Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus

Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol
 
Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol

What the heck? There were no "Europeans" in the periods we're talking about.

Plus, if Villabruna is a subset of Dzudzuana, then try looking at the CAUCASUS.

Otherwise, a very ancient group of humans, ultimately deriving from Africa, by way of India/Central Asia, formed the majority of the ancestry of both Villabruna and Dzudzuana.
 
Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol

No, those hunter gatherers all came from the east. The models in the paper predict that the ancient samples from Europe were on dead branches for the most part (up until Villabruna that is).
 
Regarding the early migrations of humans reaching into Europe,35,000 yrs ago, developing into the Aurignacian culture, Maciamo, ( Oct 2016 ) informs that these early Humans brought old Y haplogroups such as Y, C-V20, and Y H P-96, ( Y-H2 ), meaning Y H2, P-96 was one of the first Y Haplogroups to reach Europe, and is associated with the development of the Augnacian culture.

Y H2 P96 is then also, believed to of come to Europe from both the African and Middle East, areas alongside a WestAsian,and Indian area route, travelling with the Anatolian early farmers, ( back into Europe ? ) around 9,000-6000 years ago.

As the early Humans are believed to of left Africa around 45,000 years ago, and the age of Y H2, separation is given as a similar age, not to far distant at around the 43,000 yr mark, there is around a 10/12,000 year gap, in reaching the European areas.

Is it possible Y H2 could also have a Caucasus connection, back into Europe, meaning Y H2, P96, came to Europe Twice, which seems to be the case, ( and possibly even a third journey ? ) and a split of some thousands of years between each.

That they ( Y H2, P96 ) were both Early Paleolithic and Neolithic suggests and indicate's they were both Hunter Gatherers, and later Farmers, and that there must therefore be two very separate, and distinct groups sharing the same 'Y H2 P96 ' Haplogroup ??. separations of both groups some 25-30,000 yrs apart ??
 
Seems to me ijk went west through the med from lebanon 50k Ya. Met up with the rest only 12 or 13k YA in the Caucasus to come back with the IEI.
i agree with the indus valley refuge aswell.
 
Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.

07G2Wzf.png

qTyNet0


* 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.

RqCZXlB

DXgB7Jg.png


* The new Caucasus genome is most related to Saudis, Palestinians & Lybians.

* As per the authors, Vilalbruna primarily is what "differentiates Europeans" from non-European populations.

* Villabruna most related to Basques out of all modern populations by a significant margin. Virtually every PCA showed this.

* AG3 as a source mostly for Europeans. Siberians, Caucasians and Iranians prefer deeper ANE-related admixture.


Here's some more figures from the paper:

Ik3rxqg.png


wJfp8z8.png


7DXUFiq.png


KI1Z9z8.png


eNvJVUZ.png
 
Are the two genomes of enough good quality to try to make a snp test if they had like blue eyes?
 

Currently earliest fossils of Neanderthals in Europe are dated at 430,000 years ago, and thereafter Neanderthals expanded into Southwest and Central Asia. They are known from numerous fossils, as well as stone toolassemblages.


Neanderthal percentages/admixture in the above groups?

The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

Extended Data Table 3

Significant correlation of Neanderthal ancestry estimate with specimen age


[h=1]Extended Data Table 2[/h][FONT=&quot]Estimated proportion of Neanderthal ancestry
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
f4-ratiosArchaic Ancestry Informative SNPs
Sample CodeAge BPSNPsEst.95% CISNPsEst.95% CIIncrease in Neanderthal ancestry with BS.E.
UstIshim45,0202,137,6154.4%3.6% – 5.3%778,7743.0%2.3% – 3.7%−0.9%1.3%
Oase139,610285,0769.9%8.4% – 11.4%59,8547.5%6.0% – 8.9%2.5%1.8%
Kostenki1437,4701,774,1563.6%2.7% – 4.4%632,7482.8%2.3% – 3.3%−1.0%1.0%
GoyetQ116-134,795846,9833.4%2.4% – 4.3%
Muierii233,30098,6185.2%3.0% – 7.4%22,1893.0%2.5% – 3.5%0.6%1.1%
Paglicci13332,89582,3304.1%2.1% – 6.0%
Cioclovina132,43512,7844.1%−1.1% – 9.3%
Kostenki1232,41561,2281.9%−0.7% – 4.4%13,3852.6%2.1% – 3.2%1.7%1.5%
KremsWA330,970203,9863.9%2.6% – 5.2%-
Vestonice1330,870139,5684.6%2.6% – 6.5%35,9833.3%2.7% – 3.8%0.3%1.3%
Vestonice1530,87030,9004.3%0.6% – 7.9%5,8552.7%2.1% – 3.4%−1.5%1.3%
Vestonice1430,8705,6772.6%−5.9% – 11.0%
Pavlov130,26057,0054.4%1.6% – 7.1%9,3273.1%2.5% – 3.8%0.7%1.2%
Vestonice4330,010163,9466.9%5.2% – 8.5%38,7492.9%2.4% – 3.3%0.9%0.9%
Vestonice1630,010945,2924.1%3.1% – 5.1%268,1572.8%2.3% – 3.3%−0.1%1.0%
Ostuni228,97517,0171.6%−3.2% – 6.3%2,7462.3%1.4% – 3.1%1.3%1.6%
GoyetQ53-127,97512,5674.8%−0.7% – 10.3%
Paglicci10827,7504,3303.4%−6.0% – 12.7%
Ostuni127,620369,3134.2%3.0% – 5.4%88,4492.6%2.2% – 3.0%0.1%0.9%
GoyetQ376-1927,51525,4006.5%2.7% – 10.2%
GoyetQ56-1626,3209,9883.6%−1.9% – 9.1%
Malta124,3051,439,5012.9%1.9% – 3.8%437,1872.5%2.1% – 2.9%1.0%0.8%
ElMiron18,720797,7143.6%2.6% – 4.5%250,0712.8%2.5% – 3.2%0.6%0.9%
AfontovaGora316,710286,3553.0%1.8% – 4.2%96,2373.3%2.9% – 3.7%−1.5%1.0%
AfontovaGora216,710143,7512.2%0.4% – 4.0%37,2802.3%1.9% – 2.7%−0.3%0.9%
Rigney115,46535,6000.8%−2.6% – 4.2%
HohleFels4915,13063,1512.3%−0.6% – 5.2%
GoyetQ-215,00572,2631.7%−0.6% – 4.0%
Brillenhohle1478013,4592.5%−3.0% – 8.1%
HohleFels7914,67011,2111.7%−5.1% – 8.5%
Burkhardtshohle14,61538,3761.7%−1.6% – 5.0%
Villabruna13,9801,215,4332.7%1.8% – 3.5%425,1483.3%3.0% – 3.7%1.1%0.9%
Bichon13,6652,116,7822.9%1.9% – 3.8%769,4222.7%2.2% – 3.2%0.7%1.3%
Satsurblia13,2551,460,3681.5%0.6% – 2.4%542,5612.0%1.7% – 2.4%0.9%0.6%
Rochedane12,960237,3901.9%0.5% – 3.3%
Iboussieres3911,7259,6596.4%−0.8% – 13.7%
Continenza10,85511,7174.1%−1.4% – 9.6%1,7332.9%1.8% – 4.0%−10.6%4.4%
Ranchot8810,085414,8632.9%1.8% – 4.0%
LesCloseaux139,9008,635−3.0%−9.7% – 3.8%
Kotias9,7202,133,9681.8%1.0% – 2.7%779,1462.1%1.8% – 2.4%0.7%0.5%
Falkenstein9,20064,4284.8%1.7% – 7.8%
Karelia8,3751,754,4101.9%1.1% – 2.7%582,4442.2%1.9% – 2.6%−0.2%0.7%
Bockstein8,26521,9775.7%1.0% – 10.5%
Ofnet8,2456,2639.8%1.4% – 18.1%
Chaudardes18,20592,6571.9%−0.2% – 3.9%
Loschbour8,0502,091,5842.5%1.6% – 3.3%774,1392.6%2.0% – 3.1%2.7%1.7%
LaBrana17,8151,884,7451.9%1.1% – 2.8%642,2312.7%2.3% – 3.2%0.4%0.8%
Hungarian.KO17,6601,410,3032.1%1.2% – 3.0%439,4082.4%2.0% – 2.8%−0.1%1.2%
Motala127,6251,874,5192.5%1.6% – 3.3%655,6852.3%1.9% – 2.7%−0.1%0.7%
BerryAuBac7,24554,6902.5%−0.2% – 5.1%
Stuttgart7,1402,078,7241.9%1.1% – 2.7%767,8132.1%1.8% – 2.5%0.0%0.7%
Dai02,144,5021.4%0.7% – 2.1%782,0661.8%1.5% – 2.1%1.4%0.4%
Han02,144,5021.8%1.1% – 2.5%782,1642.1%1.8% – 2.5%1.9%0.7%
English02,144,5021.5%0.8% – 2.2%
French02,144,5021.5%0.9% – 2.1%782,3861.7%1.4% – 1.9%1.4%0.6%
Sardinian02,144,5021.2%0.6% – 1.9%782,3511.7%1.4% – 2.0%0.7%0.5%
Karitiana0782,0372.1%1.7% – 2.4%1.5%1.0%
[/FONT]
 
