Here's a dumb question

[Jack Johnson]

Do EHGs have anything Goyet related via the Italian Epigravettian? And by more extreme than Iron Gates you mean they have ancestries related to the other three aforementioned poles of variation?

It's difficult to say. Italian Epigravettians may have some Goyet related ancestry, or their BK1653/Sunghir ratio may be different than the Gravettians we currently have sampled (Goyet is more related to BK1653 than Sunghir). The former might be better supported at this point by mt-U10 (shared with a Solutrean who looks ~100% Goyet-related). Even if they do, it's not a lot, might reach 10%. Water that down with 55% ANE, and some Southern ancestry, and it becomes a little too low to make a direct ascertaining of whether EHG have any Goyet. By more extreme IronGates I mean more Southern ancestry.

Suppose you have an ancient sample that post dates most ANE but is 20% ANE and and 80% WHG. Does that mean he is really 40% EHG and 60% WHG?

It really means EHG and WHG are not semantically useful terms anymore now that we've sampled the whole ANE <-> Italian Epigravettian cline.

Interesting, I remember a poster on AG who claimed that the Gravettian in the Italian Epigravettians was more related to Kostenki than Sunghir, meaning that there’s something more along the lines of BK1653 + Kostenki-related in them, which appears to exclude Vestonice as a direct source. Also there’s a Epigravettian with U10 in common with a Solutrean? What sample is that? And by southern ancestry I’m guessing AHGs and Dzudzuana types.

[Kale]

No, WHG are more related to Sunghir than Kostenki. Not as extreme as Vestonice/Paglicci/Ostuni/etc. I forget which Solutrean and Epigravettians they were, but this is the lineage in question.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U2'3'4'7'8'9a/

[old europe]

No, WHG are more related to Sunghir than Kostenki. Not as extreme as Vestonice/Paglicci/Ostuni/etc. I forget which Solutrean and Epigravettians they were, but this is the lineage in question.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U2'3'4'7'8'9a/

Regarding the vestonice cluster in the Buran Kaya paper they wrote that there was a substracture inside it: Paglicci and Krems looked diffrently from the other Vestonice samples. I wonder if that is due to both paglicci and krems having common west eurasian admixture. Or maybe they had more Goyet ancestry.

[Pylsteen]

Is the WHG component in EHG distinguishable from any new WHG that EHG received? For example by cause of genetic drift or other bottleneck events?

[TanTin]

Is the WHG component in EHG distinguishable from any new WHG that EHG received? For example by cause of genetic drift or other bottleneck events?

The WHG itself is not just a single component.
I doubt if anyone here can give a good definition who is the initial WHG or where these people came from.
If you think they came from ZK / BK / Ust-Ishim  - this is one side . And this side has more in common with Kostenki , Sunghir , Yana.
However there is also another side of WHG, which is also paleo-European or it could be also related to North Africa or Anatholia / Levant. 
As the best example for WHG I would suggest the Loschbour Man, however we have many other examples and they are not the same as  Loschbour .
WHG is just an abstract term for these groups who are similar to  Loschbour but at the same time they may have different proportions of EHG or other components. 

The man of Loschbour  is the last in the chain, the end point of a line connecting  ZK / BK / Ust-Ishim to West Europe.  Kostenki , Sunghir are on this line.  But there are more questions about some other components that are local and Paleo, or some could be later arrivals in Europe,  but not later than 20 000 years before now. 

Loschbour man is a recent  one,  just 6000 BC. All other WHG are in one way or another similar to  Loschbour, but you are not going to find the "original" WHG , who is 25 k old.  Because the typical WHG will be formed at later time. And it is a mixture.

[SteppesThug]

In turn ANE had most of its ancestry from european aurignacian ( around 3/4 of it) the rest being Tianyuan like



Their West Eurasian-related component can be associated with ancestry found among Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers, such as Kostenki-14, Sunghir, or the Peștera Muierii woman,[27] while their East Eurasian-related component can be associated with ancestry found among a population related to the Paleolithic Tianyuan man, who is basal to contemporary East/Southeast Asians.[28][29][30][31][32][33][c][d][34][13][14]

isn't ANE 50% tianyuan like ? 

[Woz]

Loschbour man is a recent  one,  just 6000 BC. All other WHG are in one way or another similar to  Loschbour, but you are not going to find the "original" WHG , who is 25 k old.  Because the typical WHG will be formed at later time. And it is a mixture.

A mixture of what? The problem with WHG's is that they cannot be modeled as a mixture of any pre-Epigravettian components, or even any single pre-Epigravettian population. They are too genetically divergent from everyone else. And to confuse matters further, the Gravettians can easily be modeled as a mixture of WHG's and some other ingredients.

Archaeologically, it's impossible to say where the Epigravettian culture ultimately came from. So, WHG's remain a mystery.

[TanTin]

Loschbour man is a recent  one,  just 6000 BC. All other WHG are in one way or another similar to  Loschbour, but you are not going to find the "original" WHG , who is 25 k old.  Because the typical WHG will be formed at later time. And it is a mixture.

A mixture of what? The problem with WHG's is that they cannot be modeled as a mixture of any pre-Epigravettian components, or even any single pre-Epigravettian population. They are too genetically divergent from everyone else. And to confuse matters further, the Gravettians can easily be modeled as a mixture of WHG's and some other ingredients.

Archaeologically, it's impossible to say where the Epigravettian culture ultimately came from. So, WHG's remain a mystery.

This has been explained already by Lazaridis. I will use his diagram from Dzudzuana (non-published article)  to show it:




There is a new group, that I mark in green.   This New group is mixing with ANE to produce the WHG and the current North African and near East populations. In fact this is very old paleo population,  it has been there for may be 100 000 years .

[old europe]

Loschbour man is a recent  one,  just 6000 BC. All other WHG are in one way or another similar to  Loschbour, but you are not going to find the "original" WHG , who is 25 k old.  Because the typical WHG will be formed at later time. And it is a mixture.

A mixture of what? The problem with WHG's is that they cannot be modeled as a mixture of any pre-Epigravettian components, or even any single pre-Epigravettian population. They are too genetically divergent from everyone else. And to confuse matters further, the Gravettians can easily be modeled as a mixture of WHG's and some other ingredients.

Archaeologically, it's impossible to say where the Epigravettian culture ultimately came from. So, WHG's remain a mystery.

WHG is a mix of 
aurignacian goyet like
Italian gravettian
And BK1653 from the balkan

[TanTin]

WHG is a mix of 
aurignacian goyet like
Italian gravettian
And BK1653 from the balkan

This is not enough. All these are more "Basal". Later WHG go lower on the diagram showing the proportions high-Basal/low-Basal . These 3 are still high on the side of ANE, the question is about other lower side components.

[old europe]

WHG is a mix of 
aurignacian goyet like
Italian gravettian
And BK1653 from the balkan

This is not enough.  All these are more "Basal". Later WHG go lower on the diagram showing the proportions high-Basal/low-Basal .  These 3 are still high on the  side of ANE,  the question is about other lower side components.

Which population in your opinion represents best the non Tianyuan side of ANE?
Goyet, kostenki/sungir or BK1653, pestera muierii?

[TanTin]

Which population in your opinion represents best the non Tianyuan side of ANE?
Goyet, kostenki/sungir or BK1653, pestera muierii?

I don't make big difference between all of them  (Goyet, kostenki/sungir or BK1653, pestera muierii)  These are all on the line connecting WHG to ZK and earlier Bacho Kiro.
BK1653 is late Bacho Kiro and it is not much different from pestera muierii.  The last 2 have the smallest distance between each other.
Another good representative of ANE are Yana.  May be Yana are the best to represent ANE..
Tianyuan  goes on the other side to connect with South-East Asia.
What is hidden in this picture are the real "Basal" Asians..  I don't know why Lazaridis and all did not told us who are the best representatives of the Basal Asians.  In fact  some of these early representatives of the line ZK - WHG are not that much high on Basal.  Like BK F6-620  - there is one with high Neanderthal. Oase is also very high on Neanderthal.  And if you check the definition who are the Basal: Generally Basal are very low on Neanderthal..  So there is more to be added on this picture . (The Basal ).

[Codaman]

Loschbour man is a recent  one,  just 6000 BC. All other WHG are in one way or another similar to  Loschbour, but you are not going to find the "original" WHG , who is 25 k old.  Because the typical WHG will be formed at later time. And it is a mixture.

The earliest WHG-like sample(that I am aware of) is Tagliente 2 or RIP001 from Grezzana, Verona in northern Italy dating back to 16976-16510 BC. WHG is a genotype massively bottlenecked during the LGM(corresponding with the TMRCA of extant I2 branches) and some samples immediately preceding the LGM might be somewhat WHG-like in various degrees but I would say the closest match would be found within a certain radius of Italy, perhaps northern Italy in particular. WHG and related groups from outside Italy should be seen as points radiating from Tagliente towards various other components like ANE/EHG, Solutrean and Pinarbasi depending on the direction of the compass and that would also include Loschbour.

[Woz]

The problem with placing proto-WHG's in Italy or the Balkans is that we have more or less standard Gravettians in those areas before the LGM (Ostuni, Bacho Kiro), and WHG's are not descended from the Gravettians. Unlike the Gravettians, they have no affinity for those Yana_UP, Asian/Siberian type pre-LGM populations. Greece, maybe?

[TanTin]

Do we need to place WHG to one place or another ? There are no proto-WHG. There are several groups who could be the proto-WHG .
" Their genotype massively bottlenecked during the LGM" .
That means initially they were different, but during this bottleneck they were fully homogenized and they were a small population. Others did not survive during LGM.

What we see as WHG seems to be the survivals of LGM from Italy peninsula.
The survivors from Balkans don't look similar to WHG at all.
The only WHG found near Balkans are on the border between Serbia and Romania, which is not far from Italy so they seems to be of Italian origin as well.

The survivors from Balkans seems to be more like the Anatolia HG.
Unlike in Spain, France, Germany and other West Europe, in East Europe so far there are very little signs of WHG and those found at West Balkans seems to be arrivals from Italy.