# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Question about the Villabruna Cluster and Cluster in general

## halfalp

Hi, so i was wondering, Reich as stipulated that Villabruna Cluster shows more affinity with Near Eastern ( wich one, basal eurasian ? ) than the previous Vestonice Cluster, but apparently other individuals from the same Villabruna Cluster, shows affinity with East Asian. Or like Yamnaya was 50% ANE under Haak papers but becomed 50% CHG under Lazaridis ones. I dont understand how all this is calculated, also when they say Villabruna shows affinity with Near Easterners do they mean -14'000 BC Near Easterners or recent one who had multiple gene flows in the meantime... All this is very confusing to me. Also Reich stated that both Aurignacian and Gravettian genetic signature came from a single founder population, ok but Goyet and Vestonice are just two of historical culture what about the Brachycephalic Solutreans or the very eurasian ( gravettian ) Kostenki and Sunghir ones. Apparently they did not contribute at all to modern europeans but ukraine and russia was constantly inhabited in late and epi paleolithic so, how would does guy living in the paradise of big game hunting, disappear without a single little genetic marker ? My question is, how all those cluster are calculated, is there not a little non sens to compare ancient dna with modern, like for exemple would not be more logic that near easterners shows a little of villabruna cluster, than villabruna cluster shows a little near east if he is the most old of the two, who came first ?

----------

