The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

It is all nice and dandy to look for WHG source in the Middle-East, Iran or the Caspian. But we have WHG admixture and a rising signal of Middle-Eastern in the Red Lady of El Miron. So whatever it was, it clearly started to influence Iberia during LGM. Apart from that WHG has no trace of Basal Eurasian, which is pretty much inexplicable if WHG came from the Middle-East.

It could obviously be the case that Middle-Eastern population entered Anatolia after WHG went north. That would explain for a number of things: WHG admixture in Anatolian EN. But if WHG came from Anatolia before the Middle Easterners arrived there two issues arise: First, it would ruin the Poetic Justice case so it can't be true (Sorry, Angela, for this joke) and secondly: Where is the U5b in Anatolian EN? It does have WHG admixture, but the only UP European mtDNA among it is U8a.
 
Angela said:
I think that has to do with the linkage between Liguria and Provence during these time periods which Margherita Mussi discusses at some length even going by the chopped up version on google books.

Perhaps the argument could be made that in the Early Epigravettian neither Liguria nor Provence (and down the coast) are actually Epigravettian, and that it arrived only with later lithic assemblages, and at that point didn't extend into present day France, but I may be totally wrong about that. The whole "Arenian" complex and how that fits into the scheme of things is a bit of a mystery to me.

Unfortunately, it seems to be a bit of a mystery to the experts as well. :)
Click to expand...

I've come across a confusing information about that area, which does surely lend to its mystery. There was paper I read, that I've got around somewhere that describes the area of the lower Rhone, especially south of the Durance during the LGM and a while after, as kind of a cultural conundrum (Bouverian, Arenian, yada yada yada). And it may've moved back and forth from one side of the Rhone to another for some time, until the Azilian I guess.

I half expect some of those I2 guys to have been hanging out there, right where all the confusion is.
 
bix said:
I've come across a confusing information about that area, which does surely lend to its mystery. There was paper I read, that I've got around somewhere that describes the area of the lower Rhone, especially south of the Durance during the LGM and a while after, as kind of a cultural conundrum (Bouverian, Arenian, yada yada yada). And it may've moved back and forth from one side of the Rhone to another for some time, until the Azilian I guess.

I half expect some of those I2 guys to have been hanging out there, right where all the confusion is.
Click to expand...

That may account for half of the WHG carrying more GoyetQ116 than the other half. It may also account for very early admixture in El Miron.
 
bix said:
I've come across a confusing information about that area, which does surely lend to its mystery. There was paper I read, that I've got around somewhere that describes the area of the lower Rhone, especially south of the Durance during the LGM and a while after, as kind of a cultural conundrum (Bouverian, Arenian, yada yada yada). And it may've moved back and forth from one side of the Rhone to another for some time, until the Azilian I guess.

I half expect some of those I2 guys to have been hanging out there, right where all the confusion is.
Click to expand...

I was going on about the fact that there was an ice free corridor there precisely because it seemed like one way that WHG genes might have reached El Miron. The gene flow could have moved both ways, of course.
 
Angela said:
I was going on about the fact that there was an ice free corridor there precisely because it seemed like one way that WHG genes might have reached El Miron. The gene flow could have moved both ways, of course.
Click to expand...

Which I appreciate because I was on about that too, in my mind at least;) The northern Ligurian coastal area was an interesting place at that time, as it still is to this very day. But it clearly served as a refuge, so it must've had some good stuff on the menu. I don't know, but people who resided there may have had good reason to maintain some connections east and west if they could brave the elements in that narrow corridor. That could have enhanced their survival chances when the climate began to change more rapidly.
 
bix said:
There was paper I read, that I've got around somewhere that describes the area of the lower Rhone, especially south of the Durance during the LGM and a while after, as kind of a cultural conundrum (Bouverian, Arenian, yada yada yada). And it may've moved back and forth from one side of the Rhone to another for some time, until the Azilian I guess.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that paper?
 
epoch said:
It is all nice and dandy to look for WHG source in the Middle-East, Iran or the Caspian. But we have WHG admixture and a rising signal of Middle-Eastern in the Red Lady of El Miron. So whatever it was, it clearly started to influence Iberia during LGM. Apart from that WHG has no trace of Basal Eurasian, which is pretty much inexplicable if WHG came from the Middle-East.

