Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Just How WHG are modern Europeans?

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    14
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Most likely this WHG-like ancestry represented an Epigravettian or Aurignacian (or both) incursion into the Near East.
    Not "into" but from Near East to Europe is more correct.
    Early paleolithic European hunters alraedy had Near Eastern affinity and human migrations expand into Europe from Near East.

  2. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,106
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Curious one View Post
    Not "into" but from Near East to Europe is more correct.
    Early paleolithic European hunters alraedy had Near Eastern affinity and human migrations expand into Europe from Near East.
    But early paleolithic European HG's had no Basal Eurasian ancestry. And Dzudzuana was pre-LGM and had Basal Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian hunter gatherer paper has a good section about it.

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

     etrusco (05-24-2019),  JMcB (05-24-2019),  K33 (05-24-2019),  palamede (05-24-2019)

  4. #13
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    3,000
    Sex
    Location
    Calne,England
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    Great Britain
    Y-DNA
    E-Y45878
    mtDNA
    H67

    United Kingdom Scotland England Ireland
    Scaled.



    "sample": "Custom:AGUser_firemonkey",
    "fit": 8.1659,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 51,
    "WHG": 21.6,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 15.4,
    "GEO_CHG": 12,
    Please support Mental health research and world community grid

    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to firemonkey For This Useful Post:

     Nino90 (05-25-2019)

  6. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Remember, Barcin_N is only 14% - 44% Basal Eurasian (huge variance in the estimates, since we have no unadmixed BE).... much of the rest of Barcin's ancestry is deeply related to WHG. Most likely this WHG-like ancestry represented an Epigravettian or Aurignacian (or both) incursion into the Near East.
    I kinda hinted at that in the beginning. I know Anatolian Hunter Gatherers and Dzudzuana had around 72% UHG/Villabruna-related ancestry. But what I was interesting in is the amount of real WHG admixture in modern Europeans not villabruna related.

  7. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Remember, Barcin_N is only 14% - 44% Basal Eurasian (huge variance in the estimates, since we have no unadmixed BE).... much of the rest of Barcin's ancestry is deeply related to WHG. Most likely this WHG-like ancestry represented an Epigravettian or Aurignacian (or both) incursion into the Near East.
    So would you say that WHG proper is a mixture of Vestonice16 + Goyet + ANE or was there a distinct common West Eurasian (Proto-Villabruna?) that contributed to both PGNE/Post-Glacial Near Easterners perhaps through the leventine auregnacians (making Villabruna related ancestry much older than we think) and other Upper palaeolithic European samples like Vestonice and Goyet Q2. Given the little evidence for the former situation beyond D stats, I am leaning towards the latter situation. Qu Fu 2016 shown Villabruna related admixture in both Vestonice samples and the magdelanian El miron samples too (although Magdelanians may have contributed to Bichion and La Brana aDNA). Given that WHG has no basal Eurasian admixture (or very little), it is temping to think that a Proto-Villabruna has it origin perhaps in the pontic Caspian or Far south Eastern Europe regions, with migrations south of the Caucasus resulting in the formation of basal rich Dzudzuana like populations, which subsequently that spread into Anatolia. Levant and North Africa. Then these Proto-Villabruna/'Common' West Eurasian spreads westward into Europe proper which replaced or displaced other UP hunter gatherer populations represented by Goyet-Q2.

    But the problem with this scenario is that we see the earliest of full WHG related ancestry in Western Europe despite having Eastern Origins. Was there a Mediterranean only route? An how did WHG rapidly spread and out compete other Forger populations so rapidly (only 3-5 kya!)? The only advances in forager technology I see in this timeline is the spread of Microlithic blade from Siberia (ANE?) and Kebran Culture in the Levant (Bow and arrow and Canid domestication), but WHG does not seem to be heavily influence genetically by these innovations. Another problem with the 'Common' West Eurasia hypothesis is the lack of Y-DNA samples in Tarfoult and Natufian samples. Anatolian Hunter Gathers and Natufian admixed Anatolia_N/Barin had Y-DNA associated with Villabruna tho.

    What is your opinion?

