haplogroup I split during LGM

[bicicleur 2]

Many believe Aurignacian in Europe were y-DNA I. Me too.
But during LGM (last glacial maximum 18-25000 years ago) many died and there were just a few survivors in 'refuges'.
That is when I split into several subgroups.
I know of 3 proven refuges, where people survived through LGM :

- southern France and coastal Iberia :
this seems to have been I1, as many of them went north after LGM, and those who stayed south, not many survived Neolithic and Indo-European immigrations
- Italy ('gravettian')
- coastal area south of Balkans (e.g. Franchthi cave)

There may have been more refuges where people survived through LGM.

But the Balkans seem to have been largely depopulated untill the arrival of the Neolithic farmers.

I think we can distinguish 5 subgroups which may have originated during LGM : I1, I2a1, I2a2, I2b and I2c.

Do you believe these subgroups originated during LGM?
Where do you think they survived?

 

[adamo]

I1 would have expanded from the Iberian refuge eventually reaching Scandinavia quite heavily as I1a, I2 would have waited out the LGM in the Bosnian refuge although Central European age estimates show it as quite old there as well; the whole Ukrainian refuge theory has been ruled out as the I2 is much younger there than in the Bosnian refuge. These men were forced towards refuges during the last LGM and I personally believe they only survived because they found the Iberian refuge (I1) and the Bosnia. Refute (i2)

 

[adamo]

The men of I2 are indeed the indigenous inhabitants of the Balkans, although they may once have inhabited much of Central Europe and other parts as well for I in general.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I1 would have expanded from the Iberian refuge eventually reaching Scandinavia quite heavily as I1a, I2 would have waited out the LGM in the Bosnian refuge although Central European age estimates show it as quite old there as well; the whole Ukrainian refuge theory has been ruled out as the I2 is much younger there than in the Bosnian refuge. These men were forced towards refuges during the last LGM and I personally believe they only survived because they found the Iberian refuge (I1) and the Bosnia. Refute (i2)

Hello adamo,

I understand not much research has been done yet re paleolithic in Bosnia
Do you have some sources re Bosnia during the last glacial maximum?

 

[sparkey]

Very interesting discussion, thanks for posting. I've thought about this before, but my main concern is that it is still too speculative. Nonetheless, it's fun to play, so here goes...

Many believe Aurignacian in Europe were y-DNA I. Me too.

I don't, really. I guess it (or its directly ancestral IJ clade) came during the Gravettian. Still Paleolithic, but not quite as old.

I know of 3 proven refuges, where people survived through LGM :

- southern France and coastal Iberia :
this seems to have been I1, as many of them went north after LGM, and those who stayed south, not many survived Neolithic and Indo-European immigrations
- Italy ('gravettian')
- coastal area south of Balkans (e.g. Franchthi cave)

There was probably some contiguity between the Italian and Balkans refugia; certainly, both are grouped within the "Epigravettian" culture at the LGM. I think they can together be called the "Adriatic" refuge. The Franco-Iberian refuge, meanwhile, was culturally "Solutrean."

I think we can distinguish 5 subgroups which may have originated during LGM : I1, I2a1, I2a2, I2b and I2c.

This looks about right, at least in terms of subclades that still exist today. The only real issue I have is that I2b-L416 and I2c-L596 are unlikely to have differentiated from one another by then, and I1 was still probably "proto-I1." I2a1 may have further subdivided by the LGM, but it's tough to say for sure. So I think that a good canonical 4 would be: proto-I1, I2a1, (proto-?)I2a2, and proto-I2b/I2c.

Do you believe these subgroups originated during LGM?
Where do you think they survived?

Based purely on modern diversity of current samples, my best guess at the moment is:
proto-I1: Franco-Iberian refuge
I2a1: Franco-Iberian refuge
(proto-?)I2a2: Franco-Iberian refuge
proto-I2b/I2c: Adriatic refuge

 

[Maciamo]

It's extremely difficult to guess which LGM refugium harboured which I subclade. Personally I do not see why small groups of humans couldn't have survived outside these refugia, living as hunters and fishermen over the ice just like modern Inuits. It must not have been very different than from living in Siberia or Alaska during the Ice Age, when it is certain that humans lived (like the Mal'ta boy, who was in the Altai during the LGM). If that is the case, the best candidate haplogroup for these ice roamers would be pre-I1, which clearly evolved in isolation for many millennia during the Ice Age. The extreme bottleneck experienced by I1 would be consistent with living in a harsh environment.

