Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 139

Thread: Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,356
    Points
    282,474
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,474, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    For those who haven't yet read it, I think the archaeology section of the Supplement has some pertinent information:

    "Conclusions:

    It seems that the beginnings of the UP in western Georgia are relatively late, compared withthe earliest UP in the Near East and southeastern Europe and they appear to be alreadydominated by the production of bladelets (e.g., Dzudzuana Unit D). Another importantobservation is that while the Caucasus served as a geographic barrier between two MPNeanderthal populations (the Mousterian of the southern flanks which closely resembles theMousterian of the Taurus and the Zagro, and the Late Mousterian of the northern Caucasus,similar to the northern European Micoquian Mousterian (Meignen & Tushabramishvili2006), the early UP assemblages on both sides of the Caucasus Mountains demonstratesimilarities, indicating the dispersal of modern humans throughout the whole region.The proceeding cultural traditions (e.g., Dzudzuana Unit C) do not follow the UP sequence ofwestern Europe or the Near East as previously claimed. In particular, the ‘carinated core’industries found all over the Caucasus region lack any evidence for the presence of the westEuropean ‘classical’ Aurignacian (and see Belfer-Cohen & Grosman 2007; Goring-Morris &Belfer-Cohen 2006, vis à vis carinated artefacts).

    "The presence of carinated cores in some sites may indicate a general contemporaneity amongsites in western Georgia, as with the site of Gubs (Amirkhanov 1986) located on the northernslopes of the Caucasus. Yet, there are no typical Aurignacian tool types either among thelithics or among the bone artefacts. The bone and antler implements in Dzu Unit C (as inother UP assemblages in the Caucasus) do not comprise artefacts such as the split-base point,the hall-mark of the west European early Aurignacian. Bone awls, needles, points and the likewere recovered from UP contexts all over the Old World and the same is true for the rarebone beads and decorations. The same is true also for the other sites in Georgia dating to theearly UP (and see Moncel 2013; Pleardeau et al. 2016) as well as sites in the neighboringArmenia and northern Caucasus (and see above).All in all the UP in the Caucasus retains its own local characteristics, differing both fromEurope (no Aurignacian industry) and the Levant (no el Wad points, yet with rich boneartefacts industries) (and see Golovanova et al. 2014)."


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #52
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,659, Level: 26
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 491
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    This is awesome

    Do some of these models contradict each other? I've drunk too much wine to give an example at the moment, but that was my initial impression.

  3. #53
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,659, Level: 26
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 491
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    Baikal Early Neolithic ..

    Interesting. It coincides with first pottery in the eastern Pontic steppe .. 9 ka.
    All that R1a in the neolithic Baikal samples too. Lines up.

  4. #54
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,659, Level: 26
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 491
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    looking at the distribution of F, H and K, it's my guess that FGHIJK split in India or the Indus Valley
    these splits happened in a very short time, between 48.8 and 45.4 ka
    along the Narmada river in India, some 48 ka blade tools from cilindric core stones were found, maybe the oldest in the world

    TMRCA of G is 26 ka, same time as Dzdzuana, maybe a coincidence?
    where was G between 48 and 26 ka?

    in the mean time, I see that CHG and Iran Neo have even more Basal Eurasian than Dzudzuana, so more Basal Eurasian was coming to this area, parallel with Dzudzuana
    Basal Eurasian may have been in India 70 ka or more subsequent to the people in Jebel Faya, 129 ka
    I agree with this, but mine was just on a hunch based on the Farmers paper.

  5. #55
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,356
    Points
    282,474
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,474, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    This is awesome

    Do some of these models contradict each other? I've drunk too much wine to give an example at the moment, but that was my initial impression.
    Read the supplement when you're not drunk.

  6. #56
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,696
    Points
    697,304
    Level
    100
    Points: 697,304, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I am commenting a bit late on this new paper due to lack of time. If I understood well, this Dzudzuana sample is ancestral to the population of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG). Testing of Mesolithic samples showed that EHG were a mixture of Y-haplogroups I2, R1a and R1b, but dominated by haplogroup R1b - notably in the Iron Gates and Latvia as well as the Villabruna sample from Epipaleolithic Italy.

    This means that Dzudzuana could belong to Y-haplogroup R1* (as R1a and R1b had not yet appeared 26,000 ybp according to current age estimates.) It's a shame that the pre-print doesn't mention it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazaridis et al. (2018)
    It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones.
    So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.

