Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 119

Thread: Sunghir: social and reproductive behavior of early Upper Paleolithic foragers

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,412
    Sex
    Omitted

    Sunghir: social and reproductive behavior of early Upper Paleolithic foragers

    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 ‘VÍstonice 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.
    Last edited by epoch; 10-05-2017 at 07:21 PM.

  2. The Following 32 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     A Norfolk L-M20 (10-07-2017),  ADW_1981 (10-06-2017),  Agamemnon (10-05-2017),  Anglecynn (10-06-2017),  Awale (10-05-2017),  blackflash16 (10-05-2017),  BMK (10-05-2017),  ffoucart (10-06-2017),  GailT (10-05-2017),  Gravetto-Danubian (10-05-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  Inigo Montoya (10-07-2017),  J1 DYS388=13 (10-05-2017),  Jean M (10-06-2017),  Judith (10-09-2017),  Kristiina (10-05-2017),  Lank (10-06-2017),  Leroy Jenkins (10-05-2017),  Megalophias (10-05-2017),  MonkeyDLuffy (10-06-2017),  Nive1526 (10-05-2017),  Observer (10-05-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017),  Pribislav (10-06-2017),  Pylsteen (10-05-2017),  randwulf (10-06-2017),  Robert1 (10-10-2017),  rozenfeld (10-05-2017),  T101 (10-05-2017),  Tomenable (10-05-2017),  xKeleix (10-05-2017)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,412
    Sex
    Omitted

    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.
    Last edited by epoch; 10-05-2017 at 09:43 PM.

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-05-2017),  Awale (10-05-2017),  CannabisErectusHibernius (10-05-2017),  ffoucart (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  jdean (10-05-2017),  Jean M (10-06-2017),  Megalophias (10-05-2017),  MonkeyDLuffy (10-06-2017),  Nasser (10-06-2017),  Observer (10-05-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017)

  5. #3
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    908
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    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.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-08-2017),  Megalophias (10-05-2017),  parasar (10-06-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017)

  7. #4
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Gravetto-Danubian; 10-05-2017 at 10:05 PM.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     epoch (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  Nasser (10-06-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017)

  9. #5
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

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

  10. #6
    Banned
    Posts
    4,169
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Nationality
    N/A
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    mtDNA (M)
    H 47

    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).
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: png C.png (143.0 KB, 345 views)

  11. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     A Norfolk L-M20 (10-07-2017),  alexfritz (10-06-2017),  Bas (10-09-2017),  bix (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  Inigo Montoya (10-07-2017),  Kristiina (10-06-2017),  Megalophias (10-05-2017),  Observer (10-05-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017)

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,479
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    C-F5481
    mtDNA (M)
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Code:
    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*

  13. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (10-05-2017),  epoch (10-06-2017),  Genarh (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  Megalophias (10-05-2017),  Michał (10-06-2017),  Observer (10-05-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017),  Pribislav (10-06-2017),  Principe (10-06-2017),  T101 (10-06-2017),  xKeleix (10-05-2017)

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,756
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF27 FGC17112
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post
    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.

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Chad Rohlfsen For This Useful Post:

     epoch (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017),  Nasser (10-06-2017),  Power77 (10-07-2017)

  16. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    822
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a CTS11962+L1029+
    mtDNA (M)
    H80

    European Union Germany Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rohlfsen View Post
    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?
    Geno2.0 51SEURO 19WCEURO 13SCANDINAVIA 5ASIAMINOR 4EEURO 4GB/IRELAND 3ARABIA myOrigins 26ITA.PENINSULA 13GREECE&BALKANS 12SARDINIA 18GREATBRITAIN 14IRELAND 10CEN.EUROPE 8SCANDINAVIA DNA.Land 49NWEURO 27SEURO 13MED.ISLANDER 11SARDINIAN myHeritage 51.8NWEURO 33.2ITALIAN 7.9GREEK/S.ITALY 7.1BALKAN gencove 29NITALY 19EMED 15NBRITISLES 12SWEURO 10NCEURO 9SCANDINAVIA 6NEEURO GenePlaza 54.4NWEURO 37.6GREEK/ALBANIAN 5.6WASIAN 2.4SWASIA LivingDNA 70.7SGERMANIC 16.3TUSCANY 9.2N.ITALY 3.8SARDINIA

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alexfritz For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017)

  18. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,900
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    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.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     epoch (10-06-2017),  Hando (10-08-2017)

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 09-20-2016, 03:38 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 10:15 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-13-2014, 04:48 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-20-2012, 04:57 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2012, 03:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •