PDA

View Full Version : What is EHG/ Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer?



Awale
07-07-2015, 07:42 AM
I was under the impression for quite some time that EHG was basically "ANE + WHG" as it looks via Eurogenes K=8 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ccpHA4xD2vgNQrKftOQqbNBqYQu2O1q00mCzMXnx52Y/pubchart?oid=935378717&format=interactive) and as it seemed to be implied (at least as I recall it) in Haak et al. that this is what it was... I even mentioned it as such on my blog months ago (http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/02/massive-migration-from-steppe.html). But then a good friend (Agamemnon) mentioned that it in fact might not be that and that we really don't know what it truly is/ it could be something entirely on its own that just shares ancestry with MA-1 hence what looks like "ANE in Europeans who ultimately get "ANE" from their Steppe ancestry isn't "ANE" but a part of their EHG ancestry.

I even consulted David about this and got the following answer:


It depends how you define EHG, ANE and WHG, and the concept of pure components.

They can all be distinct pops, or EHG can be a mix of ANE and WHG, or even WHG can be a mix of EHG and something as yet unsampled.



I ultimately ended up adding this more cautious view into my blog post from just last month (http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/06/population-genomics-of-bronze-age.html).

Have any of you looked into the Karelian Hunter-Gatherer yourselves and turned up with your own conclusions? Do you think EHG is basically "ANE + WHG" as even DMXX seemed to think (like I did)? Or do you think it's something else entirely?

We can also use this thread to drop anything new and interesting on EHGs...

parastais
07-07-2015, 10:00 AM
EHG looks are Uralic/Lappid.
And for modern incarnation of Mesolithic blond blue eyed EHG type you can check Mika Hakkinen.

That is to sum up what I found on the subject.

Krefter
07-07-2015, 10:04 AM
EHG looks are Uralic/Lappid.
And for modern incarnation of Mesolithic blond blue eyed EHG type you can check Mika Hakkinen.

That is to sum up what I found on the subject.

You mean in skull shape.

Generalissimo
07-07-2015, 10:14 AM
EHG looks are Uralic/Lappid.
And for modern incarnation of Mesolithic blond blue eyed EHG type you can check Mika Hakkinen.

That is to sum up what I found on the subject.

Mika Hakkinen looks like a fish.

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 10:19 AM
EHG is related to WHG and ANE but can't be fit as a mixture of them according to Haak et al so it might be its own thing.

The uralic/lappid description means something that's supposed to look like a "stereotypical" saami or mari. This is one of the reconstructions by Gerasimov from the site.

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/YuzhnyiOleniiOstrov-Mongoloid.jpg

but another looks like this:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/YuzhnyiOleniiOstrov-Caucasoid.jpg

They probably had a wide range of appearences, as there's no genetic evidence the site had multiple different populations during the time.

Coldmountains
07-07-2015, 10:22 AM
EHG looks are Uralic/Lappid.
And for modern incarnation of Mesolithic blond blue eyed EHG type you can check Mika Hakkinen.

That is to sum up what I found on the subject.

You are probably right that they would best fit in areas with Uralic/Lappid populations but in my opinion they were darker. This is the reconstructed face of an EHG Karelia Hunter Gather (I think he is the same who was positive for R1a*). Looks very archaic

Edit: Shaikorth posted the pics already. I was talking about the second one

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 10:29 AM
You are probably right that they would best fit in areas with Uralic/Lappid populations but in my opinion they were darker. This is the reconstructed face of an EHG Karelia Hunter Gather (I think he is the same who was positive for R1a*). Looks very archaic

Edit: Shaikorth posted the pics already. I was talking about the second one

I agree, the pigmentation data implied sort of dark complexion. If we speak of modern look-alikes Magnus Carlsen might be "EHG-ish" in appearence, but with reconstructions it's hard to be sure about their real looks.

parastais
07-07-2015, 10:32 AM
EHG is related to WHG and ANE but can't be fit as a mixture of them according to Haak et al so it might be its own thing.

The uralic/lappid description means something that's supposed to look like a "stereotypical" saami or mari. This is one of the reconstructions by Gerasimov from the site.

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/YuzhnyiOleniiOstrov-Mongoloid.jpg

but another looks like this:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/YuzhnyiOleniiOstrov-Caucasoid.jpg

They probably had a wide range of appearences, as there's no genetic evidence the site had multiple different populations during the time.
They had at least two different populations according anthropological evidence. My guess WHG and EHG.
Have they checked more than one Meso Karelian genomically?

The exact specimen from Haak was found described in Rus anthro book. His gender in book was typed as woman but with question mark. So, he could only be model for Meso "woman" reconstruction.
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,2890.60.html

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 10:46 AM
They had at least two different populations according anthropological evidence. My guess WHG and EHG.
Have they checked more than one Meso Karelian genomically?

The exact specimen from Haak was found described in Rus anthro book. His gender in book was typed as woman but with question mark. So, he could only be model for Meso "woman" reconstruction.
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,2890.60.html

I think there was just one population with individuals having looks comparable to modern variation, and the idea about multiple ones was just anthropologists mistaking local variation. We don't have evidence of pure WHG's even in Scandinavia much less in Karelia. Loschbour didn't look like either of those reconstructions.

Regarding the unreliability of physical anthropology, see here, pages 39-41:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Some 300 years old remains of crewmen from a Swedish ship were classified as Egyptian, Chinese and Native American. However a genetic analysis revealed that all of them clustered in Europe, and specifically near Orcadians, Finns and Russians as modern Swedes would. If physical classification of just 300 years old bones makes continent-wide misses, imagine how it is with over 7000 years old bones like those EHG's. So unless they test more and find a clearly distinct population from the site, I think it's all the same EHG.

parastais
07-07-2015, 10:51 AM
You hope it is the same EHG...

I am lazy to look for exact materials but Soviet school was good enough in cross comparing anthropological types. It is pretty common knowledge that Baltic area was populated from South (South-West) and East. From South arrived Euro looking folk, from East Uralic looking :)

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 10:54 AM
You hope it is the same EHG...

I am lazy to look for exact materials but Soviet school was good enough in cross comparing anthropological types. It is pretty common knowledge that Baltic area was populated from South (South-West) and East. From South arrived Euro looking folk, from East Uralic looking :)

It's got nothing to do with what I hope, it's about what we know with genetics. Physical anthropology is by far less reliable.

parastais
07-07-2015, 11:21 AM
What we know from one genetic sample?
You are making a conclusion that population was genetically homogenous based on one sample.
"100% of ancient Karelians (sample size = 1) tested so far were EHG therefore all ancients Karelians were EHG".. OK :)

parastais
07-07-2015, 11:29 AM
Btw, if you happen to know Russian you can read on my molgen link that also Samara mesos were Uralic folk...
And they took part in Yamna ethnogenesys...

But maybe Soviet anthropologysts suck.

You can delay acceptance of EHG Uralic looks, it is OK with me.

