Supplementary Materials for Genetics and Material Culture Support
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Supplementary Materials for 2 3 4 Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into 5 Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa 6 7 8 9 Leonardo Vallini1, Giulia Marciani2, Serena Aneli1, Eugenio Bortolini2, 10 Stefano Benazzi2,3, Telmo Pievani1, Luca Pagani1,4 11 12 1 Department of Biology, University of Padova, Italy 13 2 Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Italy 14 3 Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 15 Leipzig, Germany 16 4 Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Estonia 17 18 19 20 21 Supplementary Materials include: 22 23 - Supplementary Information 24 Section 1: Material Culture Page 2 25 Section 2: Genetic Dataset Page 11 26 Section 3: qpGraph analyses Page 14 27 Section 4: Paleomaps plotting Page 25 28 29 - Supplementary Figures S1 to S7 30 - Supplementary Tables S1 to S4 1 31 Supplementary Section 1: Material Culture 32 33 Many of the DNA samples discussed in this paper come from sites without stratigraphic association with diagnostic archaeological materials. To 34 overcome this issue, we use layers of sites located in proximity of and coeval to DNA sampling sites (Table S1). 35 Broad DNASample/Proxy Techno- chronological Sample/Site name Country Coordinates References complex range (cal kyr BP) DNASample Vindija M Croatia 46.29 N, 16.07 E ~50 * Leder 2014, Pre-expansion sites in the Levant Ksar_Akil_XXII-XXV IUP Lebanon 33.91 N, 35.64 E ~45-43 2016 Kuhn 2004; Pre-expansion sites in the Levant Üçagizli_F,Fa,Fb-c,G,H,H1-3,I IUP Turkey 35.98 N, 35.96 E ~45-40 Kuhn et al 2009 Boeda, E., Pre-expansion sites in the Levant Umel’Tlel IUP Syria 35.27 N, 38.89 E ~40 Bonilauri, S., 2006 2 Marks, A., Pre-expansion sites in the Levant Boker_Tachtit_layer_4 IUP Israel 30.84 N, 34.78 E ~45-40 Kaufman, D., 1983 DNASample UstIshim IUP* Russia 57.7 N, 71.1 E ~44 * Zwyns et al. Ust_Ishim Kara_Bom_OH_5_OH6 IUP Russia 50.72 N, 85.57 E >45 2012 Derevianko et al. 2013; Ust_Ishim Tolbor-4_layer_4-5-6 IUP Mongolia 49.29 N, 102.97 E ~45-35 Zwyns et al. 2019 Zwyns et al. Ust_Ishim Tolbor-16_layer_6 IUP Mongolia 49.23 N, 102.92 E ~45-40 2019 Zwyns, N., 51.44 N, 108.17 Ust_Ishim Kamenka_A IUP Russia ~45-40 Lbova, L. V, E 2019 DNASample Tianyuan IUP* China 39.66 N, 115.87 E ~40 * 3 Morgan et al Tianyuan Suindonggou_1 IUP China 38.38 N, 106.51 E <41 2014; Boeda et al. 2013 Li et al. 2019; Tianyuan Suindonggou_2 IUP China 38.38 N, 106.51 E <41 Peng et al.2020 DNASample Kostenki14 UP* Russia 51.23 N, 39.3 E ~37 * Sinitsyn and Kostenki14 Kostenki_12_Vokov UP Russia 51.39 N, 39.05 E <40 Hoffecker 2006 Hoffecker et Kostenki14 Kostenki_1 UP Russia 51.39 N, 39.05 E <40 al. 2016 DNASample Oase1 IUP-UP* Romania 45.12 N, 21.9 E ~38 * Tsanova Oase1 Bacho_Kiro_IUP_layer_11 IUP Bulgaria 42.95 N, 25.43 E >45 2009; Hublin et al. 2020 Czech ~41-35 Demidenko Oase1 Ořechov_IV_–_Kabáty IUP ~49.06 N, 16.31 E Republic (underestimate) 2020 4 Czech Richter et al. Oase1 Brno-Bohunice IUP ~49.12 N 16.37 E >45 Republic 2008 Anghelinu Oase1 Românesti-Dumbravita UP Romania 45.49 N, 22.19 E ~45-40 nita 2014; Sitlivy 2012 Anghelinu Oase1 Cosava UP Romania 45.51 N, 22.19 E ~45-40 nita 2014; Sitlivy 2014 Anghelinu Oase1 Tincova UP Romania 45.33 N, 22.9 E ~45-40 nita 2014; Sitlivy 2014 DNASample GoyetQ116-1 UP* Belgium 50.45 N, 5.01 E ~35 * Pirson et al. GoyetQ116-1 Maisières-Canal UP Belgium 50.48 N, 3.98 E <40 2012 Pirson et al. GoyetQ116-1 Spy_Ossiferous_Horizon_2 UP Belgium 50.48 N, 4.67 E <40 2012 5 Dobrovolskay a et al., 2012; DNASample Sunghir UP Russia 56.18 N, 40.50 E ~34 Trinkaus and Buzhilova, 2018 Pitulko et al. DNASample Yana UP Russia 70.72 N, 135.42 E ~31 2017 Khenzykheno va et al., DNASample Mal’ta (MA1) UP Russia 52.9 N, 103.5 E ~24 2019; Lbova, 2019 Tsanova DNASample Bacho_Kiro_IUP_layer_11 IUP Bulgaria 42.95 N, 25.43 E ~45 2009; Hublin et al. 2020 Czech DNASample Zlatý_Kůň S-IUP* 49.37 N, 16.72 E >45 * Republic Adams 2009; Zlatý Kůň Szeleta S Hungary 48.06 N, 20. 37 E ~45-40 Mester 2010 Czech Nejman et al., Zlatý Kůň Pod_Hradem S 49.37 N, 16.72 E ~45-40 Republic 2017 6 Nerudová Czech Zlatý Kůň Moravský_Krumlov_IV S 49.05 N, 16.41 E ~43-42 and Neruda, Republic 2017 Czech Tostevin Zlatý Kůň Stranska_Skala_III-IIIc IUP 49.11 N, 16.40 ~45-40 Republic 2003 Czech Richter et al. Zlatý Kůň Brno-Bohunice IUP ~49.12 N, 16.37 E >45 Republic 2008 36 37 Table S1. Cultural proxies for the ancient genomes analysed in the current work. M: Mousterian; S: Szeletian; IUP: Initial Upper Paleolithic; 38 UP: Upper Paleolithic; * indicates an attribution based on nearby coeval sites, which are specified in the subsequent rows. The coordinates of 39 the sites are taken from the reference articles or from the ROCEEH Out of Africa Database (ROAD) (http://www.roceeh.org). 