It could obviously be the case that Middle-Eastern population entered Anatolia after WHG went north. That would explain for a number of things: WHG admixture in Anatolian EN. But if WHG came from Anatolia before the Middle Easterners arrived there two issues arise: First, it would ruin the Poetic Justice case so it can't be true (Sorry, Angela, for this joke) and secondly: Where is the U5b in Anatolian EN? It does have WHG admixture, but the only UP European mtDNA among it is U8a.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize; I like spirited debate, and I very much like some humor mixed into all of this.

I'm not specifically looking for the WHG source in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Caspian. I don't care on any personal level where it was, although yes, it would be nice if Nordicists and assorted racists were served some more poetic justice. However, I have too high a regard for my own integrity to distort what I see as a clear reading of the data (once and if I reach that point) in order to score points against such people.

According to Wu et al, the WHG either admixed with, or represent a gene flow of an at least slightly different group from Greece (and perhaps Anatolia before that) , or there was ancient substructure in Europe which existed before then, but even in that case they maintain that the WHG have a different relationship with modern Near Eastern populations than did the other clusters of Pre-Neolithic Europeans, and that relationship may be because of a relationship between the WHG and some ancient ancestors of modern Near Easterners. El Miron would have inherited that trait from them. Are we in agreement at least as to what they claim?

I'm quite aware that some people have raised the possibility that this is because the WHG migrated into Anatolia and contributed genes to the Early Anatolian Farmers. It was the first thing I mentioned when I first posted about this. However, after re-reading the paper carefully I realized that this group of researchrs, surely aware that this might be considered, and of how similar movements have created confusing results in other situations, don't mention the possibility anywhere.

Did they all suddenly get stupid and we're all so very much smarter? I guess it's possible.

As I said, I took a little refresher course in the Epigravettian. As part of that, I chanced upon a paper which shows that some researchers of this period think there was a cultural "entity" between Anatolia and the Balkans in the Gravettian and Epigravettian. Furthermore, the Gravettian in those areas is indeed very different from that in the central European plain in terms of the development of certain lithics, the prey hunted, and many other things. You have mentioned how, if hunter-gatherers moved, they were usually following their prey. Well, the new prey moved south to north, and so did the new lithics. That's suggestive to me. Is it proof? No. Am I totally convinced? Absolutely not, but I see even less "proof" for the other proposals.

Just a word about this term "Near Eastern" or "Middle Eastern". I hate to be the word, or definition, police, but...

It seems pretty clear to me that the Aurignacians came from the Middle East. The Gravettians may very well have originated south of the Caucasus, although not from Anatolia or the Levant. Obviously, that is anathema to some people, and in fact, talking about heads exploding, I can hear them popping as I speak, but it makes sense to me given that the Aurignacians and the Gravettians are part of a single "founding" population autosomally according to Wu et al. We know the EEF trace most of their ancestry to people who lived there, and almost half of the ancestry of the Yamnaya came from south of the Caucasus as well. In terms of those time periods, these people were all "Middle Eastern", or had "Middle Eastern" ancestry. None of them are exactly the same as modern Middle Easterners, not even the EEF. So, I don't know why the inhabitants of the Middle East become "Middle Easterners" only after the hunter gatherers leave. At the risk of again being accused of paranoia, I strongly believe it's because in the minds of some people, present company excepted, of course, it's that tainted Basal Eurasian that they associate with SSA or with Arabs which presents the big problem, hence that unending series of calculators designed to show which Europeans had the least of this despised "component". As to why, therefore, it's such anathema to some people to think that the WHG, who didn't apparently carry that dreaded Basal ancestry, came from the Middle East, you've got me. Nothing about the thought processes of such people makes sense to me.

All very ironic, in a dark way, to my way of thinking, as it's precisely those people, if they formed part of the ancestry of the Natufians, who participated in one of the largest advances in human history, the development of agriculture and animal husbandry, without which I wouldn't be typing on this computer, and later of metallurgy, and writing, and numerous other advances in human history, including the creation by the Jews of a monotheistic god, although I'm aware some people might not consider that an advancement. I find the whole thing so small minded as to beggar belief, but then I was a history and classics and archaeology person to whom it was made abundantly clear that indeed "ex oriente lux".

