Modern humans have populated Europe for more than 45,000 years. Our knowledge of the genetic relatedness and structure of ancient hunter-gatherers is however limited, owing to the scarceness and... Show moreModern humans have populated Europe for more than 45,000 years. Our knowledge of the genetic relatedness and structure of ancient hunter-gatherers is however limited, owing to the scarceness and poor molecular preservation of human remains from that period. Here we analyse 356 ancient hunter-gatherer genomes, including new genomic data for 116 individuals from 14 countries in western and central Eurasia, spanning between 35,000 and 5,000 years ago. We identify a genetic ancestry profile in individuals associated with Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian assemblages from western Europe that is distinct from contemporaneous groups related to this archaeological culture in central and southern Europe, but resembles that of preceding individuals associated with the Aurignacian culture. This ancestry profile survived during the Last Glacial Maximum (25,000 to 19,000 years ago) in human populations from southwestern Europe associated with the Solutrean culture, and with the following Magdalenian culture that re-expanded northeastward after the Last Glacial Maximum. Conversely, we reveal a genetic turnover in southern Europe suggesting a local replacement of human groups around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, accompanied by a north-to-south dispersal of populations associated with the Epigravettian culture. From at least 14,000 years ago, an ancestry related to this culture spread from the south across the rest of Europe, largely replacing the Magdalenian-associated gene pool. After a period of limited admixture that spanned the beginning of the Mesolithic, we find genetic interactions between western and eastern European hunter-gatherers, who were also characterized by marked differences in phenotypically relevant variants. Show less
Modern humans have populated Europe for more than 45,000 years(1,2). Our knowledge of the genetic relatedness and structure of ancient hunter-gatherers is however limited, owing to the scarceness... Show moreModern humans have populated Europe for more than 45,000 years(1,2). Our knowledge of the genetic relatedness and structure of ancient hunter-gatherers is however limited, owing to the scarceness and poor molecular preservation of human remains from that period(3). Here we analyse 356 ancient hunter-gatherer genomes, including new genomic data for 116 individuals from 14 countries in western and central Eurasia, spanning between 35,000 and 5,000 years ago. We identify a genetic ancestry profile in individuals associated with Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian assemblages from western Europe that is distinct from contemporaneous groups related to this archaeological culture in central and southern Europe(4), but resembles that of preceding individuals associated with the Aurignacian culture. This ancestry profile survived during the Last Glacial Maximum (25,000 to 19,000 years ago) in human populations from southwestern Europe associated with the Solutrean culture, and with the following Magdalenian culture that re-expanded northeastward after the Last Glacial Maximum. Conversely, we reveal a genetic turnover in southern Europe suggesting a local replacement of human groups around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, accompanied by a north-to-south dispersal of populations associated with the Epigravettian culture. From at least 14,000 years ago, an ancestry related to this culture spread from the south across the rest of Europe, largely replacing the Magdalenian-associated gene pool. After a period of limited admixture that spanned the beginning of the Mesolithic, we find genetic interactions between western and eastern European hunter-gatherers, who were also characterized by marked differences in phenotypically relevant variants. Show less
Louwen, A.J.; Fontijn, D.R.; Linde, C. van der; Pruijsen, M.; Smits, L.; Hees, E. van 2019
In the natural reserves of the Veluwe in the centre of the Netherlands, there are hundreds of mounds that are registered as ‘prehistoric burial mounds’ (Fontijn 2011, table 1.1). Some are protected... Show moreIn the natural reserves of the Veluwe in the centre of the Netherlands, there are hundreds of mounds that are registered as ‘prehistoric burial mounds’ (Fontijn 2011, table 1.1). Some are protected as National Heritage, but many are not. Only a small part has ever seen professional archaeological investigation, and there are many for which no more is known than that they are likely to represent ‘prehistoric burial sites’. This applies particularly to mounds in the municipality of Apeldoorn, where large numbers are known to exist and fortunately protected as heritage, but where in most cases not much is known on their dating, nature or potential significance as source of knowledge on the past. This article presents the results of a fieldwork campaign where three newly discovered, small barrows were investigated that are part of a much larger barrow landscape on which so far nothing was known. In spite of their small size and the fact that some were heavily damaged by forest ploughing, the research yielded detailed information on their use history and the social and ritual significance that they had in the Bronze Age. Even the most inconspicuous mound, of which it was initially seriously doubted whether it was a prehistoric monument, appears to contain the remains of many special prehistoric features. It is argued that this small group of three barrows dates to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the period between the 18th and 15th centuries BC and probably represents what was perceived as one ‘community of ancestors’ among a larger ancestral whole. There are indications that it originated around a location that had an older – Late Neolithic – history. It is suggested that this monument had a special role and was the focus of ceremonial activities the likes of which have so far not been detected in the Netherlands: the deposition of loads of stones and pottery in a pit row directed at the location where a barrow would eventually be constructed. Deceased were buried at two locations nearby, both of whom were also covered by mounds. These were collective graves, in which many deceased of both sexes and all ages were buried and no clear distinctions between deceased were emphasized in the burial rituals. There are similarities in the mode of interment in both mounds, and we suggest these barrows are each other’s successors. The fieldwork at the Wieselseweg shows the high potential small-scale research of inconspicuous and damaged burial mounds can have to further our knowledge on the prehistoric legacy of the Netherlands. Show less
Human remains at the Hardinxveld base camp sites, preserved in different states and under different taphonomic conditions, provide new information on a fairly wide spectrum of mortuary practices in... Show moreHuman remains at the Hardinxveld base camp sites, preserved in different states and under different taphonomic conditions, provide new information on a fairly wide spectrum of mortuary practices in the Late Mesolithic, comprising formal burial, exposure and a form of intentional deposition. The continuation of this same spectrum into the subsequent Neolithic is of help in the interpretation of, in particular, human remains found scattered across sites. This new information we owe to the specific Holocene sedimentary conditions at sites that were silted over shortly after their long-term use. The aforementioned practices may very well be representative of large tracts of the Mesolithic landscape, where information on mortuary rituals is scarce or even altogether absent. Show less
