Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol
Does that mean that its now possible That Europeans played a primary role in the birth of early civilizations rather then just being on the tale end of it ?
Whats next R1b from the west ? lol
Many of the old theories that were floating around receive a lot of support in this paper.
* North Africa as a source of massive populations movements, possible at several points during the Paleolithic & Mesolithic. These movements likely brought haplogroup E (back) to Eurasia.
* North Africa as a significant source of admixture in modern West Africans.
* ANE as a two-way mixture between a West Eurasian- and an East Eurasian source (here represented by Tianyuan). The East Eurasian population likely brought with it haplogroups R & Q from South-East Asia.
* The new Caucasus genome is most related to Saudis, Palestinians & Lybians.
* As per the authors, Vilalbruna primarily is what "differentiates Europeans" from non-European populations.
* Villabruna most related to Basques out of all modern populations by a significant margin. Virtually every PCA showed this.
* AG3 as a source mostly for Europeans. Siberians, Caucasians and Iranians prefer deeper ANE-related admixture.
Now we have nailed the "where": Between the Nile and Israel.
maybe
Currently earliest fossils of Neanderthals in Europe are dated at 430,000 years ago, and thereafter Neanderthals expanded into Southwest and Central Asia. They are known from numerous fossils, as well as stone toolassemblages.
No, those hunter gatherers all came from the east. The models in the paper predict that the ancient samples from Europe were on dead branches for the most part (up until Villabruna that is).
That is if we don't model Villabruna as Vestonice + Dzudzu + ANE. Which fits nicely, as per this paper. They even mention the logic of a clade emerging later - post-LGM - being composed of earlier branches makes quite some more sense than it being a virgin clade surviving the LGM unadmixted.
But the modeling is done with Villabruna as ancestral branch.
“…..a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed allthe ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry.”
“…..a deeply divergent hunter-gatherer lineage that contributed in relatively unmixed form to the much later hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster is specified as contributing to earlier hunter-gatherer groups (Gravettian Vestonice16: 35.7±11.3% and Magdalenian ElMiron: 60.6±11.3%) and to populations of the Caucasus (Dzudzuana: 200 72.5±3.7%, virtually identical to that inferred using ADMIXTUREGRAPH).”
“In Europe, descendants of this lineage admixed with pre-existing hunter-gatherers related to Sunghir3 from Russia for the Gravettians and GoyetQ116-1 from Belgium for the Magdalenians, while in the Near East it did so with Basal Eurasians. Later Europeans prior to the arrival of agriculture were the product of re-settlement of this lineage after ~15kya in mainland Europe, while in eastern Europe they admixed with Siberian hunter-gatherers forming the WHG-ANE cline of ancestry”
"Villabruna, is also shown as a 3-way mixture in the model of Table S3.3, tracing about half its ancestry from Dzudzuana, and the remainder from Vestonic16 and MA1. This is not a priori implausible as all these sources are earlier than Villabruna. The admixture graph model presents a simpler model for Villabruna 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 as well. Earlier sampling may reveal whether Villabruna-cluster6 populations existed earlier than ~15thousand years ago….. From our analysis of Supplementary Information section 3, we showed that these sources are indeed complex, and only one of these (WHG, represented by Villabruna) appears to be a contributor to all the remaining sources. This should not be understood as showing that hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe migrated to the rest of West Eurasia, but rather that the fairly homogeneous post-15kya population of mainland Europe labeled WHG appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seems to have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period."
Where do people think we'll find a sample that fits the "Common West Eurasian" population? I'm thinking South of our other 40k year old samples. Older samples From Italy across the Balkans to just above the Caucuses around 35k years ago is my call. We know that before 27k years ago they were bumping against Basal Eurasians in the South Caucuses and so if we assume CWE is coming from the North that means that they would have had to been just North of the Caucuses on the steppe at some point.
Fumane and Les Cottés both seem to have mtDNA R*, the predecessor of U. That, IMO, means these samples were from the same pool as the mtDNA U carriers originated from. We know that in the Balkans there was a proto-Aurignacian occupation from 45 ka to 39 ka which then disappeared (cf Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria). We know that nearby proto-Aurignacian Oase 1 was a complete outlier that likely was not contributing anything to later HG's. That may possibly mean that SE Europe was wiped clean by the Phlegrean Eruption. Tephra from that is found up to the Kostenki 14 site, where it seemed to have terminated proto-Aurignacian layers. So if the Kostenki 14 *sample* - which postdates the eruption and was found in archaeological context of layers above the tephra layers - is an example of a recolonization where did it come from? Fumane was not touched by the eruption, so Uluzzian may be interesting. Even older, Bohunicians perhaps?
I always believed that mtdna U, or at least partially, like U2, would have been related with the R* of Ust-Ishim. What are Fumane and Les Cottés dated for?
And what would be the role of mtdna M into the replacement of pre-campanian ignimbrite eruption?
Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.
http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_Online_2018.pdf
"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"
No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?
Fumane 2 41–39 ky cal BP, the Les Cottés tooth is roughly estimated to be 46,060 years old, albeit with wide confidence intervals (95% HPD: 31,098 to 62,221 years BP). Mind, the latter is only known from an abstract of a talk as their research isn't finished yet. They try to get autosomal DNA. That, mind you, can prove to be quite interesting.
http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_Online_2018.pdf
"Patterns of ancient DNA preservation in a Palaeolithic human tooth from Les Cottés cave, France"
No idea. Maybe somehow linked to Tianyuan affinity in GoyetQ116?
Hm, the both M sample that we have are pretty younger than the other. Goyet is 32'000-30'000 years old and Ostuni1 is 25'000 years old. Also, Genetiker pigmentation snps show most Gravettian like Kostenki / Sunghir to be " Medium " Skinned, while Ostuni1 is " Dark " Skinned. There was maybe an obscure migration coming from north africa already at this point.
The reconstructed skin colour most likely means very little with respect to the affinity of these samples. Ostuni1 clusters very clearly with other Gravettians who were reconstructed, it is really not an outlier. The Fu et al paper where it was published was stuffed to the brink with loads and loads of D-stats so you can be absolutely sure about that (They're in the Sup Info, by far the most interesting part of that study).