As to how Wu et al reconcile a possible flow of genes from Anatolia into the WHG while maintaining that WHG have no Basal Eurasian signal, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone really knows what Basal Eurasian is, including them, unless they're holding out on us, which is certainly possible. The discovery of the CHG vindicated some of the early conclusions of the Reich lab, but I have no idea if they have or will discover one that is "Basal Eurasian". They've corrected their previous papers before, and maybe they will again. Amusingly, we've been informed that the latest, best analysis now shows WHG can be modeled as almost 50% Basal Eurasian, so who the heck knows. If that isn't the case, which wouldn't surprise me, perhaps the "Basal Eurasian" was in the Arabian refugium, as I posited in the mtDna ROa paper. Maybe it moved north to form the Natufian, after the departure of WHG like people and then spread far and wide. Maybe they were hiding somewhere near the Persian Gulf. We'll have to wait and see.

Or maybe Wu et al's second alternative is correct and it's ancient substructure in Europe. We'll have to wait and see about that as well.
 
bix said:
Which I appreciate because I was on about that too, in my mind at least;) The northern Ligurian coastal area was an interesting place at that time, as it still is to this very day. But it clearly served as a refuge, so it must've had some good stuff on the menu. I don't know, but people who resided there may have had good reason to maintain some connections east and west if they could brave the elements in that narrow corridor. That could have enhanced their survival chances when the climate began to change more rapidly.
Click to expand...

Ironically, they may have had more fish then than now. The currents in the modern era have been such that Liguria is very poor in the sort of large fish that are a blessing for the Campanians, the people on the Adriatic coast, and other Europeans. We make do with sardines and anchovies and ugly, bony, if delicious fish types.

A famous Tuscan saying about Liguria is "Mare senza pesce, montagne senza alberi, uomini senza fede, e donne senza vergogna." A sea without fish, mountains without trees, men without faith and women without shame. The last, at least, is an utter calumny. :) He was imprisoned in Liguria from what I've read in one source, and his lover abandoned him. He probably deserved it!
 
Angela said:
Are we in agreement at least as to what they claim?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe so. And I think it probably could even be a combination--ancient substructure, admixture and gene flow, just because it can be that damned complicated. But I imagine it's awfully hard putting that in just a few thousand words, in one paper. I look forward to more.

As for the trash talkin' Tuscan, he's got nothin.
 
The Kebaran or Kebarian culture was an archaeological culture in the eastern Mediterranean area (c. 18,000 to 12,500 BC), named after its type site, Kebara Cave south of Haifa. The Kebaran were a highly mobile nomadic population, composed of hunters and gatherers in the Levant and Sinai areas who utilized microlithic tools.
The Kebaran is the last Upper Paleolithic phase of the Levant (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine). The Kebarans were characterized by small, geometric microliths, and were thought to lack the specialized grinders and pounders found in later Near Eastern cultures.
The Kebaran is preceded by the Athlitian phase of the Antelian and followed by the proto-agrarian Natufian culture of theEpipalaeolithic. The appearance of the Kebarian culture, of microlithic type implies a significant rupture in the cultural continuity of Levantine Upper Paleolithic. The Kebaran culture, with its use of microliths, is associated with the use of the bow and arrow and the domestication of the dog[1] The Kebaran is also characterised by the earliest collecting of wild cereals, known due to the uncovering of grain grinding tools. It was the first step towards the Neolithic Revolution. The Kebaran people are believed to have practiced dispersal to upland environments in the summer, and aggregation in caves and rockshelters near lowland lakes in the winter. This diversity of environments may be the reason for the variety of tools found in their toolkits.

IMO the forebears of the Natufian G2 folks

But


The Sauveterrian is the name for an archaeological culture of the European Epipaleolithic which flourished around 8500–6500 years BC. The name is derived from the type site of Sauveterre-la-Lémance in the French département of Lot-et-Garonne.
It extended through large parts of western and central Europe. Characteristic artefacts include geometric microliths and backed points on micro-blades. Woodworking tools are notably missing from Sauveterrian assemblages. There is evidence for ritual burial.
It eventually evolved into the Tardenoisian culture of similar characteristics. It is also the source of the first Nordic culture (Maglemosian).[citation needed]


These were Villabruna I2 folks.
Where did they get their geometric microliths from, and their bow and arrow?