  8. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But early paleolithic European HG's had no Basal Eurasian ancestry. And Dzudzuana was pre-LGM and had Basal Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian hunter gatherer paper has a good section about it.
    So would you say that WHG proper is a mixture of Vestonice16 + Goyet + ANE or was there a distinct common West Eurasian (Proto-Villabruna?) that contributed to both PGNE/Post-Glacial Near Easterners perhaps through the leventine auregnacians (making Villabruna related ancestry much older than we think) and other Upper palaeolithic European samples like Vestonice and Goyet Q2. Given the little evidence for the former situation beyond D stats, I am leaning towards the latter situation. Qu Fu 2016 shown Villabruna related admixture in both Vestonice samples and the magdelanian El miron samples too (although Magdelanians may have contributed to Bichion and La Brana aDNA). Given that WHG has no basal Eurasian admixture (or very little), it is temping to think that a Proto-Villabruna has it origin perhaps in the pontic Caspian or Far south Eastern Europe regions, with migrations south of the Caucasus resulting in the formation of basal rich Dzudzuana like populations, which subsequently that spread into Anatolia. Levant and North Africa. Then these Proto-Villabruna/'Common' West Eurasian spreads westward into Europe proper which replaced or displaced other UP hunter gatherer populations represented by Goyet-Q2.

    But the problem with this scenario is that we see the earliest of full WHG related ancestry in Western Europe despite having Eastern Origins. Was there a Mediterranean only route? An how did WHG rapidly spread and out compete other Forger populations so rapidly (only 3-5 kya!)? The only advances in forager technology I see in this timeline is the spread of Microlithic blade from Siberia (ANE?) and Kebran Culture in the Levant (Bow and arrow and Canid domestication), but WHG does not seem to be heavily influence genetically by these innovations. Another problem with the 'Common' West Eurasia hypothesis is the lack of Y-DNA samples in Tarfoult and Natufian samples. Anatolian Hunter Gathers and Natufian admixed Anatolia_N/Barin had Y-DNA associated with Villabruna tho.

    What is your opinion?

  9. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,106
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Diictodon View Post
    So would you say that WHG proper is a mixture of Vestonice16 + Goyet + ANE or was there a distinct common West Eurasian (Proto-Villabruna?) that contributed to both PGNE/Post-Glacial Near Easterners perhaps through the leventine auregnacians (making Villabruna related ancestry much older than we think) and other Upper palaeolithic European samples like Vestonice and Goyet Q2. Given the little evidence for the former situation beyond D stats, I am leaning towards the latter situation.
    What are the chances that Gravettian ancestry completely disappeared, that GoyetQ116 ancestry underwent an admixture but that Villabruna type ancestry went through the LGM pretty much completely intact? By the way, the Dzudzuana paper shows that a model with Villabruna as roughly 37% Vestonice, 16% ANE and 47% Dzudzuana works (p = 7%). And the AHG paper showed that Middle-Eastern affinity was already present in Ostuni 1 and Magdalenians.

    Qu Fu 2016 shown Villabruna related admixture in both Vestonice samples and the magdelanian El miron samples too (although Magdelanians may have contributed to Bichion and La Brana aDNA). Given that WHG has no basal Eurasian admixture (or very little), it is temping to think that a Proto-Villabruna has it origin perhaps in the pontic Caspian or Far south Eastern Europe regions, with migrations south of the Caucasus resulting in the formation of basal rich Dzudzuana like populations, which subsequently that spread into Anatolia.
    We have Kostenki12 there and that sample didn't show any particular affinity towards Villabruna, apart from the overall affinity all Ice Age Europeans shared.

    Levant and North Africa. Then these Proto-Villabruna/'Common' West Eurasian spreads westward into Europe proper which replaced or displaced other UP hunter gatherer populations represented by Goyet-Q2.
    Since El Miron has WHG admixture that must have happened during LGM. But that is pretty strange, considering that the LGM drove HG's into refugia. Why migrate towards such a remote area?

    But the problem with this scenario is that we see the earliest of full WHG related ancestry in Western Europe despite having Eastern Origins. Was there a Mediterranean only route? An how did WHG rapidly spread and out compete other Forger populations so rapidly (only 3-5 kya!)?
    The answer is twofold: Magdalenians took a huge hit from the Laachersee eruption and the remains were absorbed by reindeer hunting WHG rich populations. Both Loschbour and the Kunda sample have noticeable Magdalenian ancestry.

    The only advances in forager technology I see in this timeline is the spread of Microlithic blade from Siberia (ANE?) and Kebran Culture in the Levant (Bow and arrow and Canid domestication), but WHG does not seem to be heavily influence genetically by these innovations. Another problem with the 'Common' West Eurasia hypothesis is the lack of Y-DNA samples in Tarfoult and Natufian samples. Anatolian Hunter Gathers and Natufian admixed Anatolia_N/Barin had Y-DNA associated with Villabruna tho.

    What is your opinion?
    Muierii has a basal U6* mtDNA . That mtDNA is now found in the Middle-East.
    Last edited by epoch; 05-24-2019 at 07:36 PM.

  10. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    What are the chances that Gravettian ancestry completely disappeared, that GoyetQ116 ancestry underwent an admixture but that Villabruna type ancestry went through the LGM pretty much completely intact? By the way, the Dzudzuana paper shows that a model with Villabruna as roughly 37% Vestonice, 16% ANE and 47% Dzudzuana works (p = 7%). And the AHG paper showed that Middle-Eastern affinity was already present in Ostuni 1 and Magdalenians.



    We have Kostenki12 there and that sample didn't show any particular affinity towards Villabruna, apart from the overall affinity all Ice Age Europeans shared.



    Since El Miron has WHG admixture that must have happened during LGM. But that is pretty strange, considering that the LGM drove HG's into refugia. Why migrate towards such a remote area?



    The answer is twofold: Magdalenians took a huge hit from the Laachersee eruption and the remains were absorbed by reindeer hunting WHG rich populations. Both Loschbour and the Kunda sample have noticeable Magdalenian ancestry.



    Muierii has a basal U6* mtDNA . That mtDNA is now found in the Middle-East.
    I remember Chad stating in the Dzudzuana thread that WHG was not a population outliner like ENA or basal West Eurasians like Ust-Ushim but a mixture of 26,000 Caucasus + ANE + Vestonice. It does nicely explain the near eastern affinity of Mesolithic population, but should there be any traces of basal Eurasian in WHG (even diluted?)? For examples, the Sikora 2018 paper stated that there is an CHG<---->EHG cline, and found evidence that EHG has some basal admixture and near eastern affinity, which explains the presence J* in Karelian Hunter Gatherers. We see no evidence of Basal in WHG samples.

  11. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,106
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Diictodon View Post
    I remember Chad stating in the Dzudzuana thread that WHG was not a population outliner like ENA or basal West Eurasians like Ust-Ushim but a mixture of 26,000 Caucasus + ANE + Vestonice. It does nicely explain the near eastern affinity of Mesolithic population, but should there be any traces of basal Eurasian in WHG (even diluted?)? For examples, the Sikora 2018 paper stated that there is an CHG<---->EHG cline, and found evidence that EHG has some basal admixture and near eastern affinity, which explains the presence J* in Karelian Hunter Gatherers. We see no evidence of Basal in WHG samples.
    And one of the more interesting things is that it's not just WHG that shows near eastern affinity, Magdalenian as well. And even 28.000 year old Gravettian Ostuni 1 shows it.


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

     etrusco (05-25-2019),  palamede (05-25-2019)

  13. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,106
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Diictodon View Post
    So would you say that WHG proper is a mixture of Vestonice16 + Goyet + ANE or was there a distinct common West Eurasian (Proto-Villabruna?) that contributed to both PGNE/Post-Glacial Near Easterners perhaps through the leventine auregnacians (making Villabruna related ancestry much older than we think) and other Upper palaeolithic European samples like Vestonice and Goyet Q2.
    Have a look at this: Apparently Gravettian characteristics already entered the Solutrean.

    The other type of projectile representative of this phase is the shouldered point with abrupt retouch. Its appearance at this time, excluding the ones ascribed to the Middle Solutrean at Parpalló [1], seems to witness a return to the small abruptly retouched projectiles from the Gravettian. This type of projectile is thought to disappear, in fact, from the archaeological record for more than 3000 years, to become dominant in the final stages of the LGM. It is currently argued that their spreading was from an original focus on the center of the final Gravettian of Eastern Europe [9].
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0137308

    The Solutrean is the only unsampled Upper Paleolithic culture. Somehow I have the idea it might give us a clue.
    Last edited by epoch; 05-26-2019 at 07:36 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African
    By Brandon S. Pilcher in forum General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-29-2019, 07:25 PM
  2. rs16891982(C;C) in Europeans?
    By Koppany in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-02-2018, 11:23 AM
  3. Hair and skin colour in Europeans (Modern and Ancient)
    By catman44 in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-18-2018, 03:19 PM
  4. Paleolithic ancestry in modern Europeans.
    By sciencediver in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-30-2016, 03:17 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
  •