The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

Goga · May 4, 2016

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

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

I'm more puzzled than you are. And I don't have any concrete answers, but there can be an explanation, Basal Eurasian could be native to the Caucasus Mountains.

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

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

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

About R1*

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

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

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

bicicleur 2 · May 4, 2016

Angela said:
My reading of the paper and supplement indicates that Gravettian and Villabruna are distinct. In fact, they seem to be saying that Gravettian people left almost no autosomal trace in modern Europeans.

you mean this?

there are 3 branches, Kostenki Goyet and Villabruna
and Vestonice, El Miron and Loschbourg are resulting from admixtures

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

Silesian · May 4, 2016

Goga said:
I'm more puzzled than you are. And I don't have any concrete answers, but there can be an explanation, Basal Eurasian could be native to the Caucasus Mountains.

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

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

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

It looks like the rules of the name game are being changed mid-point into the game. No one every suspected WHG was from the middle East; did you? Not one person ever pointed out when all the plots were being done that it came from the middle East. However now that 1 R1b 14k sample was found in Italy everything changes

Name changes and all. People can't accept the pan European marker R1b which outnumbers all others, does not have close ties with ancient Europe

Middle East, Africa anywhere but native/ autochthonous Europe. I can remember the exact same thing happened when Yamnaya came back R1b-Z2103 and the HG came back M-73[Eastern Europe], nobody could believe it was found together on Steppe. So they made a division using WHG and Near East. Now the worst scenario nightmare R1b rules that category also, what to do? They have backed themselves into a corner and can't explain why things are coming about the way they are.
Any enough of me babbling, lets have your prediction on what Maikop, is going to be, that is the real test, predicting something bold, and being scorned by everyone, and banished for expressing your views on your family history. Only later only to be proven correct.

Goga · May 4, 2016

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

Well, the most humanoids who live in Europe are eventually from the Middle East. And the most humanoids who live in the Middle East/SouthCentral Asia are eventually direct from Africa.

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

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

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

Fire Haired14 · May 4, 2016

2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1)

He had the same mtDNA/Y DNA haplogroups as me

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

Here's his skull.

Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.

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

Fire Haired14 · May 4, 2016

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

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

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

Angela · May 4, 2016

bicicleur said:
you mean this?

there are 3 branches, Kostenki Goyet and Villabruna
and Vestonice, El Miron and Loschbourg are resulting from admixtures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomenable · May 4, 2016

Angela said:
The paper also had some things to say about the decline in Neanderthal ancestry, and Dienekes opined upon it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela · May 4, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silesian · May 4, 2016

Goga said:
Well, the most humanoids who live in Europe are eventually from the Middle East. And the most humanoids who live in the Middle East/SouthCentral Asia are eventually direct from Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomenable · May 5, 2016

It looks like to me R1b from the Middle East is becoming an impossible pipe dream.

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

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

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rly-metallurgy?p=479609&viewfull=1#post479609

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

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rly-metallurgy?p=479597&viewfull=1#post479597

Y- 10122 / SVP35 (grave 12)

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

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

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

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

Silesian · May 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

The R1b samples

LeBrok · May 5, 2016

Silesian said:
It looks like the rules of the name game are being changed mid-point into the game. No one every suspected WHG was from the middle East; did you? Not one person ever pointed out when all the plots were being done that it came from the middle East. However now that 1 R1b 14k sample was found in Italy everything changes Name changes and all.

Perhaps you should read Eupedia posts more often. Some of us, for some times, acknowledged that movement of HGs was very likely from Balkans to Anatolia, through the land bridge. Of course Levant was out of question because it was a homeland of Natufians-Neolithic Farmers, but Anatolia was always a fair game for WHG. Last year research of EN of Anatolia came with 10% admixture of WHG. It was surely a giveaway that Early Farmers met WHG in Anatolia first, then in Balkans and rest or Europe later.

LeBrok · May 5, 2016

Fire Haired14 said:
2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1)

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

Here's his skull.

Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.

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

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

LeBrok · May 5, 2016

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

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

LeBrok · May 5, 2016

Silesian said:
It would say, very roughly, right. It would be funny if it turned out that Eve lived in West Africa and she never met Adam. lol

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

Click to expand...

How come? To my understanding, it is quite possible that R1b started expansion from Kurdistan area, or anywhere in 2k km radius. And who knows as original cow herders or blacksmiths?

Greying Wanderer · May 5, 2016

Goga said:
After so many years on this site I firstly expected ancient R1b in Europe. But everyone was saying that there is no ancient R1b in Europe. So I let go that idea.

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

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

Greying Wanderer · May 5, 2016

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

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

Angela · May 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bicicleur 2 · May 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

Banned

Regular Member

Junior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Junior Member

Elite member

Junior Member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Elite member

Regular Member