First bow and arrow discovered in Europe : 12.5 ka
but it may have been in use earlier than that

Dogs : early Gravettians allready had them, Goyet cave 31.7 ka

Mobile Kebarans became sedentary Natufians 14.5 ka

Mobile Magdalenians and Epigravettians were replaced by Villabrunians 14 ka becoming more and more sedentary as forestation progressed

 Belgian_series_from_Clark's_The_Mesolithic_Age_in_Britain_Wellcome_M0015183.jpgBow_n_arrow.jpg

The Natufian had a microlithic industry, based on short blades and bladelets. The microburin technique was used. Geometric microliths include lunates, trapezes and triangles.
It is at Natufian sites that some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the dog is found. At the Natufian site of Ain Mallaha in Israel, dated to 12,000 BCE, the remains of an elderly human and a four-to-five-month-old puppy were found buried together.[20] At another Natufian site at the cave of Hayonim, humans were found buried with two canids

 
Angela said:
No need to apologize; I like spirited debate, and I very much like some humor mixed into all of this.

I'm not specifically looking for the WHG source in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Caspian. I don't care on any personal level where it was, although yes, it would be nice if Nordicists and assorted racists were served some more poetic justice. However, I have too high a regard for my own integrity to distort what I see as a clear reading of the data (once and if I reach that point) in order to score points against such people.
Click to expand...

Well, there is WHG admixture in Anatolian EN as well as mtDNA U8a and there still is the admixture result of K14 to explain.

F1.large.jpg


Angela said:
According to Wu et al, the WHG either admixed with, or represent a gene flow of an at least slightly different group from Greece (and perhaps Anatolia before that) , or there was ancient substructure in Europe which existed before then, but even in that case they maintain that the WHG have a different relationship with modern Near Eastern populations than did the other clusters of Pre-Neolithic Europeans, and that relationship may be because of a relationship between the WHG and some ancient ancestors of modern Near Easterners. El Miron would have inherited that trait from them. Are we in agreement at least as to what they claim?
Click to expand...

Certainly.

Angela said:
I'm quite aware that some people have raised the possibility that this is because the WHG migrated into Anatolia and contributed genes to the Early Anatolian Farmers. It was the first thing I mentioned when I first posted about this. However, after re-reading the paper carefully I realized that this group of researchrs, surely aware that this might be considered, and of how similar movements have created confusing results in other situations, don't mention the possibility anywhere.
Click to expand...

They do mention that it would be a problem because of the lack of any Basal Eurasian in WHG.

Angela said:
Did they all suddenly get stupid and we're all so very much smarter? I guess it's possible.
Click to expand...

Publishing a paper requires a "tad" more certainty than bumming around on a forum, wouldn't you say? But then again, maybe somebody hits a good idea. Remember there was this poll on La Brana's Y-DNA? The author of the paper joined the thread.

Angela said:
As I said, I took a little refresher course in the Epigravettian. As part of that, I chanced upon a paper which shows that some researchers of this period think there was a cultural "entity" between Anatolia and the Balkans in the Gravettian and Epigravettian. Furthermore, the Gravettian in those areas is indeed very different from that in the central European plain in terms of the development of certain lithics, the prey hunted, and many other things. You have mentioned how, if hunter-gatherers moved, they were usually following their prey. Well, the new prey moved south to north, and so did the new lithics. That's suggestive to me. Is it proof? No. Am I totally convinced? Absolutely not, but I see even less "proof" for the other proposals.
Click to expand...

I keep thinking this: Maybe they followed the Rhone up to find a tributary of the Rhine and hit upon the salmons it provided. The Rhine used to be a very salmon rich river. Then we have this: Magdalenians going north, followed by fishermen. The Magdalenian already had art with salmons.

Magdalenian_deer%2C_bird_and_fish.JPG


Angela said:
Just a word about this term "Near Eastern" or "Middle Eastern". I hate to be the word, or definition, police, but...

It seems pretty clear to me that the Aurignacians came from the Middle East. The Gravettians may very well have originated south of the Caucasus, although not from Anatolia or the Levant. Obviously, that is anathema to some people, and in fact, talking about heads exploding, I can hear them popping as I speak, but it makes sense to me given that the Aurignacians and the Gravettians are part of a single "founding" population autosomally according to Wu et al. We know the EEF trace most of their ancestry to people who lived there, and almost half of the ancestry of the Yamnaya came from south of the Caucasus as well. In terms of those time periods, these people were all "Middle Eastern", or had "Middle Eastern" ancestry. None of them are exactly the same as modern Middle Easterners, not even the EEF. So, I don't know why the inhabitants of the Middle East become "Middle Easterners" only after the hunter gatherers leave. At the risk of again being accused of paranoia, I strongly believe it's because in the minds of some people, present company excepted, of course, it's that tainted Basal Eurasian that they associate with SSA or with Arabs which presents the big problem, hence that unending series of calculators designed to show which Europeans had the least of this despised "component". As to why, therefore, it's such anathema to some people to think that the WHG, who didn't apparently carry that dreaded Basal ancestry, came from the Middle East, you've got me. Nothing about the thought processes of such people makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

