# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  How CHG did look like?

## Thrry

I've seen reconstructions about WHG, yamnayas, ANE, neolithic farmers, etc but I haven't see yet a reconstruction of the CHG

----------


## Stuvanè

If the origin of this ancestral group in the Caucasus-Iranian area were actually ascertained, I'd bet with sufficient peace of mind that their members looked very close to the current peoples of those regions. Instinctively I'm thinking of guys like Chechen President Dudaev or Freddie Mercury, who was of Pharsi ancestry

images.jpegmercury.jpg

Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## dosas

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Georgians are the modern group with the highest CHG component.



So, I guess, they would probably look similar to these people:

----------


## Stuvanè

> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Georgians are the modern group with the highest CHG component.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess, they would probably look similar to these people:


I agree. 
Pretty beautiful, amazing CHG ladies   

Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## bicicleur

according to Laziridis CHG = Dzudzuana admixed with ANE
and Dzudzuana = WHG admixed with Basal Eurasian
Dzudzuana is the major component in Natufian and in Anatolian Neolithic

----------


## dosas

> Just a bit of advice: use Iran HG/neolithic and CHG as different components.




Iran_Neo doesn't seem to eat up any of their CHG component (Imer), it seems to dig into the Natufian.

Also, I don't take seriously the pseudoscience of craniometry classification, I am sorry.

----------


## kingjohn

> Iran_Neo doesn't seem to eat up any of their CHG component (Imer), it seems to dig into the Natufian.
> 
> Also, *I don't take seriously the pseudoscience of craniometry classification*, I am sorry.



you are a smart man  :Good Job:

----------


## Ailchu

> according to Laziridis CHG = Dzudzuana admixed with ANE
> and Dzudzuana = WHG admixed with Basal Eurasian
> Dzudzuana is the major component in Natufian and in Anatolian Neolithic


Dzudzuana= WHG admixed with Basal Eurasian or more like Basal Eurasian admixed with WHG?

----------


## dosas

> so CHG wouldn't look exactly like Georgians (as opposed to what you claimed earlier on). We don't have complete CHG skulls, so Maykop might have been the closest approximation.


I didn't claim that _they looked exactly like Georgians._ I wrote and I quote (you can just scroll up to verify) _that they would probably look similar to these people. 

_Better brush up your reading comprehension skills. And I really don't care about your personal investment in this or for your obvious predispositions (i.e. craniometry classification of humans made by racist ideologues).

----------


## bicicleur

> Dzudzuana= WHG admixed with Basal Eurasian or more like Basal Eurasian admixed with WHG?


if I remember well, Dzudzuana is 72 % WHG + 28 % Basal Eurasian

----------


## etrusco

> if I remember well, Dzudzuana is 72 % WHG + 28 % Basal Eurasian



Yes that is what is reported there. But I wonder who was this WHG population? Does that mean that Gravettians were already WHG like ( Villabruna like) . Because Dzudzuana is something like 10000 years older than Villabruna IIRC.

Because also Anatolian hunter gather were modeled the same way AHG= 75% WHG + 25% Basal. 

So it seems all western eurasian populations were one way or the other WHG derived because also 

Natufians= 50% WHG+ 50% Basal and 
EHG= 40/50% WHG and the rest ANE

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes that is what is reported there. But I wonder who was this WHG population? Does that mean that Gravettians were already WHG like ( Villabruna like) . Because Dzudzuana is something like 10000 years older than Villabruna IIRC.
> Because also Anatolian hunter gather were modeled the same way AHG= 75% WHG + 25% Basal. 
> So it seems all western eurasian populations were one way or the other WHG derived because also 
> Natufians= 50% WHG+ 50% Basal and 
> EHG= 40/50% WHG and the rest ANE


the Vestonice gravettian cluster was admixed with Sungir-like DNA
there must have been gravettians who remained unadmixed WHG, because their descendants, the Villabruna was unadmixed WHG

IMO, WHG = haplo IJ
after split, I = Gravettian, WHG in it's unadmaxid form (Villabruna)

I think the IJ split happened in Transcaucasia, which was inhabited by modern humans since 42 ka.
From there I went to Mezmaiskaya Cave, NW Caucasus, which was inhabited by modern humans since 39 ka. 