As for the LGM refugia, please all keep in mind that we are talking about a period ranging from 20,000 to 25,000 years ago. The only subclades of I that would have existed back then would have been pre-I1 and pre-I2 or I2*. I2 is thought to be approximately 22,000 years old, so it appeared within one refugium. There is a good chance that other tribes who lived in the refugia included many lineages that are either extinct today or very rare (like A1a, C and F).

Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the LGM refugia were not interconnected with one another. It's always possible to cross ice or mountains, and anyway coastal areas would have been ice free.

 

[kamani]

I've met people from many nationalities and have noticed that Europeans have something genetical that makes them think alike to a certain degree, in terms of pace, logic and emotions. In my opinion this was formed during the LGM. It was a time when evolution and survival of the fittest was working at full force. I would not be surprised if canibalism was not uncommon, just like with Neanderthals before they went extinct. There was severe depopulation and the groups that survived were the strongest, most socially connected, most intelligient, and probably most ruthless and backstabbing (if you're in a cave with no food, surrounded by ice, the survivor is going to be the one that pretends to be friendly during the day and eats his friend during the night). I don't think these people took anything for granted; they lost the innocence that characterized indigenous tribal populations.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the LGM refugia were not interconnected with one another. It's always possible to cross ice or mountains, and anyway coastal areas would have been ice free.

I believe the refugia were quite isolated.
The higher mountains were also covered with icesheets, the Alps were certainly impenetrable.
If there was any connection between France and Italy at all, the only possibility was maybe along the coast.
And if there was a connection, would people on one side allow people coming in from the other side?
Resources were scarce, I would think each tribe would try to keep their territory to themselves.
Even the Massif Central in SE France was covered with icesheets.
Moreover, south of the northern icesheet was a polar desert, which was inhabitable too.
That is why the mammoths went extinct in Western Europe. People had to switch to reindeer hunt, but these animals can run much faster than mammoths.
Furthermore, bear in mind, the Gulf Stream was halted, so Europe was hit extra hard.

The Mal'ta people certainly underwent more climatic hardship, but they had one big advantage : they could still hunt the mammoths.

According to

http://www.oldstoneage.com/montetwhite/kadar.html

people arrived east of the Adriatic only after the ice age (17000 years ago) , they even suggest it was not possible to cross the mountain passes before 17000 years ago.

It's difficult to imagine how these people survived and what realy happened.

 

[LeBrok]

I've met people from many nationalities and have noticed that Europeans have something genetical that makes them think alike to a certain degree, in terms of pace, logic and emotions. In my opinion this was formed during the LGM. It was a time when evolution and survival of the fittest was working at full force. I would not be surprised if canibalism was not uncommon, just like with Neanderthals before they went extinct. There was severe depopulation and the groups that survived were the strongest, most socially connected, most intelligient, and probably most ruthless and backstabbing (if you're in a cave with no food, surrounded by ice, the survivor is going to be the one that pretends to be friendly during the day and eats his friend during the night). I don't think these people took anything for granted; they lost the innocence that characterized indigenous tribal populations.

This is too simplistic. Actually till today we have northern populations like Inuit, chukcha, saam, etc who have lived all the time in conditions resembling europe during Ice Age. Actually some one them lived longer in frigid conditions than any Europeans. If traits you described were acquired by Europeans during harsh and cold conditions, they should apply also and mostly to all Northern populations. This shouldn't be only European phenomenon, right?

most socially connected, most intelligient, and probably most ruthless and backstabbing

These are contradictory statements. The strongest groups of hunter-gatherers were always the most cooperative and sharing. If you make your group weak, by antisocial behaviour, the other group will come, kill you and eat you.

the survivor is going to be the one that pretends to be friendly during the day and eats his friend during the night

Who are you going to hunt mammoths with, if you killed your friends and you are only male standing? If you eat someone, it will be the one that died the night before. You don't kill members of your tribe to eat them. Especially in smaller groups all group members are related. Who you're going to kill then, your son, your father, your nephew, your daughter?