First, the term Middle Eastern is used in the paper. Secondly, even those hideous colonialism justifying nineteenth century scientist would argue agricultural civilization started in the Middle East (Or whatever name you may fancy for it: Would Fertile Crescent do?) as the amount of old buildings make clear. It would even be utterly unthinkable for them if it would have started elsewhere as most were Christians and they would place the origin of men in the Garden of Eden, after which civilizations emerged (See tower of Babel).

Angela said:
All very ironic, in a dark way, to my way of thinking, as it's precisely those people, if they formed part of the ancestry of the Natufians, who participated in one of the largest advances in human history, the development of agriculture and animal husbandry, without which I wouldn't be typing on this computer, and later of metallurgy, and writing, and numerous other advances in human history, including the creation by the Jews of a monotheistic god, although I'm aware some people might not consider that an advancement. I find the whole thing so small minded as to beggar belief, but then I was a history and classics and archaeology person to whom it was made abundantly clear that indeed "ex oriente lux".

As to how Wu et al reconcile a possible flow of genes from Anatolia into the WHG while maintaining that WHG have no Basal Eurasian signal, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone really knows what Basal Eurasian is, including them, unless they're holding out on us, which is certainly possible. The discovery of the CHG vindicated some of the early conclusions of the Reich lab, but I have no idea if they have or will discover one that is "Basal Eurasian". They've corrected their previous papers before, and maybe they will again. Amusingly, we've been informed that the latest, best analysis now shows WHG can be modeled as almost 50% Basal Eurasian, so who the heck knows. If that isn't the case, which wouldn't surprise me, perhaps the "Basal Eurasian" was in the Arabian refugium, as I posited in the mtDna ROa paper. Maybe it moved north to form the Natufian, after the departure of WHG like people and then spread far and wide. Maybe they were hiding somewhere near the Persian Gulf. We'll have to wait and see.

Or maybe Wu et al's second alternative is correct and it's ancient substructure in Europe. We'll have to wait and see about that as well.
Click to expand...

There are Natufian samples under research currently.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/02/natufians-in-lab.html
 
epoch said:
http://www.livescience.com/27744-oldest-fish-hooks-unearthed-europe.html

Reindeer hunters used fish hooks.
Click to expand...

these guys are supposed to have been reindeer hunters who converted to seal hunters in the Norwegian Trench and some of them expanded northward into the Norwegian fjords :

The Fosna/Hensbacka (ca. 8300 BC - 7300 BC, or 12000 cal.BP - 10500 cal.BP), were two very similar Late Palaeolithic/early Mesolithic cultures inScandinavia, and are often subsumed under the name Fosna-Hensbacka culture. This complex includes the Komsa culture that, notwithstanding different types of tools, is also considered to be a part of the Fosna culture group.[1] The main difference is that the Fosna/Komsa culture was distributed along the coast of Northern Norway, whereas the Hensbacka culture had a more eastern distribution along the coast of western Sweden; primarily in central Bohuslänto the north of Göteborg.
Recent investigations indicate that this particular area, i.e. central Bohuslän, may well have had the largest seasonal population in northern Europe during the Late Palaeolithic/early Mesolithic transition. This was due to environmental circumstances brought about by the relationship between the Vänern basin in the east, and topographical features in the North Sea basin to the west.

Site locations indicate that fishing and seal hunting were important for the economy and it is assumed that hide covered wooden framed boats were used

North_Sea_map-en.jpg
Sea level was still much lower and Doggerland was the dry land in what is now the North Sea, but between Doggerland and Norway there is a 700 meter deep trench, the 'Norwegian Trench'
Once it was no longer covered by the icecap and no longer frozen, seals could be hunted and fish could be catched
These folks may have operated from Doggerland long before they reached the Scandinavian shores on the other side of the Norwegian Trench where they left their first traces 12 ka
 
epoch said:
In the documentary First Europeans the case for arrows 50.000 years ago is promoted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_LVxZmIxcI From 21 minutes on..
Click to expand...

either this is spectacular news and publications should soon follow

or it is controversial, like what they claim on Chatelperronian from 30 mintes on

they claim Chatelperronian is Neanderthal, but look what Wikipedia says : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Châtelperronian

Controversy exists as to how far archaeologically it is associated with Neanderthal people.