In Transcaucasia, J was also WHG, it first admixed with Basal Eurasian (26 ka Dzudzuana) and later with ANE to form the 13 ka epigravettian Satsurblia CHG

In eastern Europe, R1b-L754 ANE admixed with the pure, unadmixed WHG to form EHG

----------


## Ailchu

> the Vestonice gravettian cluster was admixed with Sungir-like DNA
> there must have been gravettians who remained unadmixed WHG, because their descendants, the Villabruna was unadmixed WHG
> 
> IMO, WHG = haplo IJ
> after split, I = Gravettian, WHG in it's unadmaxid form (Villabruna)
> 
> I think the IJ split happened in Transcaucasia, which was inhabited by modern humans since 42 ka.
> From there I went to Mezmaiskaya Cave, NW Caucasus, which was inhabited by modern humans since 39 ka. 
> 
> ...


so basically all modern westeurasian populations are heavy WHG admixed?

----------


## etrusco

> the Vestonice gravettian cluster was admixed with Sungir-like DNA
> there must have been gravettians who remained unadmixed WHG, because their descendants, the Villabruna was unadmixed WHG
> 
> IMO, WHG = haplo IJ
> after split, I = Gravettian, WHG in it's unadmaxid form (Villabruna)
> 
> I think the IJ split happened in Transcaucasia, which was inhabited by modern humans since 42 ka.
> From there I went to Mezmaiskaya Cave, NW Caucasus, which was inhabited by modern humans since 39 ka. 
> 
> ...


maybe also R1b comes from the WHG......

----------


## etrusco

> so basically all modern westeurasian populations are heavy WHG admixed?



if linguistic science will ever prove there is a nostratic proto language I think we maybe found the founding population.....

----------


## kingjohn

> maybe also R1b comes from the WHG......


you might have a point :)
the villabruna dude himself was r1b ...
but from a distant branch from that found in modern day europeans today

----------


## MOESAN

> I didn't claim that _they looked exactly like Georgians._ I wrote and I quote (you can just scroll up to verify) _that they would probably look similar to these people. 
> 
> _Better brush up your reading comprehension skills. And I really don't care about your personal investment in this or for your obvious predispositions (i.e. craniometry classification of humans made by racist ideologues).


Who is racist, did you say? observation is one thing, classification an other thing. Classification was a try to understand the composition and story of population, at those times, and all the scholars invested then in this kind of research were not racists. (very often they were pluridisciplinary), if a lot was naive enough.

----------


## dosas

> Who is racist, did you say? observation is one thing, classification an other thing. Classification was a try to understand the composition and story of population, at those times, and all the scholars invested then in this kind of research were not racists. (very often they were pluridisciplinary), if a lot was naive enough.


Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, med, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.

Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.

Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.

----------


## Angela

> Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, med, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.
> 
> Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.
> 
> Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.


Change your freaking tone, and stop with the insults or you're going to get a heap of infractions. Moesan is a respected member here. 

You can express your disbelief in traditional physical anthropology in a civil way.

----------


## bicicleur

> Was Villabruna 1 really unadmixed? He had an ANE yDNA lineage. I would have thought that grotta continenza would be a better example of an unadmixed WHG.
> "sample": "ITA_Villabruna:Average",
> "fit": 3.8737,
> "ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 91.67,
> "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 8.33
> 
> This is a better fit than using Grotta Continenza only.
> 
> "sample": "ITA_Villabruna:Average",
> ...


It's not about the Villabruna sample, it is about the Villabruna cluster, which is 80 % haplo I2.

check the Fu 2016 paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993

----------


## dosas

> Change your freaking tone, and stop with the insults or you're going to get a heap of infractions. Moesan is a respected member here. 
> 
> You can express your disbelief in traditional physical anthropology in a civil way.


I didn't insult anyone, I merely stated facts. I didn't realise this was a board that advocated Coon's (and the likes) theories. I will respectfully take my leave.

----------


## Angela

> I didn't insult anyone, I merely stated facts. I didn't realise this was a board that advocated Coon's (and the likes) theories. I will respectfully take my leave.


Nobody's advocating anything except civility.

----------


## Jovialis

> Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, *med*, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.
> 
> Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.
> 
> Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.




Here's a genetic study from 2019 that uses the term "Mediterranean".

Clearly, they're quantifiable genetically on a PCA.

There's nothing racist about the term. It makes it easier to identify the population of interest.

Granted that phenotype doesn't always go hand in hand with genetics, but it does a lot of the time.

You seem pretty strident and impassioned about this topic, that's not helpful. Like Angela said, let's keep it civil.

----------


## MOESAN

> Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, med, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.
> 
> Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.
> 
> Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.


Poor thing!
You are confusing:
1- individual physical aspect and its genetic basis -
2- partly collective typology, rather artificial and not completely accurate but which could be useful sometimes by its simplifications, and which is distinct from collective metrics means themselves closer to population (# race) genetics -
3- believing (surely unbased) in very distinct races -
4- racism felt by someone, passively -
5- active and politic racism -
Sorry for the tone, but I read so many condamnations often without basis: boring! And you seem to me a passive reader rather than an analyst.
That said, contrarily to you, I find interesting the amateurish and cool quest to devine what was the physical aspect of ancient people, knowing it was rarely homogenous spite some trends towards certain features; but it's a game and at the same time a legitimous questioning, why not?