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 11:32 AM
What we know from one genetic sample?
You are making a conclusion that population was genetically homogenous based on one sample.
"100% of ancient Karelians (sample size = 1) tested so far were EHG therefore all ancients Karelians were EHG".. OK :)

We also know that in Scandinavia which is much closer to WHG territory there were no pure WHG's at the time but WHG-EHG mixes like the Motalas. When moving to the east towards Karelia, the change is just going to be an increase in EHG. When Anzick-1 turned out to be genetically Native American some still held out hope that Kennewick Man with its "Ainu/Caucasoid-look" would be something else proving that people unrelated to modern natives had immigrated to America in ancient times. But no, he was a Native American also no matter what the anthropologists had said about his skull. I'm confident that the mesolithic people in the Yuzhny Oleniy Ostrov site are all going to end up being EHG, no matter what anthropologists said about their remains.

Krefter
07-07-2015, 11:43 AM
Considering how high ANE is in Udmurts and other Finno-Urgics, they probably have alot of EHG-blood. It makes total sense they have features from EHG. No one should be surprised by this.

J Man
07-07-2015, 12:46 PM
Y-DNA haplogroup R1 and it's subclades R1a and R1b clearly seems to be connected to the EHG population and EHG type autosomal genetic ancestry.

Motzart
07-07-2015, 03:02 PM
I don't know about the Uralic type...If you want an example of someone who is majority Northern European with a bit of Native American ancestry these Metis people make a possible example. To look at them you couldn't tell they had it.

http://www.metisnation.org/media/299930/m%C3%A9tis%20fiddler%20quartet-web.jpg

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 03:15 PM
I don't know about the Uralic type...If you want an example of someone who is majority Northern European with a bit of Native American ancestry these Metis people make a possible example. To look at them you couldn't tell they had it.

http://www.metisnation.org/media/299930/m%C3%A9tis%20fiddler%20quartet-web.jpg


A lot more variation can be seen on this video. Some have much more "native" looks.
http://www.metisnation.org/news--media/news/celebrating-20-years-of-achievement

However the Metis have considerable EEF ancestry while EHG had zero, so it's very much comparing apples and oranges.

J Man
07-07-2015, 03:16 PM
I don't know about the Uralic type...If you want an example of someone who is majority Northern European with a bit of Native American ancestry these Metis people make a possible example. To look at them you couldn't tell they had it.

http://www.metisnation.org/media/299930/m%C3%A9tis%20fiddler%20quartet-web.jpg

Yeah they are probably only like 3% Native by their generation. I have encountered quite a few "White Natives" lol.

Awale
07-07-2015, 04:01 PM
Some 300 years old remains of crewmen from a Swedish ship were classified as Egyptian, Chinese and Native American. However a genetic analysis revealed that all of them clustered in Europe, and specifically near Orcadians, Finns and Russians as modern Swedes would. If physical classification of just 300 years old bones makes continent-wide misses, imagine how it is with over 7000 years old bones like those EHG's. So unless they test more and find a clearly distinct population from the site, I think it's all the same EHG.

Heh, another good example would be Kennewick-man. From being classified as West Eurasian-esque ("Caucasoid") to "Ainu or Polynesian-like" to really just turning out pretty normally Native American (http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/06/peer-reviewed-study-shows-that.html). I don't think we can truly be sure as to how any of these ancient groups truly looked via "reconstructions"... Even logic like using modern populations with a notable amount of ancestry from them is flawed as these groups have a notable amount of ancestry from other distinct looking groups in conjunction.

---

One thing I have to ask though is-> Why does EHG make it look like Europeans have "ANE"? WHG also ultimately shares a node of ancestry with ANE (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JfsaZ0Arig0/VIwqnsNURuI/AAAAAAAABy8/Fvd33YAZadI/s1600/2kjz7p.jpg)so why is EHG somehow closer to ANE in shared ancestry enough to make old models like Lazaridis et al. think Europeans pan out as "ANE + WHG + EEF"? Why does this happen if EHGs don't outright carry ANE ancestry? Might seem like a foolish question on my part but I've been quite curious about this for a little while now.

alan
07-07-2015, 04:09 PM
I am pretty convinced that WHG is basically ultimately Gravettian (including derived western cultures like Magdallenian) and ANE is a post-Younger Dryas arrival from Siberia. I believe EHG is a mix of the two albeit drifting has obfuscated this. ANE really has to be down to a thrust into Europe from south central Siberia/Altai and there is no evidence for such a thrust into (eastern and north-east) Europe until 9000BC. IMO if you test east Gravettian or indeed any European hunters before the younger Dryas you will find no ANE and no EHG, just WHG. However the period ANE could have drifted since Malta and the end of the Younger Dryas is well over 10000 years and the same is true for the apparenlty WHG Gravettian descended Europeans who had been separated into west, south and east refugia through the LGM. They would have drifted in the 10000 years they were separated c. 22000-12000BC. However I firmly believe EHG is the creation of drifted WHG and drifted ANE and ancient DNA will show eastern Europe pre-dating 9500BC are basically drifted WHG with no ANE. I also predict some hunters in the northern fringes of SW Asia around Iran and the Caucasus will have ANE too but again only after 9500BC.

Shaikorth
07-07-2015, 04:28 PM
One thing I have to ask though is-> Why does EHG make it look like Europeans have "ANE"? WHG also ultimately shares a node of ancestry with ANE (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JfsaZ0Arig0/VIwqnsNURuI/AAAAAAAABy8/Fvd33YAZadI/s1600/2kjz7p.jpg)so why is EHG somehow closer to ANE in shared ancestry enough to make old models like Lazaridis et al. think Europeans pan out as "ANE + WHG + EEF"? Why does this happen if EHGs don't outright carry ANE ancestry? Might seem like a foolish question on my part but I've been quite curious about this for a little while now.

There are many possibilities. Haak et al proposed models where EHG is unadmixed but derives from the same node as Loschbour, and MA-1 has EHG admixture but mainly derives from an unknown population. Then there was a model where EHG and ANE are from the same node and Loschbour has EHG admixture (rest of it again from an unknown source). They didn't explore models where one or more of these are three-way admixed, but even those are possible.

One interesting thing is that MA-1 and EHG are equally related to Native Americans but Loschbour is less related to them, while EHG is more related to Loschbour than MA-1 is. They suggested this might be due to the ANE part in EHG being more related to Karitiana than MA-1 is, but since EHG can't fit well as WHG-ANE mix and a WHG-ANE mixture which would perfectly balance EHG's native affinity with MA-1's is unparsimonious they proposed those alternative models. In the model where MA-1 is EHG-mixed the unknown "main" source of its ancestry is assumed to dampen MA-1's Native affinity in comparison to EHG.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-07-2015, 06:18 PM
EHG is likely one of maybe two or three branches off of MA1, or older than MA1, or a completely separate branch. It is not a mixture of MA1 and Loschbour, that is clear. Modelling EHG as WHG and ANE failed, massively!

Generalissimo
07-07-2015, 09:27 PM
EHG is likely one of maybe two or three branches off of MA1, or older than MA1, or a completely separate branch. It is not a mixture of MA1 and Loschbour, that is clear. Modelling EHG as WHG and ANE failed, massively!

It didn't fail massively. It was almost a fit, and that's in a very complex tree.

alan
07-08-2015, 12:41 AM
It didn't fail massively. It was almost a fit, and that's in a very complex tree.

I think EHG is a mix of WHG dating way back to Gravettian roots and an early Mesolithic ANE addition from Siberia. If, as seems likely that WHG (in Europe) and ANE (in south central Siberia) date back to pre-LGM times then they had a hell of a long time to drift before mixing again in the Mesolithic. So, the model was never going to perfectly fit. Its remarkable that it even almost fitted.

I feel almost certain that the ANE aspect of EHG didnt exist until after the Younger Dryas and prior to that the eastern European hunters would look very like a drifted version of WHG. The ANE element when it did arrive in Europe would have been 12500 years drifted from Mal'ta boy too. So its not realistic to expect a perfect fit surely.

ADW_1981
07-08-2015, 01:03 AM
EHG looks are Uralic/Lappid.
And for modern incarnation of Mesolithic blond blue eyed EHG type you can check Mika Hakkinen.

That is to sum up what I found on the subject.

He looks like Dave Mustaine of Megadeth.

J Man
07-08-2015, 01:08 AM
He looks like Dave Mustaine of Megadeth.

Good band!

Kale
07-08-2015, 03:06 AM
I think this tree from Haak et al. is the best model for EHG and related's positions at this point...
West Eurasian at point F branches into WHG (C) and ANE (G). Native American ANE splits (y-dna Q) splits from MA1-EHG like ANE (y-dna R). An 11% trickle of KareliaHG-like ANE into Loschbour to finish things up.

I suspect the reason MA1 and EHG do not show themselves as wholly or majorly ANE on the ANE-K7/K8 tests is because in those tests, ANE is based on the highly drifted and 10 to 15 thousand year downstream node of it that is Native Americans. Any ANE that branches off before this, will have to project itself onto other components to balance out it's more basal nature. The nearest component to ANE, is WHG, so that's what Karelia ends up projecting into. MA1 does the same, but also into South Asian likely due to it's age.

Generalissimo
07-09-2015, 06:37 AM
I suspect the reason MA1 and EHG do not show themselves as wholly or majorly ANE on the ANE-K7/K8 tests is because in those tests, ANE is based on the highly drifted and 10 to 15 thousand year downstream node of it that is Native Americans. Any ANE that branches off before this, will have to project itself onto other components to balance out it's more basal nature. The nearest component to ANE, is WHG, so that's what Karelia ends up projecting into. MA1 does the same, but also into South Asian likely due to it's age.

The reason EHG aren't classified as wholly or mostly ANE in the K8 is because this isn't true.

The K8 correctly places the EHG samples in a PCA of West Eurasia, so its classification of them as ~60/40 WHG/ANE has to be correct at some level.

K8 PCA (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNUlZMDJubmZOWUU/view?usp=sharing)

They wouldn't cluster in that spot if they were wholly or mostly ANE. But they have to cluster there for the test to be correct.

alan
07-09-2015, 06:58 AM
The reason EHG aren't classified as wholly or mostly ANE in the K8 is because this isn't true.

The K8 correctly places the EHG samples in a PCA of West Eurasia, so its classification of them as ~60/40 WHG/ANE has to be correct at some level.

K8 PCA (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNUlZMDJubmZOWUU/view?usp=sharing)

They wouldn't cluster in that spot if they were wholly or mostly ANE. But they have to cluster there for the test to be correct.

One upshot of EHG having a lot of WHG in its makeup is that its a lot harder to literally put this all down to the WHG being carried by the Magdallenian derived hunters. Yes they did do an epic expansion from the far west in a north-central and northern European loop as far as NW Russia BUT archaeologically speaking those cultures didnt reach the Urals, Italy, the Balkans, Carpathians, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine (except perhaps the northernmost fringes) or south Russia. So where there is a WHG component in ancient DNA from hunters in those areas it seems extremely unlikely it literally came from the Magdallenian derived post-LGM north-east thrust across Europe.

So, where WHG is found in the areas I have just listed, I think it appears to prove that WHG probably is a signature of the pan-European Gravettian horizon and possibly then drifted somewhat in separate refugia across Europe during the LGM.

I wont believe that there was any ANE in Europe among the Gravettians or their descendant cultures until I see some pre-dating 9500BC. I will be very surprised if we do. IMO the hunters of Mesolithic eastern and north-east Europe/Scandinavia are a hybrid of European WHG type hunters of very long European standing and a post-Younger Dryas ANE Siberian input that didnt make much if any impact east of a line from Denmark to the Carpathians until its genes were carried further west by steppe groups in the copper and early bronze ages.

All of this of course highlights the fact that with the rare exception of very early (and probably atypical) hunters like Kostenki, we have very little if any ancient DNA from the period between the start of the Gravettian and 8000BC in Europe. That means that entire part of the upper palaeolithic period from the arrival of the Gravettians before the LGM and the Mesolithic period is essentially missing from the ancient DNA record in Europe.

MT1976
07-09-2015, 01:02 PM
Alan.

I find your explanation of EHG very much on the mark, not that Im any authority. However, i'd amend slightly some of the details of your chronology and dynamics, not the genetic aspect of things.

Firstly, id put it to you that there is no real reason to a priori privillege 9000 BC over any other time between 36 kya (the K-14 - who appears to be slightly closer to later WHG than EHG), and the Mesolithic date in which the samples were found. I certainly agree with a later date . Certainly, 9000 BC could be right, but it could have happened c. 16 ky BP also. Although often thought of as an ice age refuge, the Russian plain was actually depopulated (virtually) a couple of times over during the UP, certainly around the time of the CI (c. 40 ky BP), as well as the LGM (23-16 ky BP) - although pockets of settlement continued to the southwest toward Moldavia. It was repopulated by 16 ky BP, and according to traditional anthropology, by a cold-adapted, smaller limbed but more robust population. Certainly, I won;t claim to connect what could be ecological adaptation definitively with genetic change, but it could be when these ANE-type groups arrived from the east, and more probably from the southeast.

Moreover, you have to account for significant admixture / ongoing contact between the fractioned regions of Pleniglacial Europe- even at the height of the LGM, there appears to have been some contact between east-central Europe and Franco-Cantabria. The situation in the east and southeast was particularly complex. Unlike the obvious pre-eminence of the Franco-Cantabrian region in the west, in EE/ SEE there was a broader area of settlement networks, variable exactly where and how much on the particular millenium.

The Genome-wide comparison of HGs from Iberia to NW Europe and east-central Europe at least, suggests a rather homogeneous population, suggesting that whatever drift which had occurred during the LGM, was already ameliorated by developed Mesolithic (these were, afterall, mobile groups). The main driving force behind the deviation of EHG must remain Siberian./ ANE (or whatever one calls it) admixture, which touched upon Sweden too.

The only question which remains is what HGs from the Adriatic/ Italy and Greece looked like.

alan
07-09-2015, 05:32 PM
Alan.

I find your explanation of EHG very much on the mark, not that Im any authority. However, i'd amend slightly some of the details of your chronology and dynamics, not the genetic aspect of things.

Firstly, id put it to you that there is no real reason to a priori privillege 9000 BC over any other time between 36 kya (the K-14 - who appears to be slightly closer to later WHG than EHG), and the Mesolithic date in which the samples were found. I certainly agree with a later date . Certainly, 9000 BC could be right, but it could have happened c. 16 ky BP also. Although often thought of as an ice age refuge, the Russian plain was actually depopulated (virtually) a couple of times over during the UP, certainly around the time of the CI (c. 40 ky BP), as well as the LGM (23-16 ky BP) - although pockets of settlement continued to the southwest toward Moldavia. It was repopulated by 16 ky BP, and according to traditional anthropology, by a cold-adapted, smaller limbed but more robust population. Certainly, I won;t claim to connect what could be ecological adaptation definitively with genetic change, but it could be when these ANE-type groups arrived from the east, and more probably from the southeast.

Moreover, you have to account for significant admixture / ongoing contact between the fractioned regions of Pleniglacial Europe- even at the height of the LGM, there appears to have been some contact between east-central Europe and Franco-Cantabria. The situation in the east and southeast was particularly complex. Unlike the obvious pre-eminence of the Franco-Cantabrian region in the west, in EE/ SEE there was a broader area of settlement networks, variable exactly where and how much on the particular millenium.

The Genome-wide comparison of HGs from Iberia to NW Europe and east-central Europe at least, suggests a rather homogeneous population, suggesting that whatever drift which had occurred during the LGM, was already ameliorated by developed Mesolithic (these were, afterall, mobile groups). The main driving force behind the deviation of EHG must remain Siberian./ ANE (or whatever one calls it) admixture, which touched upon Sweden too.

The only question which remains is what HGs from the Adriatic/ Italy and Greece looked like.

Mal'ta boy lived in a culture known as the middle upper palaeolithic of south-central Siberia (not exactly snappy but Mal'ta-Buret is now a defunct term and was wrongly dated). This culture did not extend a lot west of Altai and Mal'ta boy is the very last dated human of this culture which lasted from c. 30000BC-22000BC. There was an enormous geographical gap between this culture and the Gravettian ones in Europe that existed at the same time so I actually personally doubt any mixing.

The worst of the LGM seems to have driven the population into a refugia in Altai where the pressure microblade technique was developed during the LGM. It is only after the end of the Younger Dryas c. 9500BC that the very first material echos of people moving from around Altai reach the far east of Europe in the form of pressure flaked microblades and later in the form of non-farmer pottery. These early Mesolithic items of Altai/adjacent roots show movement from Siberia to Europe that no matter how hard I have looked I could not find during the LGM. As a side note the pressure flaked microblades also appear on the north-eastern fringes of SW Asia at the same time at the end of the Younger Dryas. I believe these represent the appearance of ANE elements in Europe and the fringes of south-west Asia.

In terms of detail the first European groups to possess the pressure microblades seem to have been in the Urals and shortly after early Mesolithic groups in south Russia and the Ukraine. However the technique slowly tracked as far as Moldova in central Europe and as far as Scandinavia in the north. The Maglemosian (basically a Magdallenian descendant) didnt have them but the later Konglemose did. The technique seems to have halted at a frontier running from roughly Denmark to Moldova and didnt penetrate further west.

Non-farmer pottery is a slightly later wave that seems to have Siberian roots. It penetrated a similar sort of zone. Ertebolle is an example for instance. However the pottery penetrated a little further west and made it as far as Holland in the Mesolithic.

In some parts of eastern Europe these Siberian groups may have had a huge genetic impact due to the lack of other hunters preceding them - as apparently happened in the Urals and probably parts of southern Russia. However in other places they bumped into the western derived hunters or epi-gravettians and may have had a much diluted impact - for example Scandinavia, Belarus, the Baltic etc.

MT1976
07-09-2015, 11:19 PM
Thanks for your reply
I am confident we will soon know- with the promise of upcoming Palaeolithic samples from Europe and russia

Volat
07-20-2015, 08:36 AM
You hope it is the same EHG...

I am lazy to look for exact materials but Soviet school was good enough in cross comparing anthropological types. It is pretty common knowledge that Baltic area was populated from South (South-West) and East. From South arrived Euro looking folk, from East Uralic looking :)

There could have been an ancient migration from Scandinavia into Lithuania and Latvia according to Lithuanian anthropologist Gintautas Chesnis. Another scholar suggested there was a later migration from south-west given common odontological type found in Lithuania and central Europe. http://ru.delfi.lt/news/live/predki-litovcev-skandinavy-a-belorusy-bratya.d?id=20648335

Rethel
10-01-2017, 05:17 PM
Bump...

Boreas
10-01-2017, 11:36 PM
The major bottle-neck determining the prrsent genomes of the (arctic) Eurasian mammals surviving Ice-time is known as "The Younger Dryas Megafaunal Mass Extinction Event".

The LGM (25-17.000 BP) was certainly cold, to the extent that all animal species were decimated, due to entire populations disappearing. Especially in the central and eastern parts of northern Eurasia, where the climate is remarkably colder than along the Atlantic facade.

But even worse were the short but abruptly strong cold-dip occuring some 12.900 yrs ago, when the plains of Europe and Northern Asia became taiga and tundra, down to the 45th paralell - and 2/3 of the species that had populated Paleolithic Eurasia for tens and hundreds of millennia died out. Completely.

11.900 years ago less than 20 species were left, thanks to some yet unlocated refugia(s). One of these species were a highly adapted and specialized branch of human beings - today recognized as "Ahrensburgian" and/or "Swidrien", which both (re-)occur about 11.900 yrs BP (cal).

Given that their direct descendants shows up in northern Scandinavia as well as west-coast France and Anatolia 11.600 yrs ago we find an incredibly short period, between 11.700 and 11.200 when the pioneers of the re-population of Eurasia reached both the North Cape and the Gibraltar - as well as the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea - from the southern Baltics.

So far the only location known from the Younger Dryas period is found along the flint-bearing shores of southern Scania, were a lucky part of the Bromme-Lyngby-culture - producing chisels of reindeer-antler - endured the worst cold, 12.500 BP, around the famous LP-site at Hasselberga.

It seems that the first mesolithic sites of Lyngby, Ahrensburg and EBK/TBK -
as well as the Swidrien, Kunda and Volga PCW - were the first descendants from these Scanian survivors, forming various off-shoots of the basically same post-glacial culture, techno-complex and economy.

What language they spoke is still completely unknown. Using plain statistical epidemology it could very well be "indo-european", as well as anything else. Whatever deductions one may apply - based on facts and facts only.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-02-2017, 01:30 AM
The major bottle-neck determining the prrsent genomes of the (arctic) Eurasian mammals surviving Ice-time is known as "The Younger Dryas Megafaunal Mass Extinction Event".

The LGM (25-17.000 BP) was certainly cold, to the extent that all animal species were decimated, due to entire populations disappearing. Especially in the central and eastern parts of northern Eurasia, where the climate is remarkably colder than along the Atlantic facade.

But even worse were the short but abruptly strong cold-dip occuring some 12.900 yrs ago, when the plains of Europe and Northern Asia became taiga and tundra, down to the 45th paralell - and 2/3 of the species that had populated Paleolithic Eurasia for tens and hundreds of millennia died out. Completely.

11.900 years ago less than 20 species were left, thanks to some yet unlocated refugia(s). One of these species were a highly adapted and specialized branch of human beings - today recognized as "Ahrensburgian" and/or "Swidrien", which both (re-)occur about 11.900 yrs BP (cal).

Given that their direct descendants shows up in northern Scandinavia as well as west-coast France and Anatolia 11.600 yrs ago we find an incredibly short period, between 11.700 and 11.200 when the pioneers of the re-population of Eurasia reached both the North Cape and the Gibraltar - as well as the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea - from the southern Baltics.

So far the only location known from the Younger Dryas period is found along the flint-bearing shores of southern Scania, were a lucky part of the Bromme-Lyngby-culture - producing chisels of reindeer-antler - endured the worst cold, 12.500 BP, around the famous LP-site at Hasselberga.

It seems that the first mesolithic sites of Lyngby, Ahrensburg and EBK/TBK -
as well as the Swidrien, Kunda and Volga PCW - were the first descendants from these Scanian survivors, forming various off-shoots of the basically same post-glacial culture, techno-complex and economy.

What language they spoke is still completely unknown. Using plain statistical epidemology it could very well be "indo-european", as well as anything else. Whatever deductions one may apply - based on facts and facts only.

Are you suggesting that the only habited locale in Eurasia during the YD was southern scania ?

Boreas
11-06-2017, 09:11 AM
Are you suggesting that the only habited locale in Eurasia during the YD was southern scania ?

I'm refering to the only region KNOWN to have harboured a refugia, where a small and thus pretty homogenious group of human beings did, indeed, survive the Younger Dryas.

It's obvious - from the mesolithic samples of NW Europe - that pioneers comming out of this refuiga bore haplogroups like y-dna I2 and mt-dna U4/U5. What other hgs that originated from this refugia is still unclear. Due to their early spread in arctic Europe both R1a and R1b may be two of them.

Boreas
11-07-2017, 05:01 AM
Paleoarctic Ancestry

Looking at the paleo-arctic populations of Eurasia we find them all to be descendants from y-dna F* and mt-dna R*. Following the aDNA from the pale-arctic Europeans - such as the Gravettians, Aurignacians, Solutreans, Magdalenians, Cresswellians, Hamburgians, Ahrensburg-Brommeans and Pertunians - we find that their common ancestor were (directly) ancestral also to the post-glacial 'Caucasians' that appeared after ice-time.

Though - we also know that all the mentioned populations d-i-s-a-s-p-e-a-r-e-d during the Younger Dryas. Even in SW France, Brittain and the Channel Islands - as of 13.000 BP. Which means that the gross majority of paleolithic haplotypes died out and a few survivors would have to found new variants of the old haplotypes, as soon as the Holocene climate allowed larger mamals to re-mulitply and re-populate arctic Eurasia.

Around 60 arctic species of large mammals had survived - in several refugias - during the LGM. Most if not all survived this cliamte-crisis in the milder, western hemisphere, from where they multiplied and spread - again - during the Bolling-Alleroed interstadial. Untill the YD Extinction Event were 2/3 of the species died out, completely, leaving just about 20 left to see the Holocene. Thus we find tibias of elks, bears, wolves and hares within the mesolithic dwellings of NW Europe - as well as dogs and reindeer, caprovids and boars, aurochses and horses.

So far we've found only ONE human refugia that have proven to exist in arctic Eurasia during the YD, on to the tempered shores of the Danish Islands. The same area - the SW Baltics - is also known as a 'last resort' for some of the larger mammals of the Eurasian continent, such as the extinct mamoths and the extant reindeers, elks and aurochs.*

Both the LGM and the YD produced bottle-necks, whereof the latter became detrimental to the European Genome. First with the breake of the Holocene climate, 12.000 years ago, could an enduring repopulation of a depopulated Eurasia start, all over again.

Northern Pioneers

As the archaeological samples and the C-14-dates have multiplied over the last decade we are now able to follow the spread from the Scanian refugia along the coasts to their north - reaching SE Norway (Darbu) 11.900 BP, SW Norway (Galta) 11.700, NW Norway (Hitra, Vega, Donna) 11.500 BP and North Cape (Sarnes) 11.200 BP.

During the very same millenium - from 12.000 to 11.000 BP - we find pioneering populations settle along the southern parts of the Atlantic facade, from Denmark to Spain. Since they also carried I2 and U5a/b they should be from the same refugia as their older, seafaring cousins up north. In the SE Baltics an eastern branch of the Magdalenien-Lyngby culture formed the pioneering societis of Oder and Vistula ("Ahrensburg-Swidrien") - who became instrumental to the re-population of all of Eastern Europe.

Before 11.000 BP they had populated the colder parts east and north of the Baltic, as well - thus connecting the Baltic to the Black Sea as well as the White Sea and the sources of Volga - Eurasias largest river-system. Thus Onega, Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland became hubs from which the pioneering Kunda-Volga-culture could reach and repopulate central Russia and northern Asia..

Genetic samples from the vast coastlines of Europe were obviously descendants of the paleo-arctic macrogroups F and R. Y-dna I2a and mt-dna U5/U4 shows up in all the early samples we have from mesolithic Scandinavia (Hummervika, Steigen, Motala, Stora Forvar) - just as they are found among the boat-cultures that repopulated the southern part of the Atlantic facade, from Denmark to Spain.

Moreover they're found in mesolithic contexts along the river-routes that connects the North Sea to central and southern Europe (Rhinen-Rhone/Donau), as well as the transport-zones connecting the Baltic Ocean to Balkan (Oder, Vistula) and the Black Sea (Vistula-Bug-Djepr, Dvina-Djepr). From the hub of the Finnish Gulf (Narva/Neva/Ladoga) both Carelia and the Volga was populated - creating the first network of travel and trade between (NW) Europe and (central) Asia.

Seemingly, mito U4 and U5a/b was deeply involved, even here too. In the mesolithic/neolithic dna from Eurasia we find U4 and U5 along the Atlantic facade, as well as the shores of the Baltic Ocean from where it migrated through the river-routes of Dvina/Djepr and Volga/Don, reaching Bactria as well as Bolshoy and Tarim.

Southern Pioneers

The pioneering re-population of southern and eastern Europe, as well as Asia Minor and Central Asia, happened within the same millenia. 11.600 yrs old Catal Huyk and Gobekli Tepe are obvious manifestations of pioneers similar to the ones re-populating northern Europe.

The main difference seem to be their male lineage - as y-dna G2 is massively dominating the Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of the "Mediterranean facade", including the Black Sea,Balkans and Anatolia. Meanwhile y-dna J2 seem to take care of Trans-Caucasus and Iran, from where they have spread into India, mixing with indigenous populations of tropical descent.*

Consequently we need to ask if the 'arctic' descendants of y-dna F, such as the post-glacial hgs G2, H2 and J2, have a common origin with the I2-men that "came out of ice-time" to repopulate the northern hemisphere.*

During LME/ENE these networks would connect with the tropical refugias of the Sino-Tibetans and Indo-Asians, from which Asian mt-dna (C/Z, D) started to arrive in the arctic areas of Caucasus, Ural, Volga and Carelia. That exogamy may explain the major difference between EHG and the more endogamic WHG. Viewed by the y-dna there's hardly any difference between WHG and EHG. What's more, they may both be explained as descendants of the SHG.

Newbies With An Edge

The growth of two other 'dynasties' - that eventually branched far and wide - is described by the aDNA of y-dna R1a and R1b. Associated to the origin and spread of cattle-farming and dairy-industries they can be explained as a consequence of the speciation and success of both bovine cattle and milk-drinking men, to populate the vast open fields inbetween the rivers, waters, woodlands and mountains used by the old trappers, herders and fishermen.

Thus we see a strong growth of these populations as the Holocene Optimum turned arid plains, taiga and tundra into mushy grasslands. The distribution of R1a and smaller lifestocks indicates a speciation in the cooler parts of Eurasia ('highlanders'/'woodlanders'), while R1b and their larger lifestocks dominates the milder lowlands and the southern plains.

From NE/BA graves and cementaries we know that the pioneering tribes of I2, G2 and J2 had extensive contacts, creating the first trails of travel and trade neccesary to uphold inland settlements along the waterways between the Eurasian oceans. Thus the lactose-persistant cattlefarming R1-tribes able to populate the plains along the waterways would be important to the greater good. In some of the central cross-roads, such as the rivermounds of the Eastern Baltics, Carelia and the Lower Volga, they could even share cementary with each other. The same phenomenon is found in LNE/BA cementaries from Balkan and Southern Europe.*

Another discovery from modern genetics tells that the present Scanians belong to the most Lactose-persistent populations known. Reaching 99% they seem to represent the oldest population to have completed the infantilization nessecary to consume milk and dairy-products after the age of 3.

The distribution of y-dna among the lactose-persistant Scanias, Swedes and Danes - is pretty evenly shared by descendants of I2, R1a and R1b. That may indicate that an early branch of y-dna I2 (I1?) got a taste for fresh milk and cream as well as salted butter and cheese.

Refugia – One or More?

AFAIK the Scanian population known as Bromme-Lyngby is the only KNOWN refugia, documented empirically, to have endured the Younger Dryas within the arctic climate-zone - north of the 40th paralell. If the Scanians were the ONLY surviving group is still unclear.

In that case we may have to look for a y-dna F as their major chieftan, from which the existing y-lines of GHIJK-T could be re-produced.

Arctic Eurasia was definitly repopulated 11-12.000 yrs ago by arctic ('caucasian') stocks of mice and men. The pioneers even spread in various branches – as 'super-clads' (dynasties) – into the various regions of the continent - creating wide, inter-regional 'domains'.

Forming dynastical lines based on agnatic succession (inherritance) the pale-arctic descendants could branch out and evolve into new derivates of old haplogroups, both male and female. The consequence was a number of tribes (gentes, aet-nos) that could constitute kingdoms organized as «extended families» - each producing larger etnicities and higher civilizations within their inherritted domains.

To explain the re-population and cultural evolution of holocene Eurasia we need at least ONE arctic refugia. Today we know that Scania harboured one. Now we need to clearify, empirically, if there ever was any other...

epoch
11-07-2017, 07:11 AM
One upshot of EHG having a lot of WHG in its makeup is that its a lot harder to literally put this all down to the WHG being carried by the Magdallenian derived hunters. Yes they did do an epic expansion from the far west in a north-central and northern European loop as far as NW Russia BUT archaeologically speaking those cultures didnt reach the Urals, Italy, the Balkans, Carpathians, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine (except perhaps the northernmost fringes) or south Russia. So where there is a WHG component in ancient DNA from hunters in those areas it seems extremely unlikely it literally came from the Magdallenian derived post-LGM north-east thrust across Europe.

So, where WHG is found in the areas I have just listed, I think it appears to prove that WHG probably is a signature of the pan-European Gravettian horizon and possibly then drifted somewhat in separate refugia across Europe during the LGM.

I wont believe that there was any ANE in Europe among the Gravettians or their descendant cultures until I see some pre-dating 9500BC. I will be very surprised if we do. IMO the hunters of Mesolithic eastern and north-east Europe/Scandinavia are a hybrid of European WHG type hunters of very long European standing and a post-Younger Dryas ANE Siberian input that didnt make much if any impact east of a line from Denmark to the Carpathians until its genes were carried further west by steppe groups in the copper and early bronze ages.

All of this of course highlights the fact that with the rare exception of very early (and probably atypical) hunters like Kostenki, we have very little if any ancient DNA from the period between the start of the Gravettian and 8000BC in Europe. That means that entire part of the upper palaeolithic period from the arrival of the Gravettians before the LGM and the Mesolithic period is essentially missing from the ancient DNA record in Europe.

@Alan

Considering all the new samples, how would you rephrase this? Especially now that Magdalenian is found to be different from WHG.


EHG is likely one of maybe two or three branches off of MA1, or older than MA1, or a completely separate branch. It is not a mixture of MA1 and Loschbour, that is clear. Modelling EHG as WHG and ANE failed, massively!

@Chad

Could adding some Magdalenian fix that in your opinion?

IIRC correctly the northern reindeer hunters were considered continuation of Magdalenian before a while. I think with all the Baltic samples that is off the table. But different WHG shows different additional Magdalenian admixture, so maybe a slight admixture still plays a role.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-07-2017, 07:44 AM
I haven't ever come across anything verifying that the Magdalenians expanded anywhere near as NW Russia. In fact they didn't even reach the north European plain.
I suspect Alan has conflated the Hamburg culture with Magdalenians, and also (problematically) assumed that "post-Swiderians" in NW Russia have something to do with Magdalenians.
The Magdalenians appear to be extinct lines, in any regard, which left at best some substrata influences in Western European WHG

More realistic representation of Magdalenian territory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian#/media/File%3AHomo_Sapiens_in_Europe_-_magdalenian_distribution_map-de.svg

epoch
11-07-2017, 01:24 PM
I haven't ever come across anything verifying that the Magdalenians expanded anywhere near as NW Russia. In fact they didn't even reach the north European plain.
I suspect Alan has conflated the Hamburg culture with Magdalenians, and also (problematically) assumed that "post-Swiderians" in NW Russia have something to do with Magdalenians.
The Magdalenians appear to be extinct lines, in any regard, which left at best some substrata influences in Western European WHG

More realistic representation of Magdalenian territory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian#/media/File%3AHomo_Sapiens_in_Europe_-_magdalenian_distribution_map-de.svg

Well, if we are to relate the demise of the Magdalenian with the Laachersee eruption we come up with something interesting. South of the eruption impact area we have La Brana, which has the highest modeled Magdalenian admixture. The center would have an area unoccupied for quite a while, slowly being repopulated. I saw a paper - the link of which I lost -on the archaeological impact of that eruption being pretty heavy, with only small temporary camp sites for a long while afterwards. West of this there was the remains of Doggerland. We see that Loschbour has a tad smaller Magdalenian admixture. Couldn't we speculate that Eastern expansion of WHG mobbed up some remaining Magdalenian?