Dispute over disruption of the site[edit]
João Zilhão and colleagues argue that the findings are complicated by disturbance of the site in the 19th century, and conclude that the apparent pattern of Aurignacian/Châtelperronian inter-stratification is an artifact of disturbance.[8] · [9] Bordes and Teyssandier (2011) further support this assertion. They claim post-depositional processes are behind the inter-stratification of Chatelperronian and Aurignacian material, a claim they back up by citing numerous open-air Chatelperronian sites without any evidence of Middle-Paleolithic layers below.[10]Paul Mellars and colleagues have criticized Zilhão et al.'s analysis, and argue that the original excavation by Delporte was not affected by disturbance.[11]
Paul Mellars, however, now has concluded on the basis of new radiocarbon dating on the cave of Grotte du Renne [3] "that there was strong possibility—if not probability— that they were stratigraphically intrusive into the Châtelperronian deposits from .. overlying Proto-Aurignacian levels" and that "The central and inescapable implication of the new dating results from the Grotte du Renne is that the single most impressive and hitherto widely cited pillar of evidence for the presence of complex “symbolic” behavior among the late Neanderthal populations in Europe has now effectively collapsed."[4] More recent research led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany shows using new new high precision dates that Châtelperronian tools were produced by neanderthals.

to be continued ...

and I would like to add the following from the same wikipedia article :

Large thick flakes/small blocks were used for cores, and were prepared with a crest over a long smooth surface. Using one or two striking points, long thin blades were detached. Direct percussion with a soft hammer was likely used for accuracy. Thicker blades made in this process were often converted into side scrapers, burins were often created in the same manner from debitage as well.
The manner of production is a solid continuation of the Mousterian but the ivory adornments found in association seem to be a more clear connection to Aurignacian peoples,[2]who are often argued to be the earliest introduction of H. sapiens sapiensinto Europe. The technological refinement of the Châtelperronian and neighbouring Uluzzian in Central-Southern Italy is often argued to be the product of cultural influence from H. sapiens sapiens that lived nearby, but these predate both the Aurignacian and the earliest presence of H.

in other words, they used mousterian technology to prepare cores from which they struck blades, while Aurignacians were 1 step beyond ; they struck blades directly from cilindrical cores, thus bypassing Mousterian technology
the same sequence was observed in the Levant and the Central Asian corridor too, where Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans too around 48 ka

so, IMO chatelperronians replaced the Neanderthals and the Aurignacians replaced the chatelperronians (and Ulluzians)
 
@Angela,

I like most of what you say against Nordics, but there are some things I dis agree with. Being "Middle Eastern" is being Arab or Assyrian or Turkish. Being a human and living in the Middle East 1,000s and 1,000s of years ago, like WHG might of(remember Middle Easterners are probably part WHG, so WHG>Middle East is very possible), doesn't make you Middle Eastern. Just as because the first humans lived in Africa doesn't mean they were black. Swedes were always mostly descended of the same old and large Middle Eastern family as Persians are(the family I'm referring to is the one CHG and EEF belonged to).

They're still differnt from Persians, the only change is now we know more precisely what that difference is. They're not undercover Middle Easterners. Being European, is being a mixture of all those Mesolithic humans. It isn't being a human who has lived in Europe since the begging of time. It's not as if suddenly European people aren't European anymore. You're sort of making an interpretation of European genetics the same way this article does about Irish genetics. Irish aren't suddenly non-Irish, being mostly descended of migrations from the Black Sea and Turkey in the last 8,000 years has always been what they were.

That's the only mistake I think you made. Overall I agree with you. Reality doesn't fit Nordicsists fantasies of being a pure, distinct, and superior branch completely differnt from Middle Easterners.