No, those hunter gatherers all came from the east. The models in the paper predict that the ancient samples from Europe were on dead branches for the most part (up until Villabruna that is).

That is if we don't model Villabruna as Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE. Which fits nicely, as per this paper. They even mention the logic of a clade emerging later - post-LGM - being composed of earlier branches makes quite some more sense than it being a virgin clade surviving the LGM unadmixted.

But the modeling is done with Villabruna as ancestral branch.
 
"So, to try and sum up:

  • Dzudzuana shares ancestry with ‘Common West Eurasian’ (CWE). the ancestor cluster of Villabruna.
  • Dzudzuana diverges from CWE because of a Basal Eurasian ancestry contribution [which supports that Basal Eurasian ancestry was a deep Middle Eastern lineage].
  • Dzudzuana is closest to Anatolia Neolithic, and close to Gravettian.
  • Chronologically:
    1. Aurignacian: First West Eurasians arrive ca. 36,000 BP, Goyet cluster expands probably with C1a2 lineages.
    2. After that, the early or ‘unmixed’ Villabruna cluster (‘hidden’ somewhere probably east of Europe, either North Eurasia or South Eurasia), lineages unknown (possibly IJ), contributes to:
      1. Gravettian (ca. 30,000 BP): Věstonice cluster expands, probably with IJ lineages.
      2. A (hidden) ‘Common West Eurasian’ population.In turn:

        • Dzudzuana ca. 26,000 BP derived from Common West Eurasian (curiously, haplogroup G seems to split in today’s subclades ca. 26,000 BP).
        • During the Gravettian (ca. 26,000 BP), an Anatolian Neolithic-like population exists already in the Near East. Both Věstonice and this Anatolian HG are close to Dzudzuana; in turn, Dzudzuana from CWE.
      3. Magdalenian (ca. 20,000 BP): El Mirón cluster expands, probably with more specific I lineages.
    3. Bølling-Allerød warming period (ca. 14,000 BP): ‘late’ Villabruna cluster or WHG (=CWE with greater affinity to Near Eastern populations) expands, probably spreading with R1b in mainland Europe and to the east (admixing with Siberian HG), creating the WHG — ANE ancestry cline, as reflected in Iron Gates HG, Baltic HG, etc.

  1. The paper talks about possibilities for Common West Eurasian:
    1. Migration from mainland Europe to Near East or vice versa (not very likely);
    2. Migration from a geographically intermediate Ice Age refugium in southeast Europe, Anatolia, or the circum-Pontic region that explain post-glacial affinity of post-glacial Levantine and Anatolian populations.
    It also re-states what was known:
    • EHG (ca. 8,000 BP) = between WHG — ANE (ca. 24,000 BP).
    • CHG (ca. 10,000 BP) = between EHG — Iran N.
    I would say that the distinct CHG vs. Dzudzuana ancestry puts CHG probably to the south, within the Iranian Plateau, during the Gravettian, expanding probably later.
    Also important, Ancestral North African probably accompanied by haplogroup E. Early expansion of North Africans into the Near East further confirms the impossibility of Afroasiatic (much younger) to be associated with these expansions, and confirms that the still unclear Green Sahar migrations are the key".

    Carlos Quiles
 
That is if we don't model Villabruna as Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE. Which fits nicely, as per this paper. They even mention the logic of a clade emerging later - post-LGM - being composed of earlier branches makes quite some more sense than it being a virgin clade surviving the LGM unadmixted.

But the modeling is done with Villabruna as ancestral branch.

Finally had a minute to pour over this glorious paper.

Epoch's post above is related to where I was getting hung up, but it looks like it was just a matter of how they interpreted the different models that their algo spit out.

We have the statements below that make it sound like Common West Eurasian ->->->->-> Villabruna relatively unadmixed.

“…..a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed allthe ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry.”

“…..a deeply divergent hunter-gatherer lineage that contributed in relatively unmixed form to the much later hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster is specified as contributing to earlier hunter-gatherer groups (Gravettian Vestonice16: 35.7±11.3% and Magdalenian ElMiron: 60.6±11.3%) and to populations of the Caucasus (Dzudzuana: 200 72.5±3.7%, virtually identical to that inferred using ADMIXTUREGRAPH).”

“In Europe, descendants of this lineage admixed with pre-existing hunter-gatherers related to Sunghir3 from Russia for the Gravettians and GoyetQ116-1 from Belgium for the Magdalenians, while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe, while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE cline of ancestry”

But then we have some other discussion in the supplement.

"Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestry from Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as all these sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model for Villabruna 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 as well. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago….. From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeed complex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to all the remaining sources. This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kya population of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seems to have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period."

Looks like as @epoch says that it all depends on their assumptions given that they have no older WHG like sample to work from. Unadmixed CWE------>Villabruna is the most parsimonious, but since Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE work as well and these samples predate Villabruna we would have to consider this model too.

Awesome paper. And I think I may be rethinking the Basal Eurasian Homeland being South Asia idea. The Dzudzu sample strongly implies that BE is present just South of or in the Caucuses assuming that Common West Eurasian is coming from the North somewhere. This strongly suggests that BE and other deep clade "homelands" are in South West Asia and North Africa, which makes sense as stopping points for these groups as we radiated out of Africa. This is the most popular theory anyway, nothing new.

Where do people think we'll find a sample that fits the "Common West Eurasian" population? I'm thinking South of our other 40k year old samples. Older samples From Italy across the Balkans to just above the Caucuses around 35k years ago is my call. We know that before 27k years ago they were bumping against Basal Eurasians in the South Caucuses and so if we assume CWE is coming from the North that means that they would have had to been just North of the Caucuses on the steppe at some point.
 
Last edited:
Where do people think we'll find a sample that fits the "Common West Eurasian" population? I'm thinking South of our other 40k year old samples. Older samples From Italy across the Balkans to just above the Caucuses around 35k years ago is my call. We know that before 27k years ago they were bumping against Basal Eurasians in the South Caucuses and so if we assume CWE is coming from the North that means that they would have had to been just North of the Caucuses on the steppe at some point.

Fumane and Les Cottés both seem to have mtDNA R*, the predecessor of U. That, IMO, means these samples were from the same pool as the mtDNA U carriers originated from. We know that in the Balkans there was a proto-Aurignacian occupation from 45 ka to 39 ka which then disappeared (cf Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria). We know that nearby proto-Aurignacian Oase 1 was a complete outlier that likely was not contributing anything to later HG's. That may possibly mean that SE Europe was wiped clean by the Phlegrean Eruption. Tephra from that is found up to the Kostenki 14 site, where it seemed to have terminated proto-Aurignacian layers. So if the Kostenki 14 *sample* - which postdates the eruption and was found in archaeological context of layers above the tephra layers - is an example of a recolonization where did it come from? Fumane was not touched by the eruption, so Uluzzian may be interesting. Even older, Bohunicians perhaps?