Kale
11-07-2017, 07:53 PM
On the topic of Magdalenian ancestry, I did a d-stat model of LaBrana a while back that came out surprisingly good given all of the outgroups...a little messy, but that's likely just substructure.

41.5% Loschbour
29.2% ElMiron
13.3% Villabruna
8% Hungary_HG
2.5% Eastern_HG
2.1% Satsurbila
1.6% AG3-MA1
0.9% Yoruba
0.5% Vestonice16
0.4% Anatolia_Neolithic
Outgroups: Ami, Anatolia_Neolithic, Bichon, Iran_Chalcolithic, Karitiana, Kostenki14, Kotias, Papuan, Ust_Ishim, Yamnaya_Samara

Overall I'd consider that to mean 43% Loschbour, 30% ElMiron, 13% Villabruna, 8% Hungary_HG, 4% ANE, 2% CHG

I tried modeling Loschbour as well recently...I had to drop a couple of outgroups, but it was pretty clean.

72.5% LaBrana
21.4% Hungary_HG
4.5% Vestonice16
2.9% Satsurbila
1.0% Ulchi
-2.3% Yoruba
Outgroups: Ami, Anatolia_Neolithic, Karitiana, Kostenki14, Kotias, Papuan, Ust_Ishim

Now from these two models we can take a tentative stab at how much Magdelanian ancestry there actually is in either...
If LaBrana is 30%, then Loschbour would be about 22%. Feed that back into the LaBrana model and LaBrana would be at least 38% (30% From direct ElMiron, and another 8% coming from Loschbour). Doesn't work.
If LaBrana is 45%, then Loschbour would be about 33%. Feed that back into the LaBrana model and we get 30% direct from ElMiron, plus another 14% or so coming from Loschbour...44% total, damn close.
Not taking into account how much Villabruna or KO1 may have (certainly less than LaBrana and Loschbour)...45-50% seems to be the working range.

bix
11-07-2017, 08:59 PM
[never mind]

Helves
02-22-2018, 01:17 PM
Modeling modern day northeastern Europeans as Steppe/Barcin/WHG doesn't fit that well. Adding Baltic-HG instead of WHG and you get a better fit but still not convinving enough. Dunno what else to try with

"distance%=7.59"

Lithuanian

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,48.2
Baltic_HG,26.6
Barcin_N,25.2

Diictodon
12-18-2018, 09:23 PM
Modeling modern day northeastern Europeans as Steppe/Barcin/WHG doesn't fit that well. Adding Baltic-HG instead of WHG and you get a better fit but still not convinving enough. Dunno what else to try with

"distance%=7.59"

Lithuanian

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,48.2
Baltic_HG,26.6
Barcin_N,25.2

Perhaps use a different Farmer population? A more WHG rich EEF west of the Danube like in Iberia?

epoch
12-19-2018, 09:29 AM
Well, if we are to relate the demise of the Magdalenian with the Laachersee eruption we come up with something interesting. South of the eruption impact area we have La Brana, which has the highest modeled Magdalenian admixture. The center would have an area unoccupied for quite a while, slowly being repopulated. I saw a paper - the link of which I lost -on the archaeological impact of that eruption being pretty heavy, with only small temporary camp sites for a long while afterwards. West of this there was the remains of Doggerland. We see that Loschbour has a tad smaller Magdalenian admixture. Couldn't we speculate that Eastern expansion of WHG mobbed up some remaining Magdalenian?

Ha! Now that someone bumped this thread, there is actual confirmation of the idea that Swiderian had some Magdalenian ancestry. Latvian HG showed El Miron ancestry even in the conservative qpAdm runs of the Dzudzuana paper.

https://i.imgur.com/OnnxWp5.png

Apart from that, there seems to be survival of Magdalenian into the Mesolithic in NW Iberia.

rothaer
08-30-2019, 10:21 AM
Ha! Now that someone bumped this thread, there is actual confirmation of the idea that Swiderian had some Magdalenian ancestry. Latvian HG showed El Miron ancestry even in the conservative qpAdm runs of the Dzudzuana paper.

https://i.imgur.com/OnnxWp5.png

This interpretation is not a must as tested populations are forced to assign 100% of their DNA to the components available. But it shows Latvian HG can not be expressed sufficiently with Villabruna in respect to European HG. That part could in whatever way be related to El Miron, which was VERY close genetically to GoyetQ116-1 (35kybp). Paths from the latter could have been to whatever place in Europe within some 20 ky (!) before Magdalenian.

epoch
08-31-2019, 06:26 AM
This interpretation is not a must as tested populations are forced to assign 100% of their DNA to the components available. But it shows Latvian HG can not be expressed sufficiently with Villabruna in respect to European HG. That part could in whatever way be related to El Miron, which was VERY close genetically to GoyetQ116-1 (35kybp). Paths from the latter could have been to whatever place in Europe within some 20 ky (!) before Magdalenian.

Yeah, but the area was uninhabitable during the ice age or at least during the LGM, so the GoyetQ116-1 ancestry as well as the Villabruna ancestry must have been brought there after the LGM.

rothaer
08-31-2019, 07:49 AM
...

We have now 4 to 5 years after thread start. What are the today fossils recognized to be a proxy for EGH?

epoch
09-01-2019, 06:54 AM
We have now 4 to 5 years after thread start. What are the today fossils recognized to be a proxy for EGH?

Sidelkino, Samara hunter-gatherer, Karelian HG and an additional Karelian sample from Popovo (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf). Sidelkino is the oldest a 9000 BC. Interestingly enough the latest Gravettian (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2) paper described an upper Paleolithic Crimean site and determined the first layer after recovery from LGM as Swiderian, from 9,500 BC.

EDIT: Forgot Latvia_MN2 (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(16)31542-1)

Boreas
09-03-2019, 05:32 AM
Sidelkino, Samara hunter-gatherer, Karelian HG and an additional Karelian sample from Popovo (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf). Sidelkino is the oldest a 9000 BC. Interestingly enough the latest Gravettian (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2) paper described an upper Paleolithic Crimean site and determined the first layer after recovery from LGM as Swiderian, from 9,500 BC.



Your link points to this paper. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/02/685404.full.pdf

There's a lot of interesting aspects reflected in that work. Unfortunately I couldn't find your reference to the Swidrien culture, that pioneered the re-population of Eastern Europe - in tandem with the Ahrensburg/Cresswell/Azilien culture(s) repopulating Central-Western Europe.