 

[bicicleur 2]

I've thought about this before, but my main concern is that it is still too speculative. Nonetheless, it's fun to play, so here goes...

You're right, I've done this excercise before.
Only 1 case seems pretty straightforward to me : I1 descending from reindeer hunter ex southern France after LGM going north toward the icesheet.
The rest is guesswork.
But maybe someone comes up with a good idea here. Or someone can point some new refuge area.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Originally Posted by bicicleur
I know of 3 proven refuges, where people survived through LGM :

- southern France and coastal Iberia :
this seems to have been I1, as many of them went north after LGM, and those who stayed south, not many survived Neolithic and Indo-European immigrations
- Italy ('gravettian')
- coastal area south of Balkans (e.g. Franchthi cave)





There was probably some contiguity between the Italian and Balkans refugia; certainly, both are grouped within the "Epigravettian" culture at the LGM. I think they can together be called the "Adriatic" refuge. The Franco-Iberian refuge, meanwhile, was culturally "Solutrean."

I've made some research on that.
To my surprise, it seems the Balkans were completely depopulated, even till long after LGM. There was no connection between Italy and Greece.
I suppose that caused a split in y-DNA as well.

 

[Maciamo]

I believe the refugia were quite isolated.
The higher mountains were also covered with icesheets, the Alps were certainly impenetrable.
If there was any connection between France and Italy at all, the only possibility was maybe along the coast.
And if there was a connection, would people on one side allow people coming in from the other side?
Resources were scarce, I would think each tribe would try to keep their territory to themselves.
Even the Massif Central in SE France was covered with icesheets.

I didn't say that they could live in the Alps or other mountains during the LGM, just cross them, carrying some provisions with them (the cold makes it easier to preserve aliments).

Moreover, south of the northern icesheet was a polar desert, which was inhabitable too.
That is why the mammoths went extinct in Western Europe. People had to switch to reindeer hunt, but these animals can run much faster than mammoths.
Furthermore, bear in mind, the Gulf Stream was halted, so Europe was hit extra hard.

The Mal'ta people certainly underwent more climatic hardship, but they had one big advantage : they could still hunt the mammoths.

According to

http://www.oldstoneage.com/montetwhite/kadar.html

people arrived east of the Adriatic only after the ice age (17000 years ago) , they even suggest it was not possible to cross the mountain passes before 17000 years ago.

It's difficult to imagine how these people survived and what realy happened.

Humans have hunted auroch/bison, horses, and deer, reindeer, antelope or related animals for a very long time, probably well before they hunted mammoths. I don't see why the absence of mammoth is a problem. Greenland is also covered by ice sheet and that didn't prevent the Inuits to live there for thousands of years, with equipment comparable to that of Upper Palaeolithic Europe.

 

[Maciamo]

I've made some research on that.
To my surprise, it seems the Balkans were completely depopulated, even till long after LGM. There was no connection between Italy and Greece.
I suppose that caused a split in y-DNA as well.

Completely depopulated or very thinly populated and lacking archaeological remains to date ? The absence of evidence is not evidence.

 

[tjlowery87]

if i1 or pre i1 came from france/iberia refuge,could ths explain i1 in western europe,and southern europe?if it was thre before germanic migrations.

 

[kamani]

This is too simplistic. Actually till today we have northern populations like Inuit, chukcha, saam, etc who have lived all the time in conditions resembling europe during Ice Age. Actually some one them lived longer in frigid conditions than any Europeans. If traits you described were acquired by Europeans during harsh and cold conditions, they should apply also and mostly to all Northern populations. This shouldn't be only European phenomenon, right?

They are a bit different because they have always lived in harsh cold conditions. The LGM put a lot of stress in tribes that were not really adapted to that environment genetically and psychologically.

These are contradictory statements. The strongest groups of hunter-gatherers were always the most cooperative and sharing. If you make your group weak, by antisocial behaviour, the other group will come, kill you and eat you.

The were cooperative but if push came to shove, they might have become canibalistic in certain cases. Who said that the other group did not try that already; plus that would be a risk in the future as opposed to starvation that is more eminent.

Who are you going to hunt mammoths with, if you killed your friends and you are only male standing? If you eat someone, it will be the one that died the night before. You don't kill members of your tribe to eat them. Especially in smaller groups all group members are related. Who you're going to kill then, your son, your father, your nephew, your daughter?