Angela said:
We know the EEF trace most of their ancestry to people who lived there, and almost half of the ancestry of the Yamnaya came from south of the Caucasus as well. In terms of those time periods, these people were all "Middle Eastern", or had "Middle Eastern" ancestry. None of them are exactly the same as modern Middle Easterners, not even the EEF. So, I don't know why the inhabitants of the Middle East become "Middle Easterners" only after the hunter gatherers leave. At the risk of again being accused of paranoia, I strongly believe it's because in the minds of some people, present company excepted, of course, it's that tainted Basal Eurasian that they associate with SSA or with Arabs which presents the big problem, hence that unending series of calculators designed to show which Europeans had the least of this despised "component".
Click to expand...

You're fighting a straw man. There's no one creating calculators to show who has the least Basal Eurasian.
 
epoch said:
Well, there is WHG admixture in Anatolian EN as well as mtDNA U8a and there still is the admixture result of K14 to explain.
Yes, we've known that ever since the data came out about the Early Anatolian Farmer samples (about 5%, isn't it?), and given what the paper on the Gravettian and Epigravettian in the Balkans and Anatolia shows, it's totally to be expected, yes? The cultural influences seem to have gone back and forth.

If you can explain how that Kostenki paper fits into all this, I'll have to find some way of giving you a "virtual" prize. :) I don't know; was that mostly a function of using Admixture programs? Wu et al just say, in a very cursory fashion, that now that they have all these samples, the Willerslev conclusions have been shown to be inaccurate. Has he perhaps responded?

They do mention that it would be a problem because of the lack of any Basal Eurasian in WHG.
Click to expand...

The lack of Basal Eurasian in the WHG is a problem in proposing gene flow from Anatolia or the "Middle East" into Europe, yes. I was referring to the fact that they never say anything about the fact that this genetic "relationship" could be explained by gene flow from the WHG into the Middle East. I wasn't clear about that, I guess.

Publishing a paper requires a "tad" more certainty than bumming around on a forum, wouldn't you say? But then again, maybe somebody hits a good idea. Remember there was this poll on La Brana's Y-DNA? The author of the paper joined the thread.
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes to both. I sent an e-mail to the Hellenthal group about their papers on recent admixture concerning some things I thought they didn't sufficiently consider. I'm just saying that in this particular case an obvious explanation for the relationship would be gene flow from the WHG into the Middle East but they never mention it. I just find it hard to believe that such an obvious thing didn't occur to them but it occurred to all of us out here.

I keep thinking this: Maybe they followed the Rhone up to find a tributary of the Rhine and hit upon the salmons it provided. The Rhine used to be a very salmon rich river. Then we have this: Magdalenians going north, followed by fishermen. The Magdalenian already had art with sal
Click to expand...

I think that's absolutely correct, but I think the WHG could have been following deer and other smaller game as their range moved from south to north as well, don't you think?

First, the term Middle Eastern is used in the paper.
Click to expand...

They're scientists. Scientists are usually not particularly gifted with words and writing, although there are exceptions; that's why the actual meaning of so many papers is so difficult to discern. They also don't understand the power of words to shape thought. Words are, or were, my business. Ideas and ideologies flow from words and are just as powerful as technology in shaping history. I know it can seem obnoxious to harp on it, particularly as it can lead to famous statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is". :)

Still, I think it does matter. I was just as insistent when there was all this discussion of "farmers" versus hunter-gatherers, as if "farmers" were this totally alien species that dropped out of the sky. Everybody was a hunter-gatherer originally; some of them just invented agriculture.

In this case, the definition of "Middle Easterner" is time dependent. The "Middle Easterners" of 12,000 years ago are not the "Middle Easterners" of today. The same is true for the definition of "European".

There are Natufian samples under research currently.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that will answer some questions. Do you know if the Klisoura remains are in a lab somewhere? Are there any "Eprigravettian" samples from the Middle East at all?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bicicleur

These were Villabruna I2 folks.
Where did they get their geometric microliths from, and their bow and arrow?

First bow and arrow discovered in Europe : 12.5 ka
but it may have been in use earlier than that






Epoch: In the documentary First Europeans the case for arrows 50.000 years ago is promoted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_LVxZmIxcI From 21 minutes on..


Angela: Guys, if you go back to the paper on the Gravettian/Epigravettian in the Balkans and Anatolia, I think they're claiming that geometric microliths existed first in the cultures to the south of Anatolia. They also say it's likely they were using them for arrows.

As to this documentary, who is this archaeologist, and has he published on this at all? Strange that it would appear first in a youtube documentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 183252 times.

Back
Top