Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: The origin of the Gravettians: genomic evidence from a 36,000-year-old Eastern Europe

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    218
    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 epoch View Post
    Kostenki14 is older and looks pretty much like an ancestor. Or at least part of a population that could be ancestral.
    Dates from Table S1, from "The origin of the Gravettians: genomic evidence from a 36,000-year-old Eastern European".

    Kostenki14 from 36,260 ybp to 38,680 ybp Direct date on human remains
    BuranKaya3A from 35,240 ybp to 36,310 ybp Dated on human remains from the same layer
    If we look at high estimation date / low estimation date, we can see that there is no gap between estimations for Kostenki14 and BuranKaya3A.
    But what is more important, for BuranKaya3A we only have dating for human remains from the same layer, but not direct dating. This means that the real margin of error for BuranKaya3A should be much greater. In the article they state that "all dated material (n=4) from the same layer ranges from 37,560-33,850 cal BP".

    So, being formal, we cannot state that Kostenki14 is older than BuranKaya3A.
    Given current margins of error and resolution of our current knowledge on what has happened at this period of time, I guess, it would be more correct to say that Kostenki14 and BuranKaya3A come from genetically more or less the same population, even if Kostenki14 is indeed older. The general goal is to undertand how Eurasia was peopled, and the statement "We know who is the ancestor of BuranKaya3A population - it is Kostenki14 like population" gives us almost nothing.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to artemv For This Useful Post:

     VytautusofAukstaitija (07-03-2019)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,311
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rohlfsen View Post
    It's like Anatolia HG. Probably more like Dzudzuana. Definitely not Gravettian.
    D: Outgroup Anatolian/Dzudzuana Gravettian/GoyetQ116-1 Sunghir = nonsignificant
    D: Outgroup Taforalt Gravettian/GoyetQ116-1 Sunghir = significant
    D: Outgroup Anatolian/Dzudzuana WHG Gravettian/GoyetQ116-1 = significant
    D: Outgroup Taforalt WHG Gravettian/GoyetQ116-1 = nonsignificant
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

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

     Eihwaz (07-03-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (07-03-2019)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,390
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27 FGC17112
    mtDNA
    H5a1

    Simple Dstats mean little by themselves. Iberomaurusians ask for Anatolia HG over anything else, in qpGraph, which is the best tool.

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

     palamede (07-03-2019),  VytautusofAukstaitija (07-03-2019)

  7. #14
    Can we see what Anatolia HG is? your models show Anatolia HG sharing a clade with Natufian, or Natufian and IBM sharing a clade.

    Dzudzuana seemed closer to Anatolia HG than Gravettians if I remember. They also showed mtdna U6 and N. And IBM looked like a Dzudzuana + ANA mix, but unless Natufian has much less Basal Eurasian than we expect - this model is not as straightforward as it seems.

    Perhaps M and U6 and N in both early Paleolithic Europeans is a shared CWE/Villabruna-related motif, seeing that GoyetQ116-1 was an M carrier, and some of those U6 carriers were more affiliated archeologically with GoyetQ116-1 than Gravettians (such as Pestera Muierii 1 & 2 Goyet-Q376-3), or seemed to have substantial non-Gravettian ancestry (if Gravettian admixed) such as Ostuni1 (Vestonice cluster).

    Anatolia HG itself may have European HG ancestry, but more CWE/Villabruna-like than BuranKayaIII-Sunghir-Kostenki.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VytautusofAukstaitija For This Useful Post:

     Helen (07-04-2019),  palamede (07-03-2019)

  9. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,119
    Sex
    Omitted

    Can Dzudzuana be modeled as a mixture of other paleo's?

  10. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    78
    Sex
    Location
    United States
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    N1b1b

    Still trying to make sense of some of the implications here. This has my interest, being an N1b person.

  11. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,311
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    That N1b is interesting as another Gravettian (Paglicci 23 IIRC) was once considered N*, which Jean Manco considered a fluke.

    Another thing. All papers consider Villabruna cluster a pristine lineage. If that would be the case the appearance of this lineage in the Epigravettian must be a migration into Italy. That raises the question where they originated. This paper makes clear that 36,000 years ago there wasn't any Villabruna even near the North Pontic steppe.
    Why not just have WHG originate from their predecessors (Gravettians & Magdelanians) and contemporary neighbors (EHG and Anatolians)?
    It works pretty well for the most part in qpadm and avoids the game of hide & seek. See attached zip file.
    qpadmWHG.zip
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     Cellachán (07-12-2019),  epoch (07-13-2019),  palamede (07-12-2019)

  13. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    78
    Sex
    Location
    United States
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    N1b1b

    Bump.

  14. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,119
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Kale View Post
    Why not just have WHG originate from their predecessors (Gravettians & Magdelanians) and contemporary neighbors (EHG and Anatolians)?
    It works pretty well for the most part in qpadm and avoids the game of hide & seek. See attached zip file.
    qpadmWHG.zip
    It would therefore be very interesting to see if pre-Villabruna Epigravettians are similar or lack some of these ancestry. I have hopes that this paper is a precursor for a genetic paper and there is also the 17,000 years old Romito Cave sample which apparently is being sampled for DNA.

    EDIT: There is an abstract on that Romito Cave sample that has an intriguing text.

    XXII Congresso dell’Associazione Antropologica Italiana https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5c6c2...4b47a9d5d7.pdf

    In the last years, a great deal of genetic data has been published about the human dispersal after the out of Africa and about the genetic contribution of these ancient human migrations to the present-day Europeans. To date, more genetic information is available for the north European while there are fewer genetic data about Italy. Indeed, only few ancient Italian sites have been studied, leading to the identification of two genetic clusters, Villabruna and Vestonice. The Villabruna cluster characterizes ancient samples from Central and Northern Italy, while the Vestonice cluster is related to Paleolithic sites from Southeast Italy. To increase the Paleolithic data and to clarify which populations and how many migrations have occurred during the peopling of ancient Italy, we present the contribution from a Paleolithic sample unearthed in the Romito site, Southwest Italian coast. Following DNA extraction, we built custom libraries and performed Next Generation Sequencing on the Romito’s whole genome. We mapped the resulting DNA reads with BWA, removed the duplicated and filtered out the contaminated reads using the pmdtools algorithm. We then set out to compare our results with all the published ancient DNA data analysing our results acrossboth the mtDNA and the whole genome. Our initial results suggest that the Romito mtDNA belong to an ancient out of Africa haplogroup. The whole genome analysis highlights a genetic cluster which opens a particular scenario in Italy. However, these results should be considered preliminary, since we still need to also evaluate the pattern of phenotypic features.
    Last edited by epoch; 07-13-2019 at 12:31 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     R.Rocca (07-14-2019)

  16. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,119
    Sex
    Omitted

    There is an abstract on that Romito Cave sample that has an intriguing text.

    XXII Congresso dell’Associazione Antropologica Italiana https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post304930

    In the last years, a great deal of genetic data has been published about the human dispersal after the out of Africa and about the genetic contribution of these ancient human migrations to the present-day Europeans. To date, more genetic information is available for the north European while there are fewer genetic data about Italy. Indeed, only few ancient Italian sites have been studied, leading to the identification of two genetic clusters, Villabruna and Vestonice. The Villabruna cluster characterizes ancient samples from Central and Northern Italy, while the Vestonice cluster is related to Paleolithic sites from Southeast Italy. To increase the Paleolithic data and to clarify which populations and how many migrations have occurred during the peopling of ancient Italy, we present the contribution from a Paleolithic sample unearthed in the Romito site, Southwest Italian coast. Following DNA extraction, we built custom libraries and performed Next Generation Sequencing on the Romito’s whole genome. We mapped the resulting DNA reads with BWA, removed the duplicated and filtered out the contaminated reads using the pmdtools algorithm. We then set out to compare our results with all the published ancient DNA data analysing our results acrossboth the mtDNA and the whole genome. Our initial results suggest that the Romito mtDNA belong to an ancient out of Africa haplogroup. The whole genome analysis highlights a genetic cluster which opens a particular scenario in Italy. However, these results should be considered preliminary, since we still need to also evaluate the pattern of phenotypic features.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe - Mathieson, Reich, et al.
    By Gravetto-Danubian in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 630
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 05:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1485
    Last Post: 03-07-2018, 04:52 AM
  3. Evidence for Sorghum Domestication in Fourth Millennium BC Eastern Sudan
    By blackflash16 in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2017, 02:40 AM
  4. New craniometric evidence on the origin of the karelians
    By Captain Nordic in forum Anatomy and Physiology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-30-2016, 01:27 PM
  5. Chemists offer more evidence of RNA as the origin of life
    By Amerijoe in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2016, 05:58 PM

Posting Permissions

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