 O título de este talk é o aspecto da neurodífica inútil, as xinurraciones das xoas arqueológicas e genéticas, e é dedicada ao memoria de Luca Cavalli's Forza. As xinurraciones da neurodífica inútil, o modelo de difusión de danza significa que é o aspecto da xinurración, então os mecanismos da xinurración do aspecto da neurodífica são as xinurras da xinurras e da xinurra. Contra o modelo de difusión cultural eu sinto que o modelo era un xinurro da ideias para que não exista xinurros da população de xinurro, mas o mécanismo da xinurro no modelo é a transmisión dos planos animas e xinurros dos xinurros da xinurro. E o modelo de difusión cultural que é mais genélido, então esses dos modelos são xinurros da xinurro, então nós vamos descansar sobre este tipo de nóvels. Em xinurro, xinurro de difusión cultural nós ensinarámos a estimar que os luces ráquios da neurodíficasen o xinurro da xinurro da phantasm dos 2.0 grs Sino que é o reláxio do análisis que temo a xinurro da xinurro e que a xinurro da xinurro da xinurro da xinurro da xinurro da xinurro da xinurro ou mais precisamente no 1.9 grs ou 2.3 grs. e nós vamos usar que no próximo slide. Então o aspecto de anuísica, apresenta a regresión de distancias e gaitas, foi entre 0,9 e 1,3 km per ano. Nós mostramos este rango como o grubo de tango no slide, então aqui nós temos entre 0,9 e 1,3 km per ano. O excesso rectificado é o tempo do anuísico. E nós mostramos duas líneas que é o rango do anuísico do anuísico como funcione da intensidade de transmisión ocultora. Este parámetro C é o número de anuísicos que convertexam para cada anuísica e generación. Então, por exemplo, se o C é 10, significa que 10 anuísicos convertexam para o anuísico que é either via interfrídeo ou via culturación, paríspaira e farmar e generación. Então nós vemos que a intensidade aumenta, aumenta o valor de C, que é o que nós superemos, porque se a C é maior, o rango do anuísico convertexam para farmar, o que é o número de farmar, o que é o aspecto do anuísico. E estas duas líneas corresponde o máximo e o mínimo de producción de valores, nós fippamos unión, quí site a que as líneas se reivendam e que os anuísicos se salven e que a robots nos facen para que os anuísicos se formem mais importantes para o anuísico, o que é o número de farmar e o anuísico. É xe only the cultural effect defined as the speed minus the denic speed which is the speed for C core 0. This is the denic speed because if c is 0 then zero hunter-ladders are converted into pharnas that there is no reportable measure so the model is purely da denic. So the speed minus the denic speed is the cultural effect relative to the total speed in percentage and from the figures we can plot these parts and we see that Since in this slide, we see that the observed range, which is between 1.9 and 1.3 km per year, is this one. This spread rate are too fast, so this region is inconsistent with archaeology because the model is too fast to reuse the data. So she is residency, so residency hunter-radar were converted by generation. So here we have to disregard this region, we can only consider the region where she is less than 3, and for this region, the cultural effect is less than 48%, so it is less than 50%. So the importance of cultural transmission or cultural diffusion was should be smaller than the importance of the human diffusion. So archaeology implies that the analysis expected in Europe was mainly in the human, according to this model. Later, we will see what genetics implied, and we will see that it adds a lot of information to this very same product. But if we are doing so, we can, since in this session, a topic that is considered is the spread and the presence of new decision, we can consider this interpolation map of the dates of many sites. We see that, as it is well known, that with neolithic time, from the southeast, it's around the Alps, later it climbed the mountains and went to the north, more slowly, because here the isochrons are closer together, and as well it's in the Alps that you need the other regions. In the Mediterranean, it was much faster. Here we can estimate the spread rate in different regions, and as expected, we should have in the Alps and in Europe, it was slower than 0.7 km per year. And in the regions, it was faster. For example, in the West Mediterranean, here we show as diamonds the earliest sites in each region. If the diamond is white, it means that the front arrives in time. If it's black, it means that the front arrives to Earth. For inland travel, without sea travel, it's to Earth. So the model that not agree with the data. The model that agree with the data requires that the jumps per generation, along the coast, are at least of 350 km. So, in this case, the spread was much faster, and about 8.7 km per year, very much faster than the average of 1 km per year. And it's due to it, we think, to these long jumps. Then, finally, we turn to ancient genetics. We have gathered at a race of 16 individuals, a total of 513, whose mitochondria DNA has been determined. We analyzed several cases, because its frequency, which is from here in red, decreases westwards and northwards in five minutes. And it is absent in hunter value. This is what we should expect if there is a different diffusion and some degree of cultural diffusion. Why? Because, for some time, for any given time, the places located farther away from the origin of the expansion still have more hunter values, so the cultural transmission is stronger, and then in the thick marker we decrease faster. This is what is called the genetic plane. This is the same as the previous slide, but here we presented it in a different way. This is the percentage of the neomythic marker, of apple root pain. So, for example, in series, 43% of every