pops up in an European population without any Basal. What are you suggesting? Displaced pre-Basal Iranians trekked to Europe during LGM? Before LGM? Or complete replacement in Europe by Iranian refugees? But when?

Furthermore, the fact that WHG (and CHG) went through a bottle neck is not just established via mtDNA, it is established via RoH. Check the CHG paper. So I still think my argument stands.

MarkoZ
23-04-17, 23:14
I am really making an effort to see your point. Let's assume that at 22k BC something fully Eurasian was in Iran. From what I read the UP culture also shows connection to the Aurignacians.

Not sure what you mean by that - Upper Paleolithic sites aren't really that remarkable, and of course within Eurasia they all ultimately derive from a common Asian source, so some broad similarities can be identified everyhwere. Though in all likelihood Europe would have been little more than a sink, with some possible exceptions like North-West Africa where gene-flow from Europe must have occurred at some point.


Then, 22k BC, something Basal Eurasian comes in and introduces it admixture. 3000 years later an affinity to the Middle-East pops up in an European population without any Basal. What are you suggesting? Displaced pre-Basal Iranians trekked to Europe during LGM? Before LGM? Or complete replacement in Europe by Iranian refugees? But when?

Without ancient samples this is impossible to say. I think Villabruna's Y-DNA makes a relatively late introduction more likely. There's also the peculiar finding that Villabruna's skeletal morphology is most similar to present-day North Africans, which makes him an outlier among increasingly temperate-adapted European hunters:


In conclusion, the results of bivariate analysessuggest that Villabruna 1 had a relatively slenderphysique, intermediate in its nature between thetropically-adapted constitution characteristic ofEUP and the temperate-adapted structure of contemporaryLUP people. When compared withmodern samples, the specimen shows highestsimilarities with North Africans populations. Aspreviously mentioned, the ponderal index is theonly parameter in disagreement with this generalpattern. In order to evaluate the importance of thelatter characteristic in a generally differently orientedmorphocomplex, a multivariate analysis ofVillabruna 1’s body proportions was carried out.

http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

That fact that he retains a tropically-adapted skeleton makes me doubt that the majority of his ancestors were in Europe throughout the LGM. But I guess the evidence isn't strong enough to completely rule out the possibility of a Mediterranean population in the Balkans, Italy or one of the islands which already had said 'West Asian' affinity. In the latter scenario Villabruna's Y-DNA would be quite difficult to explain, too.



Furthermore, the fact that WHG (and CHG) went through a bottle neck is not just established via mtDNA, it is established via RoH. Check the CHG paper. So I still think my argument stands.

The internal relatedness of Mesolithic WHG populations isn't in dispute. CHG is another such population which derives from highly diverse ancestors and became very homogeneous for whatever reason.

epoch
28-04-17, 13:01
Not sure what you mean by that - Upper Paleolithic sites aren't really that remarkable

Which undermines your earlier remark on Ahmarian influences in Gravettian.


, and of course within Eurasia they all ultimately derive from a common Asian source, so some broad similarities can be identified everyhwere. Though in all likelihood Europe would have been little more than a sink, with some possible exceptions like North-West Africa where gene-flow from Europe must have occurred at some point.

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


Without ancient samples this is impossible to say. I think Villabruna's Y-DNA makes a relatively late introduction more likely. There's also the peculiar finding that Villabruna's skeletal morphology is most similar to present-day North Africans, which makes him an outlier among increasingly temperate-adapted European hunters:

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





http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

That fact that he retains a tropically-adapted skeleton makes me doubt that the majority of his ancestors were in Europe throughout the LGM. But I guess the evidence isn't strong enough to completely rule out the possibility of a Mediterranean population in the Balkans, Italy or one of the islands which already had said 'West Asian' affinity. In the latter scenario Villabruna's Y-DNA would be quite difficult to explain, too.

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



These observations are confirmed by the ratios between limb bones and skeletal trunk height, which place Villabruna 1 near to the tropically-adapted EUP morphotype, among fossil series, and close to North Africans, among recent samples. Therefore, limb bones/trunk proportions suggest that Villabruna 1 retains warm-climate adaptations characterizing EUP populations more than his contemporaries (Holliday, 1997).

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




The internal relatedness of Mesolithic WHG populations isn't in dispute. CHG is another such population which derives from highly diverse ancestors and became very homogeneous for whatever reason.

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

It simply doesn't fit IMHO.

MOESAN
28-04-17, 18:13
I doubt today NorthAfrican population is homogenous for limbs!!! legends

MarkoZ
28-04-17, 18:27
Which undermines your earlier remark on Ahmarian influences in Gravettian.

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


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

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




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

It is.



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

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


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

Possible.


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

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


It simply doesn't fit IMHO.

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

MarkoZ
28-04-17, 18:50
I doubt today NorthAfrican population is homogenous for limbs!!! legends

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

epoch
28-04-17, 20:09
It's not my 'remark'. Broad similarities in Upper Paleolithic sites can exists alongside distinct cultural trends. You're reducing the whole study of early prehistory to absurdity.

But you mentioned to point to possible migrations.


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

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

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



It is.




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

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

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

And you say I stretch things to absurdity?


Possible.



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

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


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

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

MarkoZ
29-04-17, 00:32
But you mentioned to point to possible migrations.

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

epoch
29-04-17, 08:51
The idea of Near Eastern influence in the European Gravettian is hardly controversial. It's not my idea at all.

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




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

West-Asian, actually.




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

From the supp info:

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

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



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

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


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

In the 300 years that separate Bichon and Villabruna?



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

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


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

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

epoch
29-04-17, 09:22
Mind you, I don't think the U6* paper or the Goyet166 reappearance are proof of a migration from Europe or even part of evidence for what I say, just that they make the case of Europe as a sink where wave upon wave of immigrant came only to be withered away look less appealing.

MOESAN
29-04-17, 14:27
Well it's about averages, isn't it? I'm sure there's some minor overlap even between such divergent groups as Sami and Australians, for example.

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

MarkoZ
31-05-17, 17:22
I do address it. With D-stats. Back when Fu et al came out Satsurblia was about the only old enough sample for comparison. We have more now. That is why I posted the D-stats, which swap Satsurblia with ancient Middle-Easterners.

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


The Satsurblia and Villabruna Clusters are not particularly closely related

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


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

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

Angela
31-05-17, 17:31
In the Reich speech to which I posted a link, he presents a graphic on these ancient groups which might be helpful. The discussion starts around 14:14.

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

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

MarkoZ
31-05-17, 17:39
I think that's just a simplified version of Fu's tree, isn't it?

http://i.imgur.com/5dLODM9.png

Angela
31-05-17, 18:34
I think that's just a simplified version of Fu's tree, isn't it?

http://i.imgur.com/5dLODM9.png

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

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

MarkoZ
01-06-17, 12:09
Apparently, although I'm sure that he and Svante Paabo have a lot of samples by now, the analysis doesn't seem to have changed, yes?

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