The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

[LeBrok]

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

(If I may). I agree. HGs don't need to be "mobile" hunters, following migratory animals, to populate and live through a vast territory. The sedentary HGs migrate too, and likewise they follow their prey. It just happens in "slow motion", in scale of centuries. In this case WHG expended North due to warming climate. Following their prey, and whole biological environment, expending North.
Other way to look at it is that, they moved geographically, but they remained sedentary in same climatic and biological zone.

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

Like a dagger in nationalistic heart.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Angela

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

I may be missing something but

1) if it's mid-east to Europe then the lack of basal in Europe implies basal came to the mid-east afterwards

2) if it's Europe to mid-east the lack of basal in Europe also implies basal came to the mid-east in a separate event afterwards

so either way - unless I'm missing something obvious - the implication is there was a major turnover in the mid-east involving Basal.

I'm easy on either option 1) or 2) but the major implication seems to be being obscured by that debate.

The major points I got from the paper

- some very old continuity at least on the Atlantic coast
- R1b where it wasn't expected by most (including me)
- ENA where it wasn't expected
- some kind of major "Basal" turnover in the mid-east

 

[epoch]

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

Yes, we've known that ever since the data came out about the Early Anatolian Farmer samples (about 5%, isn't it?), and given what the paper on the Gravettian and Epigravettian in the Balkans and Anatolia shows, it's totally to be expected, yes? The cultural influences seem to have gone back and forth.

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

Haven't mailed yet. Thinking of what to say.

The Oase1 paper has a D-stat D(Europeans, Stuttgart; Kostenki14, Mbuti) = -0.6. Europeans being two French and two Sardianians. If Kostenki14 only has affinity with WHG that stat should have favoured Europeans, in my opinion. So something else must be there. Mind you, perhaps I don't see this right, but I think the link between K14 and ENF is tigher than later WHG admixture justifies.

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

Or perhaps from K14 sprang Vestonice, Villabruna and something that admixted in Anatolia, the latter preserving a component of K14 that drifted in both others? Just a thought.

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

The SI basically says:

There are several possible explanations for these findings. One is gene flow between relatives of Near Easterners and pre-Neolithic Europeans after ~14,000 years ago, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster. A second is population substructure in Europe. In this scenario, after post-glacial re-peopling of Europe, the balance of ancestry could have shifted toward populations that were more closely related to Near Easterners.

And furthermore they clearly mention they can't find a good fit for WHG.

Also:

Understanding the exact gene flow history responsible for these patterns is difficult with the ancient DNA sample series available here, but is an important question to address in future work.

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

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

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

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

Hopefully that will answer some questions. Do you know if the Klisoura remains are in a lab somewhere? Are there any "Eprigravettian" samples from the Middle East at all?

What we need is a find from during and just before LGM. Solutreans, also. This paper has a huge gap between 18.800 and 26.800, exactly the period where there was a bottle neck. This likely is due to a lack of finds, I think. But the bottleneck that the LGM was must influence all kinds of results as well.

No idea on Klisoura.

 

[Angela]

Angela



I may be missing something but

1) if it's mid-east to Europe then the lack of basal in Europe implies basal came to the mid-east afterwards

2) if it's Europe to mid-east the lack of basal in Europe also implies basal came to the mid-east in a separate event afterwards

so either way - unless I'm missing something obvious - the implication is there was a major turnover in the mid-east involving Basal.

I'm easy on either option 1) or 2) but the major implication seems to be being obscured by that debate.

The major points I got from the paper

- some very old continuity at least on the Atlantic coast
- R1b where it wasn't expected by most (including me)
- ENA where it wasn't expected
- some kind of major "Basal" turnover in the mid-east

As to 1), yes, that's what I said. In that case, Basal Eurasian would have to have arrived after the departure not of WHG itself, necessarily, but perhaps of some population which went on to form a significant part of the WHG genome. Of course, that's if what we've been speculating about "Basal Eurasian" is correct.

This movement from Greece, perhaps ultimately from Anatolia, if it took place, occurred, according to them, just around 14,000 ybp, in the Bolling warming period.

If it was existing substructure prior to that, their other alternative, why is there this "relationship" to ancestors of modern Middle Easterners?

I don't understand why number 2 would be the case, so I may be the one missing something obvious here. Why couldn't the back migration of WHG, which led to some stats showing about a 5% input, have taken place after, as just one possibility, Natufian admixed populations had spread in a star burst pattern in every direction?

As to the other four, yes indeed, with the caveat that this "Aurignacian" remnant seems to have contributed a very small portion of the genomes of modern Europeans.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Originally Posted by bicicleur

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

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






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

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


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

As to this documentary, who is this archaeologist, and has he published on this at all? Strange that it would appear first in a youtube documentary.

Kebaran had geometric microliths.
Geometric microliths are 'obliquely truncated blades'


The very first geometric microliths were invented in India/Sri Lanka ca 35 ka.
I suspect that just before LGM some people arrived in the Levant coming from the east.
Iran and northern India would have been very arid during LGM.

If I understand correctly the paper says during the period 14-12 ka Okuzini in southern Anatolia got geometric microliths, but the Balkans not.
In the period 12-11 ka both Anatolia and the Balkans had it.
They are supposed to be used as arrowheads.
Furthermore when geometric microliths arrive other mammals are hunted, like deer.
The author stresses several times that the Balkans and Anatolia remain distinct from the Kebaran.
He sees clear links between the Balkans and Anatolia and he sees some connection through depictions with the Italian Epigravettian and with Western Europe (France).

Still as you pointed out earlier, it is quite suspicious, it is not very likely that the Villabrunans would have invented geometric microliths and the bow and arrow seperately.

 

[Angela]

Epoch: Or perhaps from K14 sprang Vestonice, Villabruna and something that admixted in Anatolia, the latter preserving a component of K14 that drifted in both others? Just a thought.

I can certainly see that. I also initially wondered whether the "Basal Eurasian" in K14 drifted out by the time we get to Vestonice. Perhaps "Basal Eurasian" was initially much more widespread than it was later on, and only survived as a discrete component further south in places like Arabia or around the Persian Gulf.

"there are several possible explanations for these findings. One is gene flow between relatives of Near Easterners and pre-Neolithic Europeans after ~14,000 years ago, beginning with the Villabruna Cluster. A second is population substructure in Europe. In this scenario, after post-glacial re-peopling of Europe, the balance of ancestry could have shifted toward populations that were more closely related to Near Easterners."

That doesn't read to me as even hinting that it's because a WHG group migrated into the Middle East, but I could very well be wrong about that. It's certainly clear that they don't think any definitive answers can be reached without additional ancient samples.

 

[bicicleur 2]

(If I may). I agree. HGs don't need to be "mobile" hunters, following migratory animals, to populate and live through a vast territory. The sedentary HGs migrate too, and likewise they follow their prey. It just happens in "slow motion", in scale of centuries. In this case WHG expended North due to warming climate. Following their prey, and whole biological environment, expending North.
Other way to look at it is that, they moved geographically, but they remained sedentary in same climatic and biological zone.

Like a dagger in nationalistic heart.

The Magdalenian reindeer hunters moved around in teepees, they were very mobile.

I guess the Magelmosian were the first Villabrunans arriving in Scandinavia 11 ka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglemosian_culture
They had huts made of bark whiwh indicates they were at least semi-sedentary.

The Maglemosian people lived in forest and wetland environments, using fishing and hunting tools made from wood, bone, and flint microliths. It appears that they had domesticated the dog.^{[citation needed]} Some may have lived settled lives, but most were nomadic.^{[citation needed]}
Huts made of bark have been preserved, and the tools were made of flint, bone, and horn. A characteristic of the culture are the sharply edgedmicroliths of flintstone, used for spear and arrow heads.^[2] Another notable feature is the "leister", a characteristic type of fishing spear, used forgigging.

I wonder wether 11 ka, when they arrived, there were allready forests in southern Scandinavia.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I can certainly see that. I also initially wondered whether the "Basal Eurasian" in K14 drifted out by the time we get to Vestonice. Perhaps "Basal Eurasian" was initially much more widespread than it was later on, and only survived as a discrete component further south in places like Arabia or around the Persian Gulf.

remind me, did CHG have Basal Eurasian?

 

[epoch]

Angela



I may be missing something but

1) if it's mid-east to Europe then the lack of basal in Europe implies basal came to the mid-east afterwards

2) if it's Europe to mid-east the lack of basal in Europe also implies basal came to the mid-east in a separate event afterwards

That second option I don't understand. If a tad WHG entered Anatolians carrying basal Eurasian they wouldn't lose basal Eurasian, would they? Or don't I understand what you mean?

so either way - unless I'm missing something obvious - the implication is there was a major turnover in the mid-east involving Basal.

I'm easy on either option 1) or 2) but the major implication seems to be being obscured by that debate.

The major points I got from the paper

- some very old continuity at least on the Atlantic coast
- R1b where it wasn't expected by most (including me)
- ENA where it wasn't expected
- some kind of major "Basal" turnover in the mid-east

 

[Angela]

remind me, did CHG have Basal Eurasian?

I see what you're getting at...

From analyses done on the internet, yes, although, as ever with this, the exact percentage keeps changing. I think from things I read on anthrogenica it's ranged from maybe 25% to 50% to higher?

I don't remember the paper that actually published the sequence mentioning it.

I also entertained the possibility at one time that Basal Eurasian was further north or east and that was the direction from which it reached the Levant, which might point to a source around India, which is right where we find the first geometric microblades as per your post.

 

[epoch]

remind me, did CHG have Basal Eurasian?

Yes, certainly.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/04/basal-eurasian-levels-in-europe-and.html

But the original paper also mentions it:

The split between CHG and EF is dated at ~20–30 kya emerging from a common basal Eurasian lineage¹ (Supplementary Fig. 2) and suggesting a possible link with the LGM, although the broad confidence intervals require some caution with this interpretation.

 

[epoch]

If it was existing substructure prior to that, their other alternative, why is there this "relationship" to ancestors of modern Middle Easterners?

But Villabruna fancies Afontova Gora3 (post-LGM) over Malta (pre-LGM). You'd be tempted to think it fancies everything post-LGM over pre-LGM.

As to the other four, yes indeed, with the caveat that this "Aurignacian" remnant seems to have contributed a very small portion of the genomes of modern Europeans.

I wonder how a component made of a number of (hypothetical, not yet found and/or sequenced) Aurignacians would do. Considering that pre-LGM diversity was far larger than post-LGM the WHG in Magdalenian might be a cover for other Aurignacians that left a print in WHG that are not yet found.

 

[Angela]

As the King said to Anna, "It's a puzzlement"!

Good catch on the CHG paper.

 

[epoch]

Kebaran had geometric microliths.
Geometric microliths are 'obliquely truncated blades'
View attachment 7751View attachment 7752View attachment 7753View attachment 7754View attachment 7755

The very first geometric microliths were invented in India/Sri Lanka ca 35 ka.
I suspect that just before LGM some people arrived in the Levant coming from the east.
Iran and northern India would have been very arid during LGM.

If I understand correctly the paper says during the period 14-12 ka Okuzini in southern Anatolia got geometric microliths, but the Balkans not.
In the period 12-11 ka both Anatolia and the Balkans had it.
They are supposed to be used as arrowheads.
Furthermore when geometric microliths arrive other mammals are hunted, like deer.
The author stresses several times that the Balkans and Anatolia remain distinct from the Kebaran.
He sees clear links between the Balkans and Anatolia and he sees some connection through depictions with the Italian Epigravettian and with Western Europe (France).

Still as you pointed out earlier, it is quite suspicious, it is not very likely that the Villabrunans would have invented geometric microliths and the bow and arrow seperately.

Mircoliths being the marker of mesolithic HGs.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I see what you're getting at...

From analyses done on the internet, yes, although, as ever with this, the exact percentage keeps changing. I think from things I read on anthrogenica it's ranged from maybe 25% to 50% to higher?

I don't remember the paper that actually published the sequence mentioning it.

I also entertained the possibility at one time that Basal Eurasian was further north or east and that was the direction from which it reached the Levant, which might point to a source around India, which is right where we find the first geometric microblades as per your post.

There is a pecularity with Kostenki 14. He is C1b, not C1a2.
I mentioned earlier, other people had allready arrived at the Kostenki area some 2000 years before the Aurignacians. The culture of Kostenki 14 is unassigned, we don't know whether they were Aurignacians or from the folks that arrived before. Aurignacians arrived at Kostenki +/- 39.5 ka, so you might expect Kostenki 14 at least to be admixed with Aurignacians though.
C1b is spread over SW Asia, South Asia and even SE Asia (Ayta in the Philipines), quite different from the C1a2 distribution.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Yes, certainly.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/04/basal-eurasian-levels-in-europe-and.html

But the original paper also mentions it:

found it in the ice age paper itself too :

The Satsurblia Cluster individuals from the Caucasus dating to~13,000–10,000 years ago2 share more alleles with the VillabrunaCluster individuals than they do with earlier Europeans, indicating thatthey are related to the population that contributed new alleles to peoplein the Villabruna Cluster, although they cannot be the direct source ofthe gene flow. One reason for this is that the Satsurblia Cluster carrieslarge amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster individualsdo not2 (Supplementary Information section 12; Extended DataFig. 4).

 

[bix]

I wonder how a component made of a number of (hypothetical, not yet found and/or sequenced) Aurignacians would do. Considering that pre-LGM diversity was far larger than post-LGM the WHG in Magdalenian might be a cover for other Aurignacians that left a print in WHG that are not yet found.

Say, for example, the Villabruna (WHG) in El Miron? I was wondering myself when this admixture event could have occurred. It could have been very early... eh? Or one of those components of Villabruna.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I see what you're getting at...

From analyses done on the internet, yes, although, as ever with this, the exact percentage keeps changing. I think from things I read on anthrogenica it's ranged from maybe 25% to 50% to higher?

Need not dealt on percentages . Anatolia_Neolithic, CHG, and all modern Middle Easterners have an about as strong Basal Eurasian signal in D-stats. D-stats and Treemix gives an about 40% estimate but many of Treemix's models with Ancient Middle Eastern and European genomes don't include Basal Eurasian but give a more complicated tree.

I don't remember the paper that actually published the sequence mentioning it.
.

They claimed CHG was pure Basal Eurasian!! Crazy. It's because they aren't the same time that did the Fu 2016, laz 2013, Haak 2015 papers.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Haven't mailed yet. Thinking of what to say.

The Oase1 paper has a D-stat D(Europeans, Stuttgart; Kostenki14, Mbuti) = -0.6. Europeans being two French and two Sardianians. If Kostenki14 only has affinity with WHG that stat should have favoured Europeans, in my opinion. So something else must be there. Mind you, perhaps I don't see this right, but I think the link between K14 and ENF is tigher than later WHG admixture justifies.

That's wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, but there's no way that stat is correct. Kostenki14 has the same affinity to Europeans other Paleo-Euros do. He's closer to basically all modern Europeans than to Stuttgart. I've seen plenty of statistics proving this.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Angela, Epoch

me: 2) if it's Europe to mid-east the lack of basal in Europe also implies basal came to the mid-east in a separate event afterwards

Angela: I don't understand why number 2 would be the case, so I may be the one missing something obvious here.

Yes I think I may nave been getting CHG and Basal jumbled up.

Leaving CHG aside then option (2) if the mid-east already had Basal then all it would take is some WHG from Europe.

Only if it was option (1) mid-east to Europe, would there need to be a later movement of Basal into the mid-east.

As to the other four, yes indeed, with the caveat that this "Aurignacian" remnant seems to have contributed a very small portion of the genomes of modern Europeans.

I don't mind that. If moderns had a critical leg up from archaic admixture the amount of DNA involved as a percentage is likely to be tiny imo.

Or alternatively if it only has/had a minor phenotype effect in certain regions that's of interest to me (as I'm particularly into the source of myths and legends e.g. giants).