    The fact that Dzudzuana is 'more closely related to to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago' can easily be explained by population blending between R1 EHG from Southeast Europe (or even western or northern Anatolia) and those early Anatolian farmers.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  7. #57
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,338
    Points
    46,152
    Level
    66
    Points: 46,152, Level: 66
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 798
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    All that R1a in the neolithic Baikal samples too. Lines up.
    there was also N, C2 and Q
    the R1a must have been the R1a-YP1272, which spread the comb-ceramic culture



    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M459/

  8. #58
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,338
    Points
    46,152
    Level
    66
    Points: 46,152, Level: 66
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 798
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.




    * North Africa as a source of massive populations movements, possible at several points during the Paleolithic & Mesolithic. These movements likely brought haplogroup E (back) to Eurasia.

    * North Africa as a significant source of admixture in modern West Africans.

    * ANE as a two-way mixture between a West Eurasian- and an East Eurasian source (here represented by Tianyuan). The East Eurasian population likely brought with it haplogroups R & Q from South-East Asia.
    the 73 % Dzudzuana in Natufian must come from the Kebaran
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebaran

    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.

    Taforalt also has 55 % Dzudzuana

    E-M35 is probably of African origin, but before it spread 24 ka, it was heavily admixed with the Eurasian Dzudzuna-like DNA

  9. #59
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,468
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,468, Level: 23
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Btw, i found interesting the new Baikal Early Neoilithic component wich is mostly 50% Han and 50% Mal'ta Related. It is found now in prehistoric eastern europe. Doesn't it confirm the old archeological hypothesis that from Northern China / Mandchuria, Comb Ceramic ( and the first Ceramic in general ) and maybe also Millet, roam until eastern europe and finland? It was maybe progressive, but it certainly was both cultural and demic.

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,468
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,468, Level: 23
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    I am commenting a bit late on this new paper due to lack of time. If I understood well, this Dzudzuana sample is ancestral to the population of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG). Testing of Mesolithic samples showed that EHG were a mixture of Y-haplogroups I2, R1a and R1b, but dominated by haplogroup R1b - notably in the Iron Gates and Latvia as well as the Villabruna sample from Epipaleolithic Italy.

    This means that Dzudzuana could belong to Y-haplogroup R1* (as R1a and R1b had not yet appeared 26,000 ybp according to current age estimates.) It's a shame that the pre-print doesn't mention it.



    So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.

    The fact that Dzudzuana is 'more closely related to to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago' can easily be explained by population blending between R1 EHG from Southeast Europe (or even western or northern Anatolia) and those early Anatolian farmers.
    But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?

    So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,468
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,468, Level: 23
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    It starts to show more and more that early paleolithic europeans were y-dna C1, but that at this point, C1 and related group were not already differtiated into a west eurasian and an east eurasian groups ( probably somehow related with ust ishim ). And mtdna U2,U8, U5. If i had to bet, i would think U2 and U8 were probably the original lineages of C1 and that U5 came from some related group of Dzudzuana without changing that much of the genetic. They have recently found an Anatolian_HG and stated that ( Anatolian_HG is ancestral to Anatolian_Neolithic ) but he was C1a2, so clearly of early paleolithic european origins. Were is the place of y-dna I and y-dna R1b here? Sounds more and more that I was actually related with Villabruna-Dzudzuana somehow more than the tripartite Aurignacian-Gravettian-Magdalenian. Also, what is the role of the Solutrean right there? Solutrean was also in Maghreb, Iberomaurusian is fought to descend from Solutrean... mtdna U6 and N now in late paleolithic south Caucasus, late paleolithic Romania, epipaleolithic north africa and chalcolithic Levante... this cannot be a coincidence, there is a link somehow. Seems like ancestral dna seems to conflict with ancient migrations.

  12. #62
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,696
    Points
    697,304
    Level
    100
    Points: 697,304, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?
    I am just quoting the paper: "These analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,except Neolithic Anatolians". ESHG is EHG and SHG.

    They also say: "Dzudzuana itself can be modeled as a 2-way mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage." That Basal Eurasian could be what was previously reported as CHG in the EHG population.

    So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.
    Sorry, you are right, AG3 was female and R1b was mtDNA. However Fu et al.'s paper indicate that that sample cluster with Mal'ta, which was R1*, so it is likely to be an Y-DNA R1-related tribe. The only other possibility is Q1a, which is also found at low frequency in EHG populations. Both Q1a and R1 are related to the ANE admixture.

