Over at
bioRxiv at this
LINK. The main topic of the preprint is largely outside the scope of this blog. However, the manuscript includes a detailed discussion about how to get the most out of the qpAdm mixture modeling program. I've used qpAdm regularly over the years, and I plan to use it more often in the future, so I'll be looking very carefully at the qpAdm methodology that Ning et al. are recommending. Here's the preprint abstract:
Upward Sun River 1, an individual from a unique burial of the Denali tradition in Alaska (11500 calBP), is considered a type representative of Ancient Beringians who split from other First Americans 22000-18000 calBP in Beringia. Using a new admixture graph model-comparison approach resistant to overfitting, we show that Ancient Beringians do not form the deepest American lineage, but instead harbor ancestry from a lineage more closely related to northern North Americans than to southern North Americans. Ancient Beringians also harbor substantial admixture from a lineage that did not contribute to other Native Americans: Amur River Basin populations represented by a newly reported site in northeastern China. Relying on these results, we propose a new model for the genomic formation of First American ancestors in Asia.
Ning et al.,
The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia,
bioRxiv, posted October 12, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.336628
See also...
Ancient ancestry proportions in present-day Europeans
Major updates to ADMIXTOOLS
Yamnaya-related ancestry proportions in present-day Poles
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267@Samuel Andrews
"There's Y DNA I1 in Scandinavia which is of farmer origin."
Isn't the origin of Scandinavian I1 still up in the air as we lack any "ancient" examples?
@Cy Tolliver,
I haven't tried to use Admixtools. I plan on trying it very soon. There's a lot of things I would like to test with its tools. But I know it takes a long time to learn how to use it.
I was banned from Anthrogencia forum two years ago. :). Once I start posting my Youtube videos on Europe's Population History I'm going to find a way to post links to it there.
Oh my lord that paper mentioned above.
@Joey
You have not answered the questions. Give the sources that you use, because you are completely incomprehensible. You think that the set of words you use is clear to at least someone. Obviously, it seems to you that everyone knows everything about what you are wrong about.
@Vladimir
Do not pay attention, how can purely Italians deal with FU questions without knowing their linguistics and without introducing new DNA data? Completely meaningless paper with an empty set of words. This is an insignificant paper with insignificant unprofessional genedata.
See good Tambets et al.(2018), Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations
@ Sam
''Based on archeaology & ancient DNA, it seems to me the each case the Kurgan tribes conquered native communities/populations then absorbed their populations. I think this is why admixture happened immediately and was complete in only 300-500 years in most cases. I'd like to get your opinions on this.
I know Rob you dis agree. But, how else do you explain why almost Neolithic cultures in Northern Europe disappeared at the same time Corded Ware appears''
Well if you look at data from Furtwangler, Fernandez, etc; and the scores of radiometric dates from late Neolithic Europe, we notice that culturally & genetically distinct groups exist until at least 2500 BC, which is 300 years into the Single Grave-people migrations. Even groups which became assimilated into a sort of "Corded Ware' civilization maintained some form of distinctiveness in their burial rites. These all fully welded together by the LN-BA (from 2200 onwards)
Nevertheless, CWC imparted marked transformations throughout N-C & W. Europe from the outset; however the demographic impact needs to be carefuly analysed. Each component - social/ material, autosomal, & Y-DNA impact needs to be analysed ; because it was different for every region of Europe, instead of Harvard's blanket figures like 70% and 40%, which mean nothing. Some of the big Labs just aren't intellectually equipped to deal with their data, they just make stories up - big steppe migrations , BB was non-migratory, big Farmer migrations replacing WHGs, but 5000 years of (alleged) continuity in Anatolia.
''As Y DNA was basically an ethnic marker for both Kurgan and many Neolithic farmers. The fact, the mixed populations of 3rd millenium BC Europe almost all have Kurgan Y DNA is further evidence it was the Kurgan tribes who absorbed the native populations not the other way around.''
Ok; what's your point there ? Has anything to the contrary been suggested in northern or western Europe ?
''Corded Ware Swiss have Farmer Y DNA and elevated farmer ancestry. There's Y DNA I1 in Scandinavia which is of farmer origin. Welzin Bronze age had mostly Y DNA I2a and low Kurgan ancestry. But, these are exceptions.''
You need to go look at the data . I2c/ I2a throughout Unetice, I2a throughout Balkans.
It is Atlantic Europe Bronze Age & Italy which are the exceptions; which is why I keep pointing out that the irony that the greatest sweep occurred the farthest away from the steppe.
@Cooper axe
I think we have an I1 from mesolithic Spain or Portugal.
Lol @ Tigran. He is an East Asian incel. I have seen his sad fantasies posted on Asian incel forums.
@ Mary
And we see it in Neolithic France
So it seems Iberia (Paleo/ Meso) -> France (Neo)-> Scandinavia (LNBA)
The reported I1 in Mesolithic Spain is incorrect. The authors made a mistake. He is negative for a few I2 subclades so they assumed he is I1. Which is the wrong assumption.
As far as I know the oldest I1, which is for sure, is in Scandinavia 2000 BC. There's I1 in Neolithic Hungary but we should look at as a maybe since they didn't do serious DNA test.
@Copper Axe,
For long time, I1 has been mystery. But, I think considering all the I2a across Neolithic Europe, we can assume I1 is apart of the same pattern of Hunter gatherer lineages which become the lineage of a Neolithic tribe.
@ Sam
“ The reported I1 in Mesolithic Spain is incorrect. The authors made a mistake. He is negative for a few I2 subclades “”
There are 2 different samples from Iberia I1 , confirmed
There are also several from Neolithic France
Perhaps you should get up to speed before you launch your Channel ?
@ Bessarion
It remains to be seen if the Celts really arrived in the Northwestblock area from somewhere else or if they developed locally out of the Bell Beaker groups....
@ Bessarion
My guess is that the Northwestblock spoke a language related to the Single Grave Language and maybe to Proto-Insular-Celtic...
@Rob
"There are 2 different samples from Iberia I1 , confirmed"
Both BAL051 and Car1 are confirmed pre-I1, as they have more ancestral than derived calls for I1 SNPs. So they're similar to the slightly younger Scandinavian SF11.
"There are also several from Neolithic France"
Really? I'm counting one, BES1248.
@ Angantyr
No matter your personal definition of what constitites I1, the earliest I1 is from Late Paleolithic Iberia, not Scandinavia
'' Really? I'm counting one''
There's more
SF11 is a dead-end. The I1 in NBA show shift toward northwestern Europe, not SHG
+ subsequent TRB + PWC from Gotland were I2/ I2a1
@Samuel Andrews and mary
The Iberian I1 is Paleolithic, from an Azillian sample from Balma de GuilanyĆ” with at least half Magdalenian ancestry. It is not an I1 but halfway I1. These are thoroughly tested, though, confirmed by people at AG. Also, no *private* mutations were found so it could ancestral to I1.
@ Ric Hern
Hard to tell exactly. But you are prolly right that Single Grave plays a key-role there. I think both the Celts and Germanics(more the western Germanics) have developed locally by BB or they come in contact with them assilimating pockets in areas of central and northwest EU.Now, how these people were exactly in terms of autosomal DNA I can't answer but IMO they would have been between Dutch/Rhenish Beakers while others might have been closer to the Beakers from Eastern Germany(Saxony-Anhalto) or even with them from Bavaria but I am just guessing here. The ancient Germanic(Northsea Germanic-Elbe and Wesser speakers) core did not seems to received southern genes witch means even the pockets they assilmated must have been quite northern genetically.But ofc they started to become more southern when they come in contact with the Celtic world.
@Rob & Argantyr
Are there mutations typical for I1 found in Car1? Car1 has a high Magdalenian ancestry. It could point to a Magdalenian origin of I1.
It is booked in the XL sheet of Olalde as I(xI2a1,xI2a2,xI2c).
@Rob,
Unetice is mostly R1b P312 and R1a Z280 so far. The I2c samples may reflect just one tribe.
@Rob
"No matter your personal definition of what constitites I1, the earliest I1 is from Late Paleolithic Iberia, not Scandinavia"
Who said I1 would be from Scandinavia? My point was that pre-I1 was all over the place prior to I1's presumed TMRCA ~4600 BP.
"SF11 is a dead-end. The I1 in NBA show shift toward northwestern Europe, not SHG"
SF11 is, given the timing, almost certainly a dead end yes. So is Iberian Car1. Iberian BAL051 is the only one who perhaps has a chance of not being one.
Actually, SF11 has derived SNPs where the Iberians have ancestral (one each), so there's reason to believe that his ancestors originated in the relative vicinity. BAL051 could *in theory* be one.
And given the very southwestern French Neolithic sample, and the lack of signs of any Neolithic migrations from the far north that could have brought I1 there, it's more reasonable to believe that I1 (with *all* SNPs) formed in Western rather than Northern or Central Europe. And some individual might have strayed up NW and got caught up in Single Grave, or something.
[Regarding French Neolithic I1s] "There's more"
Where? Anyway, it seems like you missed the opportunity to ridicule me for bringing up BES1248 which is an Iron Age sample; I meant Cx161.
@ Agantyr
''Who said I1 would be from Scandinavia''
You have. You've been angling for a Scandinavian origin of I1 for eons. and can't accept reality for some reason.
''So is Iberian Car1. Iberian BAL051 ''
Nobody claimed Nordic LNBA I1 came directly from Iberia. But the path tracks to Iberia, originally
Why are you struggling with this ?
''And given the very southwestern French Neolithic sample, and the lack of signs of any Neolithic migrations from the far north that could have brought I1 there, it's more reasonable to believe that I1 (with *all* SNPs) formed in Western rather than Northern or Central Europe. And some individual might have strayed up NW and got caught up in Single Grave, or something''
Okay so is that your flimsy way of saying Im right ?
''Where? ''
Your limitations are purely your own. There you go :)
@ Sam
''Unetice is mostly R1b P312 and R1a Z280 so far. The I2c samples may reflect just one tribe.''
Do you ever base your statements on facts ?
@Samuel Andrews
"Unetice is mostly R1b P312 and R1a Z280 so far. The I2c samples may reflect just one tribe."
You are wrong. It's from many different places.
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvĆ, Grave 77 [I7197] 2200–1700 BCE M I2a1
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvĆ, Grave 84 (1) [I7199] 2200–1700 BCE M I2c1
Bronze Unetice Germany Eulau [I0804 / EUL 57] 2137-1965 calBCE (3671±26 BP, MAMS-22821) M I2
Bronze Unetice? Germany Esperstedt [I0116 / ESP 4] 2134-1939 calBCE (3650±32 BP, MAMS-21495) M I2c
Bronze Unetice Germany Eulau [EUL 47] 2133-2080 BC
Bronze Unetice Germany Esperstedt [I0114 / ESP 2] 2131-1979 BC M I2a2b
Bronze Unetice? Czech Republic Prague 8, Kobylisy, Ke StĆrce Street, feature 515 [I4884] 1882–1745 calBCE (3480±20 BP, PSUAMS-2842) M I2c1
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvĆ, Grave 59 [I7196] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvĆ, Grave 94 [I7202] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a2
R1a there is still associated with the earliest time, with the Proto-Unetice culture, which I regard as a separate culture from the Unetice.
Bronze Proto-Unetice? Czech Republic MoravskĆ” NovĆ” Ves, gr. 27 [I5037 / RISE579, F0579] 2300–1900 BCE M R (R1a1a1?)
Bronze Proto-Unetice?? Czech Republic MoravskĆ” NovĆ” Ves, gr. 8 [I5042 / RISE584, F0591] 2300–1900 BCE M R1 (R1a1a1?)
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvĆ, Grave 97 [I7203] 2200–1700 BCE M R1 (R1a1a1?)
Bronze Corded Ware/ Proto-Unetice Poland Leki Male [RISE431] 2286-2048 calBCE (3762±27 BP, OxA-27967) M K(xLT) (R1a1a1?)
There is no data about the Z280 yet.
I thought the oldest I1 was Stora Forvar ,a SHG from 5500 B.C. Gotland Sweden.
@epoch
"Are there mutations typical for I1 found in Car1? Car1 has a high Magdalenian ancestry. It could point to a Magdalenian origin of I1.
It is booked in the XL sheet of Olalde as I(xI2a1,xI2a2,xI2c)."
Car1 is on the I1 branch, yes.
I don't know, the older BAL051 [Villalba-Mouco 2019] is also pulled in the Magdalenian direction, but less than Car1. (Or maybe I should say probably older, as Car1 lacks radiocarbon date.)
@Romulus
"I thought the oldest I1 was Stora Forvar ,a SHG from 5500 B.C. Gotland Sweden."
Then it's about time you update yourself. Olalde 2019 + Villalba-Mouco 2019 and the community analysis of the genomes published there, and the (rather confused and confusing) supplementary material of Brunel 2020.
@Davidski
The data from "Early medieval genetic data from Ural region evaluated in the light of archaeological evidence of ancient Hungarians" has been released.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75910-z
@Anthony
I don't think I can do much with these samples.
Hi.
OFF TOPIC
Female hunters of the early Americas
Randall Haas1,2,* et al
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd0310
Science Advances 04 Nov 2020:
Vol. 6, no. 45, eabd0310
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd0310
Abstract:
"Sexual division of labor with females as gatherers and males as hunters is a major empirical regularity of hunter-gatherer ethnography, suggesting an ancestral behavioral pattern. We present an archeological discovery and meta-analysis that challenge the man-the-hunter hypothesis. Excavations at the Andean highland site of Wilamaya Patjxa reveal a 9000-year-old human burial (WMP6) associated with a hunting toolkit of stone projectile points and animal processing tools. Osteological, proteomic, and isotopic analyses indicate that this early hunter was a young adult female who subsisted on terrestrial plants and animals. Analysis of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene burial practices throughout the Americas situate WMP6 as the earliest and most secure hunter burial in a sample that includes 10 other females in statistical parity with early male hunter burials. The findings are consistent with nongendered labor practices in which early hunter-gatherer females were big-game hunters."
A quick G-Scholar search indicates that there is not much on this topic in Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe.
Subsistence activities and the sexual division of labor in the European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic: Evidence from upper limb enthesopathies
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248410000138
From the abstract:
"Four males exhibit lesions that can be confidently associated with throwing activities, while no females exhibit such lesions."
@Archi, Rob
In Olalde 2018 half of Unetice is R1b P312 half is I2. Davidski speaks of of unpublished R1a in Unetice.
@Rob,
"Some of the big Labs just aren't intellectually equipped to deal with their data, they just make stories up - big steppe migrations , BB was non-migratory, big Farmer migrations replacing WHGs, but 5000 years of (alleged) continuity in Anatolia."
The basic premise of those claims are true. They don't tell the whole story of what happened. But they tell most of it.
@Samuel Andrews
"In Olalde 2018 half of Unetice is R1b P312 half is I2."
What other half? There are only two samples of R1b. There is one case G2.
"Davidski speaks of of unpublished R1a in Unetice."
No data. The Proto/Old-Unetice this is not the Unetice.
"While assumption 1 is usually taken care of by choosing outgroups much deeper in time than the source proxies, assumption 2 was ignored in all papers published after 2016. Both assumptions (1 and 2) are nearly impossible to control in the "proximal" setup used, e.g., by Narasimhan et al. 2019, when both ingroups and outgroups are close it time and space. Assumption 2 is actually impossible control, if we single out a certain subset of targets from a wider set of ingroups."
Puts most papers and qpadm analyses here into question.
@vAsiSTha
"Puts most papers and qpadm analyses here into question."
Yes, you always violated these rules, doing exactly the opposite, which I wrote to you many times.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01372-8
Ancient DNA reveals monozygotic newborn twins from the Upper Palaeolithic
Teschler-Nicola et al.
Abstract
The Upper Palaeolithic double burial of newborns and the single burial of a ca. 3-month-old infant uncovered at the Gravettian site of Krems-Wachtberg, Austria, are of paramount importance given the rarity of immature human remains from this time. Genome-wide ancient DNA shows that the male infants of the double grave are the earliest reported case of monozygotic twins, while the single grave´s individual was their 3rd-degree male relative. We assessed the individuals´ age at death by applying histological and ĀµCT inspection of the maxillary second incisors (i2) in conjunction with C- and N-isotope ratios and Barium (Ba) intake as biomarker for breastfeeding. The results show that the twins were full-term newborns, and that while individual 2 died at birth, individual 1 survived for about 50 days. The findings show that Gravettian mortuary behaviour also included re-opening of a grave and manipulation of its layout and content.
There is no K2*, K2b* or P* in living males from mainland Asia. There is also no K2c, K2d or P2. The only place they are found is Oceania/Island SE Asia.
Equally notably, P1 (M45) is found in Eastern India, but has never been reported (afaik) in Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan.
Conversely, K2a* has only ever been found in dead guys from Eastern Europe and Siberia, and living males from India (or of Indian ancestry) and Malaysia.
Ergo, P1 most likely originated somewhere on a line between Luzon and the Altai, but probably closer to the former.
@Anthony Hanken
Do you know when the LGM/pre-LGM Satsurblia preprint will be out?
@Arza
MtDNA U5 and Y-DNA I. More evidence that WHG originated from pre-LGM HG's.
@epoch
"MtDNA U5 and Y-DNA I. More evidence that WHG originated from pre-LGM HG's."
This is a banality not related to WHG. The Vestonice cluster is not a direct ancestor of the Villabruna cluster, only its component, substrate.
@Grant
The modern distribution is of little importance to the origin. There is no Denisovan component there, especially the South Denisovan component.
Genetic studies of Western European populations have shown that around 3000 B.C.E., the Yamnaya—mobile herders of cattle, sheep, and goats—pushed west from the steppes of what is today Russia and Ukraine and triggered a dramatic genetic turnover in Europe. Skeletons from Bronze Age Mongolia had shown the Yamnaya also moved east and introduced their dairy-oriented pastoralist lifestyle there. But they left no lasting genetic traces in Mongolia, the oldest samples in the new study show.
The ancient DNA does show that 1000 years later, another group from the steppes, called the Sintashta, left a lasting imprint. They also brought fateful cultural changes to Mongolia’s grasslands, as earlier archaeological studies had shown. Starting in about 1200 B.C.E., equestrian innovations including selective breeding for size and endurance, plus bridle bits, riding pants, and even early saddles, appeared in the record, says archaeologist William Taylor of the University of Colorado, Boulder, a co-author on both papers.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/horse-mastery-helped-mysterious-mongolian-warriors-build-multiethnic-empire
Pastoralism in Mongolia is often assumed to have been introduced by the eastward expansion of Western Steppe cultures (e.g., Afanasievo) via either the Upper Yenisei and Sayan mountain region to the northwest of Mongolia or through the Altai mountains in the west (Janz et al., 2017). Although the majority of Afanasievo burials reported to date are located in the Altai mountains and Upper Yenisei regions, the Early Bronze Age (EBA) site of Shatar Chuluu in the southern Khangai Mountains of central Mongolia has yielded Afanasievo-style graves with proteomic evidence of ruminant milk consumption (Wilkin et al., 2020a) and a western Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroup (Rogers et al., 2020). Analyzing two of these individuals (Afanasievo_Mongolia, 3112–2917 cal. BCE), we find that their genetic profiles are indistinguishable from that of published Afanasievo individuals from the Yenisei region (Allentoft et al., 2015; Narasimhan et al., 2019) (Figure 2; Figure S5C; Table S5B), and thus these two Afanasievo individuals confirm that the EBA expansion of Western Steppe herders (WSH) extended a further 1,500 km eastward beyond the Altai into the heart of central Mongolia (Figure 3A).
@Archi,
No one knows how to interpret UP data from Europe yet. Vestonice cluster may be directly related to WHG.
The duo of YDNA I and mtdna U5 in Graviten is good evidence of a direct relationship. Becausr those two lineages are found no where else except WHG.
It is certainly as epoch says good evidence WHG originated in Europe not SW Asia as proposed by Reich team.
@epoch,
Thanks for the clarification.
So the Mesolithic spain I1 is confirmed by anthrogenica anlysis not by the paper. Good to know and very interesting.
@Archi,
Sure half of Unetice y dna so far is I2. The general rule is I2 was replaced by R1a/b. Welzin warriors, Swiss CWC, all telling something but more complex but the rule remains.
The Unetice R1 is confirmed R1b p312. I think by geneticker not olade 2012
These two Krems samples are themselves pretty good (722k and 265k) but since they are haploid twins they could be combined to form probably the best Gravettian sample possible.
A chapter on Indo-Uralic and my thoughts:
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004409354/BP000013.xml?body=fullHtml-35042
“One of the frequently cited Hittite-Tocharian matches is Hitt. eku-zi / aku- ‘drink’ ~ Toch.AB yok- ‘drink’ < *h₁egwh- (Pinault 2006: 93). Although Anatolian and Tocharian are indeed the only two branches in which this verb is found,
(...)
A lookalike of this Proto-Indo-European root is found in Uralic: compare among others Fi. juo- ‘drink’, Norw. Sa. jukkĆ¢-, -EQ01E5- ‘drink’, and Hu. iv- ‘drink’. In the Uralisches Etymologisches Wƶrterbuch (RĆ©dei 1988–1991: 103), this etymon is reconstructed as *juĪ³e- (juke-).”
But we also have ‘juha’/’juxa’/’jucha’ in Slavic which means soup and blood, something liquid to be drunk. And also reflexes in Lithuanian jÅ«́Å”Ä (“broth, soup”) and Sanskrit ą¤Æूą¤· (yÅ«į¹£a) (“soup, broth, pease-soup, the water in which pulse of various kinds has been boiled”)
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/juxa:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/juxa
So maybe it comes from the time when Indo-Uralic ancestors were drinking blood of hunted animals or making a soup out of it.
Or maybe it is Slavic influence on FU. There are also more and more works on Slavic influences on Tocharian and .....on Chinese.
https://i.postimg.cc/sx618rG5/FU-Tocharian-Slavic.jpg
@Romulus
You typed nonsense. CWC is not from Yamnaya, Sintashta is not from the Steppes. Even Afanasyevo is not from Yamnaya, this culture appeared even before Yamnaya and it is its relative, not a descendant.
@Samuel Andrews
"Vestonice cluster may be directly related to WHG."
Nonsense. No, it can not.
"The duo of YDNA I and mtdna U5 in Graviten is good evidence"
This is a banal result, it does not bring anything new. The fact that they were in the Gravettian culture was probably already known 10 years ago, so there is absolutely nothing new in these results and does not change anything.
Does Dzudzuana look like an intermediate between Kostenki/Aurignacians/Gravettians and Natufians? There was a lithic culture in Georgia that had a likeness to Levantine Aurignacian. Perhaps that's what Dzudzuana is.
https://imgur.com/a/xuCsfQF
@CrM
Does Dzudzuana look like an intermediate between Kostenki/Aurignacians/Gravettians and Natufians?
IMHO it's just an illusion created by the way how a multidimensional structure was projected on a 2D plane.
Compare the position of CHG on these plots:
https://i.postimg.cc/L9HfTQzS/dzudzuana.png
To recreate them go to https://vahaduo.github.io/3d/g25 and in the "Type parts of names." field paste this:
Ust_Ishim KK1 Satsur Afont Losch Villabruna TAF Natufian Ganj_Dareh_N Kostenki
and click "tag". Colours were set here to PC1, projection to orthographic.
@Archi
In the extensive Fu et al D-stats KremsWA3 (also I and U5 and likely related to these twins according to the paper) show a |Z| score of 2.8 with Villabruna and GoyetQ1-116, affiliated towards Villabruna. The Dzudzuana preprint showed that WHG can be modeled as part Vestonice, part Dzudzuane and a small part ANE.
@Samuel Andrews
Done here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=596118&viewfull=1#post596118
@CrM
Nice!
Where did you get this Adm. Plot with Dzudzuana? And this Sat29 is the sample of 25,000-year-old Satsurblia?
@ CrM
Did the Levantine Aurignacian have anything in common with the Natufian Culture ?
@ Sam
'' but the rule remains.''
. The rule is ; the Atlantic & Italy is the exception specifically with regard to the I2-> R1b shift, although Italy was never particularly solidly I2 to begin with. The rest of Europe is different.
@ RE Vestonice
Seems like WHG is a post-LGM mix forming in SEE, Vestonice itself was replaced. But tha major components of WHG seem to have already been in Europe, probably SEE/ SoEE.
@ CrM
'' There was a lithic culture in Georgia that had a likeness to Levantine Aurignacian''
Realy ? The Levantine Aurignacian is usually considered to be a back migration from Europe to the coastal regions of the Levant. Which part of the Caucasus did that impact ?
@ Ric
''Did the Levantine Aurignacian have anything in common with the Natufian Culture ?''
Nothing really. Theyre 20,000 years different in time
@Archi
I didn't type that it's from a new paper:
A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe
Open Access Published:November 05, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31321-0
Y-DNA :
https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/d0dfdcb6-f470-435c-850f-dd66ab616891/figs2.jpg
@epoch
I wrote that Villabruna has a Vestonice component, but does not derive from it.
https://i.ibb.co/C6WGB1F/image.png
But in fact, this is only against GoyetQ116-1 such a Z, it is small and not even of statistical significance.
RE: Caucasus
The Caucasian Upper Paleolithic starts later than in East-Central Europe (Bohunice, Bacho Kiro, etc) or parts of SIberia, which begin 45,000 BP, whilst in Caucasus somewhat later ~ 40000 BP. Perhaps because it was a Neanderthal refuge
The Early UP in the Caucasus is thought to relate to the Northern Ahmarian from the Near East, and in turn is said to show 'proto-Gravettian' features seen later in Europe. Which is why some have proposed it as a second migration path into Europe, although the stats in Bennet et al could be simply showing the structure within European UP and retention of IUP-related ancestry in western Europe. incidentally, Buran Kaya itself represents a dead-end lineage.
After the LGM in the Caucasus, the new industry is Imeretian, although some call it ''Epigravettian''. It shows new features coming from the Zarzian, early Natufian, etc; but also preserved shouldered points and microgravettees reminiscent of the European gravettian, whislt they havd disappeared from Eastern Europe during its epiaurignacian - Zamiantin phase. A couple of sites, e.g. Bondi cave, show continuity of occupation across the LGM in the Caucasus. If ANE is already present in CHG ~ 13,000 CALBP, then we know it must have been in Europe even earlier than that, so far SIdelkino is our earliest guage (11,000 cal BP)
@Archi,
I never said mtDNA U5, Y DNA I in Gravitean is new.
It is nothing new but that doesn't mean it doesn't say anything important. It confirms what we already knew which is there is direct relationship between WHG and Gravitean.
You put too much faith in Upper Paleolithic genome-wide DNA. The fact is we have very little. The fact is we know little about the relationship between our Upper Paloelithic samples.
mtDNA, Y DNA is good thing to look at when we don't confidently know much their relationship looking at genome-wide DNA.
@CrM
Where is this PCA from?
https://imgur.com/a/xuCsfQF
@Samuel Andrews
Everything is very simple here, a complete correlation of the fact that the Epigravettian culture does not come from the Gravettian culture with the fact that the Villabruna cluster does not come from the Vestonice cluster. Both have Gravetto-like and Vestonice-like parts, but there is no direct succession.
I shouldn't have said direct relationship. Because it makes it seem I am saying WHG comes from Gravettian.
What I mean is they share a common ancestor with Gravitean. WHG is related to gravitean in a way it isn't to older Augrician samples.
As it turns out we don't disagree with this.
The PCA and the ADMIXTURE chart are from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zWcpml63ls
@Arza
It might be an illusion, but I've also noticed that on ADMIXTURE Dzudzuana looks like Paglicci but with more "Red" component, which peaks in Anatolians and Natufians: https://i.imgur.com/KLh2B2X.png Two to the left are Dzudzuana and Sat29, last one is Paglicci. We've known of the similarity between Dzudzuana and Gravettians for a while now.
@Rob
The topic is controversial, that's why I mentioned "likeness".
"Many of the undated Upper Paleolithic assemblages in western Georgia are difficult to accommodate within a linear chronological sequence. The industry from Togon-Klde rock shelter, for example, contains some bone (but not antler) tools, scrapers with scalariform retouch (resembling the Aurignacian style), dihedral and polyhedral burins, and only a few backed bladelets compared to the abundance of these items at Dzudzuana Cave. This later difference may be linked to excavation without water screening."