7 40 1.1 IUP-UP definition 41 42 The definition of a techno-complex is based on the association among specific traits identified 43 and recorded in archaeological assemblages (e.g. typology and technology of stone tools). 44 Depending on the degree of magnification used to define a lithic assemblage, each techno- 45 complex could be seen as more/less similar to others. A broad definition of techno-complexes 46 could be compatible with models of population structure/movement, but this requires a high 47 degree of simplification and the loss of finer-grained differences across the examined sites. 48 On the other hand, a strict definition of a techno-complex could focus on the specificities of 49 each assemblage, hampering the possibility of gaining a more general perspective. Strict 50 definitions of lithic assemblages are in fact more compatible with scenarios of independent 51 development 1. In order to develop a model which considers a wide geographical and 52 chronological scale as the one under consideration in this work, it is crucial to describe the 53 techno-complexes choosing the key criteria that are both able to: i) maintain site-specificity; 54 and ii) identify the general tendencies. The question is how the data are collected and 55 compared and what meaning can be given to them concerning the question of the origin of 56 technical innovations. New technologies could be related to demic movements, cultural 57 diffusion/exchange without implying migration, or parallel convergence, i.e. the same 58 response to common adaptive challenges. Distinguishing homoplasy from homology requires 59 testing a hypothesis on the diversity of cultural traits and understanding it through a 60 comprehensive framework of technological evolution 2–6. 61 The terms Initial Upper Paleolithic, Early Upper Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic, are 62 commonly used in the scientific literature with different meanings. They could have either a 63 chronological connotation or a technological one, or both of them. This paper refers to the 64 term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) to indicate specific techno-complexes characterised by 65 volumetric blade productions and Levallois reduction sequence 5,7 (Table 2). The term Upper 66 Paleolithic (UP) is used to group the lithic industries characterised by the production of several 67 standardised blades and bladelets often together with ornaments and bone tools (Table 2). 68 The non-Mousterian and non-IUP technologies appeared during the Middle to Upper 69 Palaeolithic transition, comprising Uluzzian 8–13, Châtelperronian 14–16, Szeletian 17–19 and 70 Lincombian-Ranisian-Jermanowician (LRJ) 20–22. 71 8 Definition IUP UP Initial Upper Paleolithic Upper Paleolithic Lithic The IUP is a blade-based Blade and bladelet based industries technology production. usually used in composite tools. The reduction sequences use The broad category of UP includes a direct hard hammer percussion, great diversity of techno-complexes platform faceting, and mostly flat- which share the production of faced or semi-tournant cores. The standardised bladelets and blades with blades and some cores resemble a wide range of technical options (e.g. products of Levallois reduction unidirectional debitage by prismatic sequence 5,7,23. Sites in Siberia core, carinated core, burin-cores, and Mongolia are also among others) and percussion characterised by “burin-cores” for techniques 26–33. producing small blades and the exploitation of the narrow face cores 1,24,25. Emiran 34, Bokerian 35,36, Included Bohunician 37–39, Bachokirian 40. Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian techno- 31,32,41–45, Spitsynian 46,47, Ahmarian 48– complex 50, Early Upper Paleolithic 51,52, Gravettian 53–57. Other In some IUP assemblage is Habitual use (especially in the material documented the use of personal Gravettian) of portable art, graphic evidence ornament and formal bone tools representations, musical instruments, e.g. in Levant 23, Bulgaria, Siberia, and various bone tools 26,61,62. and Mongolia 7,58–60. Impressive burials sites e.g. Sunghir 63. Chronologically, the IUP is a long Chronology phenomenon comprised between The various stages of the UP make approximately 50 kya and 35 kya their appearances approximately 42 (calibrated). Its stratigraphic kya. Their stratigraphic position follows 9 position follows the Middle the IUP, Uluzzian, Szeletian, Paleolithic assemblages and is Chatelperroian, LRS. before UP assemblage 17–19s 5,7. 72 Table S2.