  13. #63
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    349
    Points
    8,235
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,235, Level: 27
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 515
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Ah yes Georgia, a tiny geographical country, located in the large area- known as Eurasian or Afro-Eurasian,land mass. The land of interesting genetics, close to Maykop[wheels wagons-metalurgy] and Yamnaya burial sites ! Basal Caucasian[ Dzudzuana] remains near Georgian Neanderthal[ Ortvale K’lde ] remains. Early use of Wine[viticulture] and flax fibers**
    1)Basal "Caucasian" component[proper]-aka basal Eurasian 20YBP+/-
    2)Neanderthal remains
    3)Dmanisi-1.8+/-million hominid remains(5)

    footnote**
    https://anthropology.net/2009/09/11/...-cave-georgia/

    Be wary of those who graduate from the university of perversity & diversity by destroying and
    demonizing the past, underestimating the present, and glorifying the future.

  14. #64
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    "Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestryfrom Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as allthese sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model forVillabruna as a simple clade, and an unadmixed Villabruna acts as a plausible source for several other We are thus cautious about accepting this qpAdm result at face value aswell. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago."
    At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium it hid in, at same being time a source for an admixted pre-LGM Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling allows for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.
    Last edited by epoch; 23-09-18 at 22:17.

  15. #65
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post


    So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.
    Afontova Gora 3 was a female and carried mtDNA R1b.

    EDIT: O, already noted. Forget about it.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium is hid in, at same time a source for an admixted Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling allows for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.
    The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.



    I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.

  17. #67
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    @Epoch,

    "It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates14. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe."

    He sounds very sure about this. What it would mean is that they don't have "extra" percentages of these ancient lineages, only what was in Dzudzuana. Something like the way that WHG in Southern Europeans is "hidden" in their Anatolia Neolithic ancestry, and what shows as "WHG" is only the "extra" ancestry?

    So, when he says the following, he means "extra" WHG, on top of the related ancestry in Dzudzuana?

    "Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations1 and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region14,23,24. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic25."

    I've read every word of the Supplement and that's all I could find.

    More on these ancient lineages:

    "The fact that the genetic drift before and after the Basal Eurasian split is estimated similarly by the admixture graph model of Fig. 2 (which uses no archaic samples or Chimp) and Extended Data Fig. 8 68 (which uses archaic ancestry estimated using Altai, Chimp, and Denisova as outgroups) provides two independent lines of evidence for our estimates of these quantities, suggesting that ~2/3 of the drift since the split from East Africans is shared by Basal Eurasians and an additional ~1/3 is shared by non-Basal Eurasian non-Africans. This suggests that the Basal Eurasians (so named because they occupy a basal position in the phylogeny of Eurasians10) did in fact experience most of the common bottleneck shared by Eurasians. (Note also, that if we used the lower (1.6%) estimate of absolute Neandertal ancestry in Ust’Ishim from the f4-ratio, this would imply even more shared genetic drift between Basal Eurasians and other non-Africans, since then f4(Deep, Tianyuan; Ust’Ishim, Chimp)=-0.016*0.436 ≈-0.007.)"

    "The other “Deep” lineage found in Taforalt (Fig. 2) experienced only 0.008 units of genetic drift with non-Africans (Fig. 2) and could be plausibly interpreted as having deep presence in (North) Africa. Note that Taforalt and the Neolithic of the Maghreb are well below the regression line (Extended Data Fig. 8) and thus lack more genetic drift with Ust’Ishim than is predicted by their level of archaic ancestry; this is expected if they trace their ancestry from a lineage that is even more deeply diverged than the Basal Eurasians."
    OK. Here we go...

    We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Therefore we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.

    From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.

    Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.

  18. #68
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.



    I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.
    O, I think we just discovered it.

  19. #69
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    OK. Here we go...

    We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Thus we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.

    From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.

    Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.
    I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.

  20. #70
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?

    So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.
    It's mtdna R1b which is interesting enough in itself as KO1 has that too.

  21. #71
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.
    You're right. +/- 6,5 %. So the "where" is just NE of Israel?

    EDIT: Or this may be later admixture.
    Last edited by epoch; 24-09-18 at 06:58.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    O, I think we just discovered it.
    I think the problem with this is the lack of anything resembling BE in Vestonice. Of course the Dzudzuana HGs would be very closely related to that "undiscovered" HG population.

  23. #73
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,356
    Points
    282,474
    Level
    100
    Points: 282,474, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.

    What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?

  24. #74
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,468
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,468, Level: 23
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.




    I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.
    Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.
    Yes, the Villabruna-like influence (here called 'Common Eurasian') begins with Vestonice. Completely agree with everything you said. I'd tentatively add G to the Y-DNA haplogroups that could have spread with the Common Eurasian HGs, although as a minor lineage that only rises in numbers with the Neolithic.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •