Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus

It starts to show more and more that early paleolithic europeans were y-dna C1, but that at this point, C1 and related group were not already differtiated into a west eurasian and an east eurasian groups ( probably somehow related with ust ishim ). And mtdna U2,U8, U5. If i had to bet, i would think U2 and U8 were probably the original lineages of C1 and that U5 came from some related group of Dzudzuana without changing that much of the genetic. They have recently found an Anatolian_HG and stated that ( Anatolian_HG is ancestral to Anatolian_Neolithic ) but he was C1a2, so clearly of early paleolithic european origins. Were is the place of y-dna I and y-dna R1b here? Sounds more and more that I was actually related with Villabruna-Dzudzuana somehow more than the tripartite Aurignacian-Gravettian-Magdalenian. Also, what is the role of the Solutrean right there? Solutrean was also in Maghreb, Iberomaurusian is fought to descend from Solutrean... mtdna U6 and N now in late paleolithic south Caucasus, late paleolithic Romania, epipaleolithic north africa and chalcolithic Levante... this cannot be a coincidence, there is a link somehow. Seems like ancestral dna seems to conflict with ancient migrations.
 
But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?

I am just quoting the paper: "These analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,except Neolithic Anatolians". ESHG is EHG and SHG.

They also say: "Dzudzuana itself can be modeled as a 2-way mixture of Villabruna-related ancestry and a Basal Eurasian lineage." That Basal Eurasian could be what was previously reported as CHG in the EHG population.

So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.

Sorry, you are right, AG3 was female and R1b was mtDNA. However Fu et al.'s paper indicate that that sample cluster with Mal'ta, which was R1*, so it is likely to be an Y-DNA R1-related tribe. The only other possibility is Q1a, which is also found at low frequency in EHG populations. Both Q1a and R1 are related to the ANE admixture.
 
Ah yes Georgia, a tiny geographical country, located in the large area- known as Eurasian or Afro-Eurasian,land mass. The land of interesting genetics, close to Maykop[wheels wagons-metalurgy] and Yamnaya burial sites ! Basal Caucasian[ Dzudzuana] remains near Georgian Neanderthal[ Ortvale K’lde ] remains. Early use of Wine[viticulture] and flax fibers**
1)Basal "Caucasian" component[proper]-aka basal Eurasian 20YBP+/-
2)Neanderthal remains
3)Dmanisi-1.8+/-million hominid remains(5)

footnote**
https://anthropology.net/2009/09/11...000-years-bp-found-at-dzudzuana-cave-georgia/
 
"Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestryfrom Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as allthese sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model forVillabruna 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 aswell. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago."

At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium it hid in, at same being time a source for an admixted pre-LGM Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling allows for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.
 
Last edited:
So, in other words, when the authors say that Dzudzuana can be modelled as a mixture of Villabruna (R1b from Epipaleolithic NE Italy) and AG3 (14,500 year-old Afontova Gora 3 from Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, which belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b), it is not very different from saying that it is EHG or SHG and therefore related to Y-haplogroup R1, and particularly R1b.

Afontova Gora 3 was a female and carried mtDNA R1b.

EDIT: O, already noted. Forget about it.
 
At this point it might be wise to take a step back and let common sense in: How are the odds that Villabruna emerges unadmixted from the LGM refugium is hid in, at same time a source for an admixted Gravettian population? Especially when Villabruna was part of a culture that was basically considered evolved Gravettian (Epigravettian)? So, if modeling allows for an admixted Villabruna I'd say that would be the most parsimonious solution.

The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.

dCLJ4Ke.png


I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.
 
@Epoch,

"It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates14. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe."

He sounds very sure about this. What it would mean is that they don't have "extra" percentages of these ancient lineages, only what was in Dzudzuana. Something like the way that WHG in Southern Europeans is "hidden" in their Anatolia Neolithic ancestry, and what shows as "WHG" is only the "extra" ancestry?

So, when he says the following, he means "extra" WHG, on top of the related ancestry in Dzudzuana?

"Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations1 and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region14,23,24. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic25."

I've read every word of the Supplement and that's all I could find.

More on these ancient lineages:

"The fact that the genetic drift before and after the Basal Eurasian split is estimated similarly by the admixture graph model of Fig. 2 (which uses no archaic samples or Chimp) and Extended Data Fig. 8 68 (which uses archaic ancestry estimated using Altai, Chimp, and Denisova as outgroups) provides two independent lines of evidence for our estimates of these quantities, suggesting that ~2/3 of the drift since the split from East Africans is shared by Basal Eurasians and an additional ~1/3 is shared by non-Basal Eurasian non-Africans. This suggests that the Basal Eurasians (so named because they occupy a basal position in the phylogeny of Eurasians10) did in fact experience most of the common bottleneck shared by Eurasians. (Note also, that if we used the lower (1.6%) estimate of absolute Neandertal ancestry in Ust’Ishim from the f4-ratio, this would imply even more shared genetic drift between Basal Eurasians and other non-Africans, since then f4(Deep, Tianyuan; Ust’Ishim, Chimp)=-0.016*0.436 ≈-0.007.)"

"The other “Deep” lineage found in Taforalt (Fig. 2) experienced only 0.008 units of genetic drift with non-Africans (Fig. 2) and could be plausibly interpreted as having deep presence in (North) Africa. Note that Taforalt and the Neolithic of the Maghreb are well below the regression line (Extended Data Fig. 8) and thus lack more genetic drift with Ust’Ishim than is predicted by their level of archaic ancestry; this is expected if they trace their ancestry from a lineage that is even more deeply diverged than the Basal Eurasians."

OK. Here we go...

We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Therefore we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.

From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.

Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.
 
The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.

dCLJ4Ke.png


I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.

O, I think we just discovered it.
 
OK. Here we go...

We are going to assume that BE did not originate in Morocco. Thought experiment: We can safely assume that pretty much anything that would have caused the bottleneck in Libya would have also have caused it in Morocco. Thus we can safely assume that the mere existence of non-bottleneck deep ancestry in Morocco means the event happened at the Nile or east from it.

From what I read Natufians have only bottlenecked BE. That would mean Israel is the eastern perimeter.

Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.

I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.
 
But how can Dzudzuana being ancestral of EHG if Dzudzuana is unrelated with CHG wich is intermediate with EHG and Iran_Neolithic?

So did AG3 belong to y-dna R1b and not mtdna R1b? There is a lot of confusion about this detail from many years now. The wiki state it is mtdna R1b.

It's mtdna R1b which is interesting enough in itself as KO1 has that too.
 
I think Taforalt and Natufians should have both BE and ANA as per the admixture tree in the paper.

You're right. +/- 6,5 %. So the "where" is just NE of Israel?

EDIT: Or this may be later admixture.
 
Last edited:
O, I think we just discovered it.

I think the problem with this is the lack of anything resembling BE in Vestonice. Of course the Dzudzuana HGs would be very closely related to that "undiscovered" HG population.
 
I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.

What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?
 
The same thing happens in Europe in the best model the authors could come up with: admixture from the Villabruna clade is what differentiates Vestonice from earlier Sungir & Kostenki Gravettians.


dCLJ4Ke.png


I think that's a very good reason to believe that there was an as yet undiscovered HG population.

Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.
 
Are Vestonice and Sungir/Kostenki already at their time differentiated with something Villabruna-like? If its the case it might just say that Sungir-Kostenki and C1 came from a North Eurasian road. Then something Villabruna / Dzudzuana with y-dna IJ and mtdna U5 and U6 was likely in a Souteastern europe - Anatolia - South caucasus continuum. Southeast Europe became Villabruna and South Caucasus Dzudzuana. Probably each part differentiate with each other, haplogroups and audna have mingle into both those populations. Vestonice would have been mostly related with eastern europe paleolithic hg, but the proximity with southeast europe give them an impulse of villabruna / dzudzuana. Its very likely that Dzudzuana without BE / Villabruna are linked with y-dna IJ. It might be more difficult in the future to asses a lineage to a cultural horizon like we did before. If Gravettian were mostly originally C1a2 and without Villabruna, the Gravettian Culture expanded in Europe and Anatolia - South Caucasus with an impulse of Villabruna-Like ancestry in certain part until become dominant in Epigravettian.

Yes, the Villabruna-like influence (here called 'Common Eurasian') begins with Vestonice. Completely agree with everything you said. I'd tentatively add G to the Y-DNA haplogroups that could have spread with the Common Eurasian HGs, although as a minor lineage that only rises in numbers with the Neolithic.
 
For "basal" to remain basal over the centuries, it had to be severely isolated.
Dzudzuana were no longer in the Caucasus by the time of Kotias and Satstrublia (CHG). So they had moved.
Anatolian pre-farming men were Dzuduana + Basal. But no basal west of them.
So Basal must have been on the way, in between the Caucasus and western Anatolia.
The Indus Valley hardly fits the bill...
 
I think some of the usual suspects are shell shocked. "I can't find anything wrong with the analyses, but it can't be right." :)

My overriding impression, and I think what any honest layperson would see, is that all of the barriers we put up between most of the different West Eurasian groups is really just nonsense. Peel back enough layers and you'll see the common core.
 
We haven't discussed it much but I'm quite surprised by the R1a carrying half Han Chinese like, half Malta like Botai Neolithic.

Once again the "R" lineages are associated with ANE originally.
 
I think the problem with this is the lack of anything resembling BE in Vestonice. Of course the Dzudzuana HGs would be very closely related to that "undiscovered" HG population.

This one without the Basal, that is.

I've been suggesting Mesopotamia, maybe originally from a Persian Gulf refugium for quite a while, but Bicicleur has always been for somewhere around India.

What about this UHG which might have gone into both Dzudzuana and Villabruna (and Bichon, right?)? IJ is found in Iran, right?

Yes. And mtDNA U6 in Natufians. And do note we have *two* basal mtDNA R*'s in the oldest Europeans yet. One in Fumane and one in Les Colles (Only read an abstract of a talk about that, BTW). Wasn't R0 common in Arabia?

EDIT: Les Cottés cave, not Les Colles. It's near Poitier.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 72088 times.

Back
Top