Let's say it is so cold that there is few animals around and it is not cost effective anymore to go out and risk freezing to hunt them. It is a dark part of history but humans in extreme situations have resorted to canibalism. It is documented that groups in ancient Egypt ate their children at some point during severe draughts of the Nile. There are as recent cases as WWII in Russia. What do you think is the underlying theme of human sacrifice practiced in ancient times.

 

[LeBrok]

I believe the refugia were quite isolated.
The higher mountains were also covered with icesheets, the Alps were certainly impenetrable.
If there was any connection between France and Italy at all, the only possibility was maybe along the coast.
And if there was a connection, would people on one side allow people coming in from the other side?
Resources were scarce, I would think each tribe would try to keep their territory to themselves.
Even the Massif Central in SE France was covered with icesheets.
Moreover, south of the northern icesheet was a polar desert, which was inhabitable too.
That is why the mammoths went extinct in Western Europe. People had to switch to reindeer hunt, but these animals can run much faster than mammoths.
Furthermore, bear in mind, the Gulf Stream was halted, so Europe was hit extra hard.

The Mal'ta people certainly underwent more climatic hardship, but they had one big advantage : they could still hunt the mammoths.

According to

http://www.oldstoneage.com/montetwhite/kadar.html

people arrived east of the Adriatic only after the ice age (17000 years ago) , they even suggest it was not possible to cross the mountain passes before 17000 years ago.

It's difficult to imagine how these people survived and what realy happened.

Good points. I see LGM times in similar way. Human tribes in Europe were too scarce and insulated to keep contacts between them. Prime time for hg I bottlenecking.

Furthermore, bear in mind, the Gulf Stream was halted, so Europe was hit extra hard.

I think the Gulf Stream was still there, although much colder. Gulf Stream is behind the reason why Europe was covered with so much Ice. It was bringing moist Atlantic air causing a lot of snow, the building block of glacier ice.

 

[LeBrok]

They are a bit different because they have always lived in harsh cold conditions. The LGM put a lot of stress in tribes that were not really adapted to that environment genetically and psychologically.

They've survived, so they were adapted. More adapted than Neanderthals who died during LGM.

Let's say it is so cold that there is few animals around and it is not cost effective anymore to go out and risk freezing to hunt them. It is a dark part of history but humans in extreme situations have resorted to canibalism. It is documented that groups in ancient Egypt ate their children at some point during severe draughts of the Nile. There are as recent cases as WWII in Russia. What do you think is the underlying theme of human sacrifice practiced in ancient times.

As you should have noticed, I didn't argue that they haven't practiced cannibalism. If things get tough everybody is capable of it. I just don't think it was the way you described it. You don't kill you friend to have a meal. You eat the ones who died first from cold and hunger.

children at some point during severe draughts of the Nile. There are as recent cases as WWII in Russia.

See, even in your examples you don't see people killing friends to feast on them.
Kids usually die first and most of groups were made of children way back. That's why these Egyptians mostly ate children, if they had to.
WWII Russia, I'm sure they ate already dead people. They were not killing live friends to eat them.

What do you think is the underlying theme of human sacrifice practiced in ancient times

To please gods. Did Aztec, with thousands enemies sacrificed for rain, it them later? Did ancient Israelites ate their sacrificed children? In times of plenty people don't eat people.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Completely depopulated or very thinly populated and lacking archaeological remains to date ? The absence of evidence is not evidence.

That is true.
But it still is a surprise.
I would have expected that the Balkans were a good place to retreat to during LGM and that there would have been plenty of evidence of human presence.

 

[tjlowery87]

I thoght i1 started in northern europe

 

[kamani]

They've survived, so they were adapted. More adapted than Neanderthals who died during LGM.

Most of them actually starved to death. That's not exactly survival.

To please gods. Did Aztec, with thousands enemies sacrificed for rain, it them later? Did ancient Israelites ate their sacrificed children? In times of plenty people don't eat people.

I think the case of the Aztecs was genocide; they physically got rid of the opposing tribes.
I don't know about Israelites sacrificing children. Do you mean the Carthagenians who burned children in their sacrificial bull, when they were losing to the Romans?