Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Survival of Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    Survival of Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula

    Thread on this paper:

    https://www.cell.com/current-biology...ecsectitle0230

    The Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe represents an important test case for the study of human population movements during prehistoric periods. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the peninsula formed a periglacial refugium [1] for hunter-gatherers (HGs) and thus served as a potential source for the re-peopling of northern latitudes [2]. The post-LGM genetic signature was previously described as a cline from Western HG (WHG) to Eastern HG (EHG), further shaped by later Holocene expansions from the Near East and the North Pontic steppes [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Western and central Europe were dominated by ancestry associated with the ∼14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna, Italy, which had largely replaced earlier genetic ancestry, represented by 19,000–15,000-year-old individuals associated with the Magdalenian culture [2]. However, little is known about the genetic diversity in southern European refugia, the presence of distinct genetic clusters, and correspondence with geography. Here, we report new genome-wide data from 11 HGs and Neolithic individuals that highlight the late survival of Paleolithic ancestry in Iberia, reported previously in Magdalenian-associated individuals. We show that all Iberian HGs, including the oldest, a ∼19,000-year-old individual from El Mirón in Spain, carry dual ancestry from both Villabruna and the Magdalenian-related individuals. Thus, our results suggest an early connection between two potential refugia, resulting in a genetic ancestry that survived in later Iberian HGs. Our new genomic data from Iberian Early and Middle Neolithic individuals show that the dual Iberian HG genomic legacy pertains in the peninsula, suggesting that expanding farmers mixed with local HGs.
    It claims to have a 13.000 years old Y-DNA I1. Sample is like El Miron.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (03-15-2019),  etrusco (03-15-2019),  Megalophias (03-15-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-15-2019),  Psynome (03-15-2019),  RCO (03-15-2019),  rozenfeld (03-15-2019),  Shamayim (03-15-2019),  traject (03-15-2019),  Username (03-15-2019)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    Some interesting observations:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Hmmm!?
    Balma Guilanya` (Late Upper Paleolithic)
    13,380 - 10,990 years cal BP
    BAL0051: mt-U5b2a y-I1
    BAL003: mt-U2'3'4'7'8'9' y-C1a1a

    That's the oldest I1 yet, and isn't C1a1 restricted to Japan and neighbors? BAL003 must have been a typo yes? C1a2a would make perfect sense.
    Also, have a look at Figure 4 of Fu et al: GoyetQ-2 has even more Middle Eastern affinity than El Miron, yet according to this paper it has far *less* WHG.



    Now that GoyetQ-2 is re-sampled, would that still stand?

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (03-15-2019),  K33 (03-15-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-17-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    Another thing, the paper suggests the following:

    However, our models with Goyet Q-2 as ultimate source highlight not only the admixed nature of La Braña 1 and El Mirón, but also that Goyet Q-2-like ancestry in MN individuals outside Iberia hints at Iberia as one possible source, but not the exclusive source, of the Neolithic in Britain. Further sampling from regions in today’s France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany is needed to answer this question.
    Which hints to different admixture pathways for Iberian and non-Iberian Magdalenians. Now have a look at this snippet from the latest Olalde:

    France_MLN:

    El Mirón KO1 Anatolia_N P value: 7.35E-01 Pop1 = 0.054 Pop2 = 0.205 Pop3 = 0.741 Errors: 0.028 0.032 0.023
    GoyetQ116-1 KO1 Anatolia_N P value: 2.18E-01 Pop1 = 0.093 Pop2 = 0.214 Pop3 = 0.692 Errors: 0.027 0.030 0.022
    If one models with France_MLN with GoyetQ116-1 rather then Miron the amount of ancestry doubles. That reeks like GoyetQ2 admixture in French Neolithic.

    EDIT: Although the XL sheet states that they model France_MN with 3.5% to 4% GoyetQ-2
    Last edited by epoch; 03-15-2019 at 09:58 AM.

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

     Judith (03-15-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-17-2019)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    I'll copy this from the Olalde thread. It confirms I1.