----------


## bicicleur

yes the whole Villabruna cluster, they all have similar autosomal DNA, it is WHG



actualy, instaed of WHG I should have referred to 'common west eurasian' as Laziridis labeled it

----------


## kingjohn

nice thanks for sharing :)
do i read the diagram correct ? 
and the *tafrolat* = 45% ancestral north african +55% common west Eurasian ? 
regards
adam

----------


## bicicleur

> The "Villabruna" cluster should have been more aptly named "Continenza" cluster, but I guess Continenza is a more recent discovery.



bichon and losschbour are good references as well

----------


## epoch

> Both Bichon and Loschbour have some of the Aurignacian-magdalenian (Goyet type) ancestry along with some ANE as well. They are still mostly Continenza/WHG, but not as good of a proxy as Continenza mesolithic itself.
> "sample": "BEL_Loschbour:Average",
> "fit": 3.2962,
> "ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 95,
> "BEL_GoyetQ116-1": 3.33,
> "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 1.67
> 
> Interestingly, Loschbour is a little more core-WHG like than Villabruna 1. Lol they could have called it a whole lot of things other than the "Villabruna cluster".
> 
> I don't have access to Bichon, but it has more of the Aurignacian-Magdalenian type ancestry than Loschbour does as per the "Survival of late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Iberian peninsula". I'd wager than Loschbour and Continenza mesolithic are better approximations for the main ancestral component of the "Villabruna cluster" than Villabruna 1 and Bichon samples are.


The Loschbour model in the "Survival" paper has a P-value below 0.05 which is basically a fail. If you have a look at Fu's Ice Age paper in Table S7.3 Loschbour has a higher GoyetQ116-1 level than Bichon when compared to Villabruna. Maybe a tad of Magdalenian went into the making of WHG proper, by the way.

----------


## epoch

> Interesting, so could the tad Magdalenian (which by extension would also have GoyetQ116-1 type ancestry) explain the mild eastern tendency in WHG when Kostenki's basal is set to 0?
> Still, do you think that Continenza mesolithic has the most WHG and the least non-WHG out of all samples in the Villabruna cluster?


WHG eastern affinity seems ANE related, which requires ANE admixture in Han, whereas GoyetQ116-1's eastern affinity is related to Tianyuan. Number of recently published qpGraphs show the former, the recent Tianyuan paper the latter. If it actually were Magdalenian in WHG the Magdalenians themselves should show that affinity as well, being descendants from GoyetQ116-1, but they don't.

We might see some earlier Epigravettians DNA - I have no information on that but some Strontium sampling has been done and I hope that means they also took DNA - so we might see something more in the future.

----------


## etrusco

> Both Bichon and Loschbour have some of the Aurignacian-magdalenian (Goyet type) ancestry along with some ANE as well. They are still mostly Continenza/WHG, but not as good of a proxy as Continenza mesolithic itself.
> "sample": "BEL_Loschbour:Average",
> "fit": 3.2962,
> "ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 95,
> "BEL_GoyetQ116-1": 3.33,
> "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 1.67
> 
> Interestingly, Loschbour is a little more core-WHG like than Villabruna 1. Lol they could have called it a whole lot of things other than the "Villabruna cluster".
> 
> I don't have access to Bichon, but it has more of the Aurignacian-Magdalenian type ancestry than Loschbour does as per the "Survival of late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Iberian peninsula". I'd wager than Loschbour and Continenza mesolithic are better approximations for the main ancestral component of the "Villabruna cluster" than Villabruna 1 and Bichon samples are.


also questions for @epoch

What is the relationship between Villabruna and Ostuni? 
Was Ostuni already very similar to Villabruna or was from a different cluster?
Did Ostuni have Basal Eurasian or ANE?

----------


## ratchet_fan

> WHG eastern affinity seems ANE related, which requires ANE admixture in Han, whereas GoyetQ116-1's eastern affinity is related to Tianyuan. Number of recently published qpGraphs show the former, the recent Tianyuan paper the latter. If it actually were Magdalenian in WHG the Magdalenians themselves should show that affinity as well, being descendants from GoyetQ116-1, but they don't.
> 
> We might see some earlier Epigravettians DNA - I have no information on that but some Strontium sampling has been done and I hope that means they also took DNA - so we might see something more in the future.


Someone recently proposed a Transeurasian , ENA shifted ghost population contributing to WHG, CHG, ANE and Iran_N. Does that make any sense?

----------