"Another example of what could be seen as territorial variability is the assemblage from Savante Savana, a site in the lowlands, rich in scrapers with scalariform retouch and very high frequencies of burins on truncations. This assemblage resembles industries reported from Levantine sites such as Ksar ‘Akil VI, Fazael IX, Nahal Ein Gev I, which all date to 25-20 ka. Savante Savana may correlate with a later assemblage from Apianchi Cave radiocarbon dated to 26 ka (Tsereteli 1988). One should keep in mind, however, that the tempo of local changes in material culture and the degree of inter-regional interactions between the coastal region and the
hilly hinterlands, some 100 km away, could have been more complicated than presently
described."
"We would like to stress that none of the Georgian assemblages were found to represent a true Aurignacian, be it a western European or Levantine variant. The suggested “Aurignacian” affinities of some of the Georgian assemblages, as interpreted from the appearance of carinated cores, is rejected. Carinated cores are shown to be simply a particular core reduction strategy for the production of bladelets and could have been invented independently in many different regions as is apparently the case at Ein Gev I in Israel."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279695397_The_upper_Paleolithic_in_western_Georgia
@ CrM
ADMIXTURE means nothing as you don't know what the components are.
We've known of the similarity between Dzudzuana and Gravettians for a while now.
There is an Fst matrix in the preprint:
Anatolia_N,0,0.119,0.078,0.074,0.039,0.089,0.089,0.074,0.098,0.076,0.022,0.195,0.112,0.206
ANE,0.119,0,0.096,0.115,0.1,0.047,0.116,0.11,0.132,0.164,0.122,0.242,0.149,0.254
Aurignacian,0.078,0.096,0,0.094,0.06,0.089,0.028,0.093,0.087,0.121,0.087,0.204,0.1,0.219
CHG,0.074,0.115,0.094,0,0.068,0.1,0.117,0.059,0.126,0.131,0.085,0.219,0.139,0.23
Dzudzuana,0.039,0.1,0.06,0.068,0,0.094,0.051,0.07,0.084,0.106,0.052,0.192,0.097,0.195
EHG,0.089,0.047,0.089,0.1,0.094,0,0.1,0.099,0.081,0.142,0.1,0.228,0.096,0.236
Gravettian,0.089,0.116,0.028,0.117,0.051,0.1,0,0.114,0.092,0.131,0.09,0.218,0.1,0.234
Iran_N,0.074,0.11,0.093,0.059,0.07,0.099,0.114,0,0.132,0.126,0.08,0.214,0.144,0.225
Mes_WHG,0.098,0.132,0.087,0.126,0.084,0.081,0.092,0.132,0,0.148,0.109,0.242,0.001,0.252
Natufian,0.076,0.164,0.121,0.131,0.106,0.142,0.131,0.126,0.148,0,0.043,0.199,0.16,0.218
PPNB,0.022,0.122,0.087,0.085,0.052,0.1,0.09,0.08,0.109,0.043,0,0.179,0.125,0.19
Taforalt,0.195,0.242,0.204,0.219,0.192,0.228,0.218,0.214,0.242,0.199,0.179,0,0.252,0.101
UP_WHG,0.112,0.149,0.1,0.139,0.097,0.096,0.1,0.144,0.001,0.16,0.125,0.252,0,0.267
Morocco_EN,0.206,0.254,0.219,0.23,0.195,0.236,0.234,0.225,0.252,0.218,0.19,0.101,0.267,0
That you can plug in here:
https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/
And this is how the result looks like:
https://i.postimg.cc/LR7ZxTkf/dzudzuana-Fst-Based-PCA.png
@ Romulus
Thanks for that link. Very interesting indeed.
@ CRM
I read that article. It doesn’t say anything about Levantine Aurignacian . Like I said; that’s a very distinctive horizon; thought to represent a back-migration from the european “true” aurignacian back to Coastal levant . It didn’t impinge the Caucasus
Instead, the aurignacian - like features seen in EUP Caucasus are seen everywhere, from Iran to Siberia . It’s just part of the common toolkit of early north / west eurasians
@Arza, Rob
Yeah true. Even so, I wonder what cultural phenomenon in the represented the Dzudzuana cluster. Is there some relevant cultural horizon in Anatolia?
Post a Comment