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaroslav View Post
    One person has already looked through the SNPs of that I1 on the Russian-speaking forum Molgen:

    http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/to...html#msg447836

    Z2699+ 2C
    Z2751+ 2A
    Z2724+ 2G
    FGC2441+ 2G
    Z2869+ 1G
    Z2885+ 1T
    Z2887+ 1T
    Z2813+ 1T
    Z2812+ 1T
    Z2860+ 1A
    Z2777+ 1A
    L124+ 1C
    Z2837+ 1A


    Z2877- 2C
    Z2886- 1T
    Z2679- 1T
    Z2727- 1C
    Z2850- 1A
    P40- 1C
    Z2747- 1A
    Z2715- 1C
    Z2765- 1A
    Z2871- 1A
    Y1863- 1T
    FGC2433- 1G
    Z2713- 1C
    Z2766- 1A
    Y1932- 1A
    Z2870- 1T
    Z2845- 1G
    Z2806- 1T
    I'll translate the post (Or rather google did):


    Of the more than three hundred SNPs that define the I1 branch in the BAM file of the sample BAL051 (BAL001 + BAL005), there are readings of 31 SNPs, of which 13 are positive and 18 are negative. If we estimate approximately (on the basis of what was read), then the branch of this sample was divided with the branch of the living I1 about 18000 years ago.
    Considering that the papers considers the possibility that Iberian Magdalenian was composed of two non-Iberian lineages this date is pretty interesting.
    Last edited by epoch; 03-15-2019 at 04:49 PM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     Eihwaz (03-15-2019),  Megalophias (03-15-2019),  palamede (03-15-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    42
    Sex
    Location
    Boston,Rome, ...
    Ethnicity
    Polish/British Isles
    Y-DNA
    R-A9185
    mtDNA
    H1

    Poland England Ireland Munster
    Youtube video presentation (in both English and Spanish) by Haak and Villalba-Mouco on their paper:
    Dual Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Iberia/ Curr. Biol., Mar. 14, 2019 (Vol. 29, Issue 7)
    Last edited by pmokeefe; 03-15-2019 at 06:05 PM. Reason: the video is bilingual
    YFull: YF14620 (Dante Labs 2018)

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to pmokeefe For This Useful Post:

     Onur Dincer (03-17-2019),  palamede (03-15-2019),  pegasus (03-16-2019),  R.Rocca (03-16-2019),  razyn (03-15-2019),  Saetro (03-16-2019)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by pmokeefe View Post
    Youtube video presentation (in both English and Spanish) by Haak and Villalba-Mouco on their paper:
    Dual Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Iberia/ Curr. Biol., Mar. 14, 2019 (Vol. 29, Issue 7)
    Pity they didn't mention that I1. It would be pretty spectacular if the Magdalenian left hardly a few percents of ancestry in Europeans but left a main Y-DNA.

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    380
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic, Near East
    Nationality
    Murcan
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U152 (Alsace)
    mtDNA
    T2a1a

    United States of America Palestine Germany Ireland

    Villabruna and Deep West Eurasian Phylogeny

    Here's an interesting two-way mixture model from the paper:



    Some thoughts:

    - Is the "Magdalenian HG" type ancestry represented by Goyet-Q2 a simple result of admixture between pre-LGM Aurignacians from NW Europe (35kya “Goyet-Q116-1”) and the Gravettians (31-30kya “Vestonice Cluster”) of South-Central Europe? Goyet-Q2 DOES share some genetic continuity with Q-116-1 as per the paper's formal stats. Furthermore, Fu et al reported that Goyet-Q116 "shares more alleles with members of the El Mirón Cluster who lived 19,000–14,000 years ago than with other pre-Neolithic Europeans"... So did the Aurignacians and Gravettians arrive in the Franco-Cantabrian LGM Refugium from opposite sides, with the Solutrean and Magdalenian being the cultural and genetic synthesis?

    - The Epigravettian in Italy is obviously strongly linked w/Villabruna ancestry, and it's intrusive. But Villabruna couldn’t have arrived in force in Italy prior to LGM, since Ostuni from South Italy (28kya) falls very clearly into the Vestonice cluster. Iron_Gates HG (11.5 kya) is the oldest “eastern” Villabruna-like individual, but we know IronGates_HG had some other minor substructure not reflected in other WHG. So the refugia for Villabruna-like peoples during the LGM (from 26kya) most likely consisted of the Balkans, Anatolia, and/or the Pontic steppe.

    - The huge amounts of Villabruna-like ancestry in Paleolithic/Mesolithic MENA is what I’m trying to wrap my head around.

    From the Dzudzuana paper qpGraph (since the Dzudzuana genome is such a crucial anchor point, this is probably the best we have to work with thus far):

    Dzudzuana 26kya South Caucusus: 72% Villabruna-like
    Taforalt 15kya Morocco: 40% Villabruna-like
    Natufian 14kya Israel: 63% Villabruna-like

    If the South Caucasus was 28% Basal Eurasian by 26kya, then Basal Eurasian MUST have arrived in the Levant no later than that (they were probably there much earlier—but 26kya is a firm “latest” date). So this would rule out a Villabruna arrival in Europe direct from the Levant, since WHG/Villabruna has minimal if any Basal Eurasian ancestry. But the reverse scenario (Epigravettian migration into MENA) is also problematic, since Natufians and Iberomaurusians lack Villabruna-related y-dna.

