Sunghir: social and reproductive behavior of early Upper Paleolithic foragers

[epoch]

From the paper: None of the samples are related, contrary to what was believed

mtDNA: 1x U8c, 3x U2
Y-DNA: all C1a2

Showed to have been avioding inbreeding contrary to Altai Neanderthals. All formed a clade to the exclusion of all known others, looked related to Vestonice, Kostenki 14 and 12. Suggested to have been part of ancestry of Vestonice cluster.

Individuals mapped onto a previously inferred admix-ture graph of early Eurasians (4, 8) placed the Sunghir cluster as a descendent of a lineage related to the Kostenki 14 individual, contributing the major fraction of the ancestry of the ‘Vêstonice cluster’ (Fig. 3C and figs. S21 to S24). Adding the low coverage Kostenki 12 individual suggests a closer relationship to the Sunghir group rather than with the ear-lier Kostenki 14 individual (fig. S25). Finally, Kostenki 14 shows substantial population-specific drift after its diver-gence from the shared ancestor with Sunghir, allowing us to reject a direct ancestral relationship to both Sunghir and Kostenki 12 (fig. S26).

Interesting suggestion is that culture caused these people to avoid inbreeding. That may very well have been the advantage AMH had over Neanderthals.

[epoch]

The admix graph models as follows:

Vestonice: 84% Sunghir + 16% Villabruna
El Miron: 46% Villabruna + 54% Goyet
Loschbour: 91% Villabruna + 9% Goyet

Also according to the admix graph not a shred of ANE (MA1) in Sunghir. As this papers main thesis is UP paleolithics avoided inbreeding it's safe to say 34.000 years ago ANE wasn't in Eastern Europe yet.

[Kristiina]

There are two other ancient U8c finds that are almost contemporary with Sunghir: Gravettian Grotta Pagliacci PA133 Italy c. 33 kya U8c and Gravettian Dolni Vestonice Vestonice13 Czech Republic c. 31 kya U8c.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Also according to the admix graph not a shred of ANE (MA1) in Sunghir. As this papers main thesis is UP paleolithics avoided inbreeding it's safe to say 34.000 years ago ANE wasn't in Eastern Europe yet.

As Chad pointed out, ANE is possibly an admixture of something LUP northwest Eurasian and ENA.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Ha the modern mis-contexted individual "SV I" from 1100 AD was I2a1b2.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Their admix graph of U.P. individuals



If Vestonice already has proto-Villabruna admixture, as does El Miron, it confirms proto-Villabruna groups were already in southern Europe by the M.U.P (35-20 ky BP).

[rozenfeld]

Individual	Coverage	Sex	mtDNA	Y-DNA	Age(calBP)
Sunghir 1	1.11		M	U8c	C1a2	33,875-31,770
Sunghir 2	4.08		M	U2	C1a2	35,283-33,185
Sunghir 3	10.75		M	U2	C1a2	35,154-33,031
Sunghir 4	3.87		M	U2	C1a2	34,485-33,499
Sunghir 5	0.001		-	-	-	30,780-29,746*
Sunghir 6	4.19		M	W3a1	I2a1b2	730-850*

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Their admix graph of U.P. individuals



If Vestonice already has proto-Villabruna admixture, as does El Miron, it confirms proto-Villabruna groups were already in southern Europe by the M.U.P (35-20 ky BP).

Likely not. It would probably be that Vestonice shares a couple thousand more years of drift towards actual WHG. The appearance of Y-I and M-U5 doesn't hurt either. Vestonice forms the base of WHG in my trees.

[alexfritz]

Likely not. It would probably be that Vestonice shares a couple thousand more years of drift towards actual WHG. The appearance of Y-I and M-U5 doesn't hurt either. Vestonice forms the base of WHG in my trees.

but according to Fu et al the Gravettian-stock(vestonice/ostuni) of the Kostenki/(Sunghir) branch did not survive the ice-age(~26-18kya) since no admixture of this branch remained in post-glacial times; whereas (acc to fu et al) the villabruna branch (bichon/rochedane) went on to become the dominant branch of the mesolithic known as WHG (laBrana/loschbour); seems as if sikora et al is just replacing kostenki-foragers with sunghir-foragers as a better fit for vestonice/gravettians;

anyone has the pigmentation mutations data of these foragers?

[Kale]

but according to Fu et al the Gravettian-stock(vestonice/ostuni) of the Kostenki/(Sunghir) branch did not survive the ice-age(~26-18kya) since no admixture of this branch remained in post-glacial times; whereas (acc to fu et al) the villabruna branch (bichon/rochedane) went on to become the dominant branch of the mesolithic known as WHG (laBrana/loschbour); seems as if sikora et al is just replacing kostenki-foragers with sunghir-foragers as a better fit for vestonice/gravettians;

anyone has the pigmentation mutations data of these foragers?

Or the Gravettians just survived the ice age in Southeastern Europe, developing into Epigravettians and proto-whg.