Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 211 to 213 of 213

Thread: David W. Anthony Presentation on Steppe Genetics & Societal Organization (March 2021)

  1. #211
    Registered Users
    Posts
    44
    Sex
    Location
    China
    Ethnicity
    Han-Manchuria
    Y-DNA (P)
    O1b-M95

    China
    Forgive me for my different opinions.

    I think we should divide the ancients 40k years ago into two categories. The first category includes IUP-BKs, (y-C1 and mt-M), they are likely to be related to the later GoyetQ116-1, IUP-BKs go deep into Europe and harbor a relatively high proportion of Neanderthal ancestry. Europe is the last refuge of Neanderthals. Therefore, IUP-BKs have a similar situation to Papuans in Southeast Asia -- they are unlikely to expand abroad. Later, the volcanic eruption in Italy was a fatal blow to IUP-BKs, but they were not extinct. There is only one sub branch of y-C1 in Europe, and the combination of y-C1 and mt-M suggests that they come from east Eurasia, and they have been mixed with west Eurasians.

    The second category includes UstIshim and Tianyan (y-K2). Compared with IUP-BKs, they are far away from Europe and harbor a lower proportion of Neanderthal ancestry. It is well known that y-K2 branch is very successful. There is one exception to the K2 branch (Oase1). Unfortunately, he went in the wrong direction. I think Tianyuan comes from west Eurasia.

    According to figure 1 of Hajdinjak et al. 2021, UstIshim and Tianyan have no IUP context. In fact, most early East Eurasians did not use blade technology at all, they use stone tools that are still backward than Neanderthals. It is not a good idea to track the gene flow of Homo sapiens with stone technology. At least it is unfair to the people in east Eurasia.

    References:

    Extended Data Fig. 6 | Neanderthal ancestry in IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals.(Hajdinjak et al. 2021)

  2. #212
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,559
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    C-F5481
    mtDNA (M)
    M8a

    Kyrgyzstan
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard23 View Post
    According to figure 1 of Hajdinjak et al. 2021, UstIshim and Tianyan have no IUP context.
    Ust-Ishim man has no context at all. The single bone of Ust-Ishim man was found literally laying on the bank of the river by an artist who carves bone figurines, he didn't realize it was a human bone. So we don't know archaeological association of Ust-Ishim man, he may have used IUP tools, but we don't know.

  3. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rozenfeld For This Useful Post:

     Howard23 (09-12-2021),  Jack Johnson (09-13-2021),  Megalophias (09-12-2021),  Riverman (09-13-2021),  theplayer (09-12-2021)

  4. #213
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    ANE/ANS is mostly aurignacian like dna with the rest being east asian.
    You are right that EHG and WHG basically are the same population except that the former have an higher contribution of ANE. This map basically tells the whole story of european hunters. Common West Eurasian is ancestral to both WHG and EHG. EHG is different because it has something like 9% ANE. Common West Eurasian is the father of WHG and EHG

    Attachment 46489
    This model seems inaccurate since modern Northern Europeans have around 25% ANE ancestry, and there are also major differences in EHG/WHG phenotypes.

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122

Similar Threads

  1. Societal Structure of Ion Age Estonians
    By Zelto in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 297
    Last Post: 07-11-2021, 09:21 AM
  2. Eurasian Steppe Population Genetics
    By MikkaK in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 06-16-2021, 06:14 PM
  3. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 07-08-2020, 07:59 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2015, 04:52 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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