    To further complicate things, despite its apparent "eastern" origin, Villabruna-related ancestry makes its earliest appearance at the western fringes of Europe in Spain. Was the earliest Villabruna expansion in Europe an east-to-west Mediterranean phenomenon, maybe coastal hopping via small boats from the Dardanelles to Gibraltar? The two earliest individuals with substantial Villabruna ancestry-- Villabruna (14,000 BP), and El Miron (19,000 BP), are south of the Alps and Cantabrian Mountains, respectively. Bichon and Rochedane (13,500-12,000 BP) in the Alps probably represent the very earliest Villabruna-related push north of the major European mountain ranges.

    - The extremely rapid expansion of Villabruna-type ancestry across Europe from 20kya seems unprecedented for hunter-gatherers. Neolithic replacement of hunters is easily explainable since agricultural yield can just overwhelm hunter-gatherers with sheer numbers. But the speed and near-totality of the Villabruna replacement of earlier HGs (except in Spain) tells me they had some significant technological advantages over their competitors: maybe the bow and arrow, canine domestication? Interestingly the Kebaran Culture which appears in the Levant ~18kya is associated with precisely these two innovations.

    Any ideas/opinions about all this from anyone who’s versed in the archaeology??
    Last edited by K33; 03-15-2019 at 09:30 PM.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to K33 For This Useful Post:

     epoch (03-15-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-17-2019),  palamede (03-15-2019),  pmokeefe (03-15-2019),  traject (03-16-2019)

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,007
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Here's an interesting two-way mixture model from the paper:



    Some thoughts:

    - A population emergent along the Belgium-France-Germany borderlands towards the end of the LGM is directly associated with the spread of Magdalenian culture/genetics. This “Magdalenian HG ancestry” is significantly higher in all the 15kya-16kya “Frankish” individuals (best represented by Goyet-Q2, but also Hohe Fels, Burkhardtstole etc) than El Miron in Spain, despite El Miron predating these individuals by several kya. This indicates Magdalenian Culture spread from northeast-to-southwest. It looks like the Solutrean Culture might provide a genetic bridge between Gravettian “Vestonice” type individuals and the Magdalenian. Perhaps the Solutrean and its Magdalenian offshoot represents admixture between the pre-LGM Aurignacians from NW Europe (“Goyet-Q116-1”) and the Gravettian Culture (“Vestonice Cluster”) of South-Central Europe?

    - The Epigravettian in Italy is obviously strongly linked w/Villabruna ancestry, but Villabruna couldn’t have arrived in force in Italy prior to LGM, since Ostuni from South Italy (28kya) falls very clearly into the Vestonice cluster. Iron_Gates HG (11.5 kya) is the oldest “eastern” Villabruna-like individual, but we know IronGates_HG had some other minor substructure not reflected in other WHG. So the refugia for Villabruna-like peoples during the LGM (from 26kya) most likely consisted of the Balkans, Anatolia, and/or the Pontic steppe.

    - The huge amounts of Villabruna-like ancestry in Paleolithic/Mesolithic MENA is what I’m trying to wrap my head around.
    From the Dzudzuana paper qpGraph (since the Dzudzuana genome is such a crucial anchor point, this is probably the best we have to work with thus far):

    Dzudzuana 26kya South Caucusus: 72% Villabruna-like
    Taforalt 15kya Morocco: 40% Villabruna-like
    Natufian 12kya Israel: 63% Villabruna-like

    If the South Caucasus was 28% Basal Eurasian by 26kya, then Basal Eurasian MUST have arrived in the Levant no later than that (they were probably there much earlier—but 26kya is a firm “latest” date). So this would rule out a Villabruna arrival in Europe direct from the Levant, since WHG/Villabruna has minimal if any Basal Eurasian ancestry. But the reverse scenario (Epigravettian migration into MENA) is also problematic, since Natufians and Iberomaurusians lack Villabruna-related y-dna. To further complicate things, despite its apparent "eastern" origin, Villabruna-related ancestry makes its earliest appearance at the western fringes of Europe in Spain. Was the earliest Villabruna expansion in Europe an east-to-west Mediterranean phenomenon, maybe coastal hopping via small boats? The two earliest individuals with substantial Villabruna ancestry-- Villabruna (14,000 BP), and El Miron (19,000 BP), are south of the Alps and Cantabrian Mountains, respectively. Bichon and Rochedane (13,500-12,000 BP) in the Alps probably represent the very earliest Villabruna-related push north of the major European mountain ranges.

    - The extremely rapid expansion of Villabruna-type ancestry across Europe from 20kya seems unprecedented for hunter-gatherers. Neolithic replacement of hunters is easily explainable since agricultural yield can just overwhelm hunter-gatherers with sheer numbers. But the speed and near-totality of the Villabruna replacement of earlier HGs (except in Spain) tells me they had some significant technological advantages over their competitors: maybe the bow and arrow, canine domestication? Interestingly the Kebaran Culture which appears in the Levant ~18kya is associated with precisely these two innovations.

    Any ideas/opinions about all this from anyone who’s versed in the archaeology??
    My suggestions:

    1) After the Flegran eruptions - which wiped away the Oase related tribes - European HG's recolonized the area in the east Mediterranean.. It is what explains the Levantine Aurignacian.
    2) Magdalenians were descendants of horse and reindeer hunters. Once reindeers receded to the north they followed. The Laacher See eruptions decimated the Magdalenians but their remains mixed with WHG to form the northern Reindeer hunters such as Ahrensberg and Swiderian. The Gravettians in Italy however lived of horses and a lot of plant material. They re-surged after the LGM as Villabruna and weren't so tightly attached to a certain gane to hunt. Hence, every time the reindeer hunters went further north the void they left was filled by WHG. Proof: See the Dzudzuana paper: Kunda has a substantial amount of El Miron..
    3) The farmers didn't overwhelm the HGs. The HGs overwhelmed the farmers. See the farmer Y-DNA being massively dominated by Y-DNA I by the end of the middle Neolithic.
    Last edited by epoch; 03-15-2019 at 09:02 PM.

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    380
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic, Near East
    Nationality
    Murcan
    Y-DNA
    R1b-U152 (Alsace)
    mtDNA
    T2a1a

    United States of America Palestine Germany Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    My suggestions:

    1) After the Flegran eruptions - which wiped away the Oase related tribes - European HG's recolonized the area in the east Mediterranean.. It is what explains the Levantine Aurignacian.
    The eruption wiping out humans in South Europe/Balkans is still up for debate, Oase is just a single sample. But just to be clear, are you saying the Phlegraean Eruption annihilated Basal Eurasians in the Levant too?
    2) Magdalenians were descendants of horse and reindeer hunters. Once reindeers receded to the north they followed. The Laacher See eruptions decimated the Magdalenians but their remains mixed with WHG to form the northern Reindeer hunters such as Ahrensberg and Swiderian. The Gravettians in Italy however lived of horses and a lot of plant material. They re-surged after the LGM as Villabruna and weren't so tightly attached to a certain gane to hunt. Hence, every time the reindeer hunters went further north the void they left was filled by WHG. Proof: See the Dzudzuana paper: Kunda has a substantial amount of El Miron..
    I don't see any mention of the Kunda/Narva samples in the Dzudzuana paper...

    Also, the Gravettians/Vestonice only contributed ~10% of their ancestry to Villabruna per Fu et al; thus Epigravettian/Villabruna was not a continuation of the Gravettian/Vestonice culture but an intrusive disruption of it...
    3) The farmers didn't overwhelm the HGs. The HGs overwhelmed the farmers. See the farmer Y-DNA being massively dominated by Y-DNA I by the end of the middle Neolithic.
    ? Is that why all non-Baltic modern Europeans have substantially more Neolithic autosomal ancestry than WHG ancestry? (excluding the WHG-related ancestry brought via Corded Ware/Yamnaya pastoralists)?
    Last edited by K33; 03-15-2019 at 09:49 PM.

  16. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    113
    Sex
    Location
    Haifa
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & Slavic
    Nationality
    Israel & Russia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b - S17250
    mtDNA
    R0a4

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Russian Federation Serbia Montenegro
    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    But the reverse scenario (Epigravettian migration into MENA) is also problematic, since Natufians and Iberomaurusians lack Villabruna-related y-dna.
    We have 2 possibly Epigravettian Y-happlogroups in the Middle East:
    - R1b-V88
    - I2-Y16649
    Both are minor happlogroups, and indeed were not found in any ancient human remains in Middle East.
    But their TRMCA gives us information that they likely arrived to the Middle East very early, before 12k ybp.

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    My suggestions:
    3) The farmers didn't overwhelm the HGs. The HGs overwhelmed the farmers. See the farmer Y-DNA being massively dominated by Y-DNA I by the end of the middle Neolithic.
    It is an interesting question, that is connected to the end of the LBK. But we should discuss it in another thread.
    Last edited by artemv; 03-16-2019 at 12:54 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Haplogroup L in the Iberian Peninsula
    By E_M81_I3A in forum L
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-20-2018, 10:33 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-07-2015, 01:41 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2015, 10:53 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-28-2013, 08:34 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
  •