Could you help with a page-number...?!

epoch
09-03-2019, 07:38 AM
Your link points to this paper. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/02/685404.full.pdf

There's a lot of interesting aspects reflected in that work. Unfortunately I couldn't find your reference to the Swidrien culture, that pioneered the re-population of Eastern Europe - in tandem with the Ahrensburg/Cresswell/Azilien culture(s) repopulating Central-Western Europe.

Could you help with a page-number...?!

Sorry, my bad, it's in the supplementary information whereas the link I gave is to the actual paper. Quote from the supp info:


The two Upper Paleolithic cultural traditions, related to the Aurignacian and Gravettian complexes (layers 6-5 to 5-2), were successively present in Crimea during a relatively short time span between 39.4 and 34.1 ka cal BP. During the following period of about 20,000 years, no depositional processes occurred or were preserved and the site was presumed abandoned. The Final Paleolithic populations (Swiderian, layer 4) settled in Crimea between 11.8 and 11.3 ka cal BP, i.e. during 129 MIS 1 (Fig. S1).


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/06/28/685404/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

Kaltmeister
09-08-2019, 01:37 PM
What is the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer?

Refering to the well known paper by Günther et alies on the early peopling of Scandinavia, it would seem to me that in the very north of that area there lived an islolated, homogenious population with haplogroup I1 and an autosomal stock that has been named "Eastern Hunter Gatherer". For explanation: The paper states that by the year 11.700, people live in the north and south of Scandinavia, beeing divided by the ice shield in the middle of the peninsula. Although the center is icy, the very north is not, for the Gulf Stream offers an ice-free habitat. Both groups use different stone working technologies, so there are in fact two different peoples. Günther e.a. assume that the northern group entered the area from the east (for that: EASTERN Hunter-Gatherers), but it seems much more likely that they have spent there in isolation since the time of the Last Glacial Maximum - this constellation offers to us also an explanation on the extreme bottleneck of haplogroup I1.

The people in the south entered from northern Germany. I think that they originally came from the northern coast of Doggerland that has also been kept ice free by the Gulf Stream, from where they had to flee into the continent when the water rose. The Gulf Stream offered two isolated, habitable coastal areas, where I2 and I1 survived the cold millenia. So the southern Scandinavian group had haplogroup I2, their autosomal equipment was "Western Hunter Gatherer" (WHG).

When the Scandinavian ice shield finally melted, these two people met in the middle and mixed, the new admixture was called "Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer" (SHG). On the long run, I1 and EHG became dominant. We can assume that they pushed their I2-brothers back into northern Germany.

As soon as it was possible,even before the ice shield disappeared, I1-EHG moved from the north coast to the south-east into Karelia and layered the local population. Their autosomal footprint was found in three dead bodies, excavated in the area: One is R1b, one R1a and one haplogroup J. So noone of the original bearers was found, probably because they built their own, separated social layer that used to burn their dead bodies. But the scientists realized that there is a new admixture in all of them - and called it Eastern Hunter Gatherer. Objections?

Kaltmeister
09-08-2019, 01:40 PM
Quoting from the paper:

"As the ice sheet retracted from northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 23,000 years ago, new habitable areas emerged, allowing plants and animals to recolonize the Scandinavian peninsula (hereafter referred to as Scandinavia). There is consistent evidence of human presence in the archaeological record from approximately 11,700 years before present (BP) both in southern and northern Scandinavia. At this time, the ice sheet was still dominating the interior of Scandinavia, but recent climate modeling shows that the Arctic coast of (modern-day) northern Norway was ice free. Similarities in late-glacial lithic technology (direct blade percussion technique) of Western Europe and the oldest counterparts of Scandinavia appearing around 11,000 calibrated (cal) BP have been used to argue for an early postglacial migration from southwestern Europe into Scandinavia, including areas of northern Norway. However, studies of another lithic technology, the “pressure blade” technique, which first occurred in the northern parts of Scandinavia around 10,200 cal BP, indicates contact with groups in the east and possibly an eastern origin of the early settlers The first genetic studies of Mesolithic human remains from central and eastern Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (SHGs) revealed similarities to two different Mesolithic European populations, the “western hunter-gatherers” (WHGs) from western, central, and southern Europe and the “eastern hunter-gatherers” (EHGs) from northeastern and eastern Europe." [...]

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.2003703&fbclid=IwAR2BwwV_bY0yePmQzsFuAd6lJ_1eu8Hmb5BefAZ0j tzqDAuUMdH9dXmkBBI

epoch
09-08-2019, 03:36 PM
What is the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer?

Refering to the well known paper by Günther et alies on the early peopling of Scandinavia, it would seem to me that in the very north of that area there lived an islolated, homogenious population with haplogroup I1 and an autosomal stock that has been named "Eastern Hunter Gatherer". For explanation: The paper states that by the year 11.700, people live in the north and south of Scandinavia, beeing divided by the ice shield in the middle of the peninsula. Although the center is icy, the very north is not, for the Gulf Stream offers an ice-free habitat. Both groups use different stone working technologies, so there are in fact two different peoples. Günther e.a. assume that the northern group entered the area from the east (for that: EASTERN Hunter-Gatherers), but it seems much more likely that they have spent there in isolation since the time of the Last Glacial Maximum - this constellation offers to us also an explanation on the extreme bottleneck of haplogroup I1.

The people in the south entered from northern Germany. I think that they originally came from the northern coast of Doggerland that has also been kept ice free by the Gulf Stream, from where they had to flee into the continent when the water rose. The Gulf Stream offered two isolated, habitable coastal areas, where I2 and I1 survived the cold millenia. So the southern Scandinavian group had haplogroup I2, their autosomal equipment was "Western Hunter Gatherer" (WHG).

When the Scandinavian ice shield finally melted, these two people met in the middle and mixed, the new admixture was called "Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer" (SHG). On the long run, I1 and EHG became dominant. We can assume that they pushed their I2-brothers back into northern Germany.

As soon as it was possible,even before the ice shield disappeared, I1-EHG moved from the north coast to the south-east into Karelia and layered the local population. Their autosomal footprint was found in three dead bodies, excavated in the area: One is R1b, one R1a and one haplogroup J. So noone of the original bearers was found, probably because they built their own, separated social layer that used to burn their dead bodies. But the scientists realized that there is a new admixture in all of them - and called it Eastern Hunter Gatherer. Objections?

That paper didn't report any I1 but this paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960982219301459) did find a 13.000 year old proto-I1 in Spain, Azillian culture.

EDIT: That paper is discussed here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16684-Survival-of-Late-Pleistocene-Hunter-Gatherer-Ancestry-in-the-Iberian-Peninsula

Kaltmeister
09-08-2019, 06:19 PM
Pre-(proto) I1-people are obviously those who managed to escape the isolation in the ice at an earlier point in time - this is why they have only some of the characteristic 312 I1-SNPs. However, they were lonely adventurers that were unable to form lines that outlast their time. I1 is hardly present in that area today, and if you find it - it is not their descendant.