EDIT: But I think Villabruna is a mixture with a lot of Vestonice as it simply makes more sense. The culture was called Epigravettian for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Fumane and Les Cottés both seem to have mtDNA R*, the predecessor of U. That, IMO, means these samples were from the same pool as the mtDNA U carriers originated from. We know that in the Balkans there was a proto-Aurignacian occupation from 45 ka to 39 ka which then disappeared (cf Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria). We know that nearby proto-Aurignacian Oase 1 was a complete outlier that likely was not contributing anything to later HG's. That may possibly mean that SE Europe was wiped clean by the Phlegrean Eruption. Tephra from that is found up to the Kostenki 14 site, where it seemed to have terminated proto-Aurignacian layers. So if the Kostenki 14 *sample* - which postdates the eruption and was found in archaeological context of layers above the tephra layers - is an example of a recolonization where did it come from? Fumane was not touched by the eruption, so Uluzzian may be interesting. Even older, Bohunicians perhaps?

I always believed that mtdna U, or at least partially, like U2, would have been related with the R* of Ust-Ishim. What are Fumane and Les Cottés dated for? And what would be the role of mtdna M into the replacement of pre-campanian ignimbrite eruption?
 
I always believed that mtdna U, or at least partially, like U2, would have been related with the R* of Ust-Ishim. What are Fumane and Les Cottés dated for?

Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.

http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_Online_2018.pdf

"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"

And what would be the role of mtdna M into the replacement of pre-campanian ignimbrite eruption?

No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?
 
Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.

http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_Online_2018.pdf

"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"



No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?

Nice, upper paleolithic samples are the most interesting and intriguing i think.
 
Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.

http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_Online_2018.pdf

"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"



No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?

Hm, the both M sample that we have are pretty younger than the other. Goyet is 32'000-30'000 years old and Ostuni1 is 25'000 years old. Also, Genetiker pigmentation snps show most Gravettian like Kostenki / Sunghir to be " Medium " Skinned, while Ostuni1 is " Dark " Skinned. There was maybe an obscure migration coming from north africa already at this point.
 
Hm, the both M sample that we have are pretty younger than the other. Goyet is 32'000-30'000 years old and Ostuni1 is 25'000 years old. Also, Genetiker pigmentation snps show most Gravettian like Kostenki / Sunghir to be " Medium " Skinned, while Ostuni1 is " Dark " Skinned. There was maybe an obscure migration coming from north africa already at this point.

The reconstructed skin colour most likely means very little with respect to the affinity of these samples. Ostuni1 clusters very clearly with other Gravettians who were reconstructed, it is really not an outlier. The Fu et al paper where it was published was stuffed to the brink with loads and loads of D-stats so you can be absolutely sure about that (They're in the Sup Info, by far the most interesting part of that study).
 
The reconstructed skin colour most likely means very little with respect to the affinity of these samples. Ostuni1 clusters very clearly with other Gravettians who were reconstructed, it is really not an outlier. The Fu et al paper where it was published was stuffed to the brink with loads and loads of D-stats so you can be absolutely sure about that (They're in the Sup Info, by far the most interesting part of that study).

Yeah but that's an Upper Paleolithic sample, we have samples distant from Millenia and a low density population. What i mean is that in paleolithic spain we had some Magdalenian y-dna I with a high ressurgence of Goyet admixture, but we know I probably was not the original lineage of the Goyet Cluster. It's very possible that Ostuni is the remnant to an originally older and unrelated population of the Gravettians like Kostenki / Sungir, but more related with Goyet, but they lost their original ancestry to a Gravettian one.
 

This thread has been viewed 68666 times.

Back
Top