neomythic farmers has the neomythic genetic marker, has apple root pain. It decreases to the west and to the north, to Anatolia, Hungary to Asia, Germany, North Eastern Spain, These squares are the earliest, the oldest neomythic data, and this line is a regression, which is nothing but the genetic line. So, the frequency of the neomythic marker decreases as the neomythic wave expands. We also see that for the triangles, which are more recent genetic data, the values are generally slower, so the frequency decreases in time. This is also what we should expect it to be, because in this model we are only assuming that farmers can interpret with or can cooperate hunter-gatherers in their communities. So, since hunter-gatherers do not have neomythic marker, because no hunter-gatherer has been found in Europe with apple root pain, then, as hunter-gatherers are incompleted, the frequency of the neomythic marker of apple root pain should decrease. And this is what we see. So, we found some simulations in order to try to explain this quantity. Simulations begin with some farmers only at this site. Rassamla, which is the oldest PPMD site in Syria, in this database at the rate reported there. We set the initial percentage of apple root pain at the cell in the rate, in the simulation rate, which is a rectangular rate of square cells. At the cell containing this site is the initial site, the origin of the expansion. By trial and error, so that the simulation gives the search percentage at the average location and date of the early farmers in Syria, whose mental condition of DNA is known. So, these are the initial conditions. The right place and the right initial percentage of the genetic marker. All of the grape cells, of course, are the initial yield of the farmers and with hunter-gatherers of the acceleration density. Then, it's known of the rate described as in non-coast-mountain and coaxing. At each node or cell in the grid, at a time spare, the step of one generation, we compute three processes. In other words, in the dispersal of farmers between young bocells with a site of 60 kilometers and probability of 62% of values being obtained from less than a perfect date. And also, she travels farmers up to 100 kilometers so that the arrival times are given with the biological data on average for the east and west Mediterranean. A monoglaborate model could consider, for example, a number of distances in the west of the 150 kilometers we have seen before. But this study was non-simultaneously to the views one. And I don't think it would change the results. It should be the conclusion of this. Then, there are two steps. Each generation, for all nodes or cells in the grid, are cultural transmission and representation of the relation. Cultural transmission is done as follows. Since we have to compute the percentage of the neolithic marker of the apple group K, which, because we want to compare it to the data, we have to distinguish the farmers who have apple group K, pn, and the farmers who do not have apple group K, px. Because the percentage of farmers who have apple group K is the number that's happy, by the total number of farmers who have it plus those who don't have it. And we also compute the number of hunter-gatherers. We state once again that no hunter-gatherer has apple group K, because many hunter-gatherers have been analyzed, and in Europe there has never been found any hunter-gatherer who has apple group K. This is why we are analyzing this marker. If we analyze the number of markers we have to know how many hunter-gatherers have it and their number. So we apply cultural transmission theory to compute the couples. Then it's couples between hunters, eggs, and farmers, either with apple group K, with the neolithic marker, and or without it, x. This is, by this equation, x is the cultural distribution intensity, it's the same parameter as the previously in the archaeological analysis, the cultural transmission intensity, the number of hunters that become farmers per your pioneer and farmer generation. And we also compute the couples of farmers here. Cultural transmission doesn't play in the rules, so she does not appear in the rules. Cultural transmission takes place between hunters and farmers, so between hunters and farmers and orings, but not between farmers and farmers. So here that is not a new bias in the choice of mates. This should be an example. And finally, the production. We apply the production scope of farmers to our zero children, where our zero children have a production rate per farmer. And for 50% of mates, mates we do hunter and farmer, children, that means 50% of mates, because the mother is a hunter-gader because the mate token geogineis transmitters from mother to son. And this is a simple model. In another model of the mother, we show that all mothers are hunter-gaders, which are more in agreement with the number of data, but the results were almost the same. So here we have the results. These are the same numbers of the data as before, and the lines have been obtained from the simulations. If she is equal zero to zero, there is no cultural transmission. There is no hunting hunter-gader who becomes a farmer, so the upload group carry the music marker can not change, so it's constant. The stronger the cultural transmission, the higher the value of she, then the more important the degrees, due to the incorporation of the relative people of the music marker in the population. And we see that she is very small. The archaeological data we have seen before that she must be less than three, but here we find that it is about all point of all two and not very different from these. So genetics should be combined with archaeology, it is possible because you can get more out of additional information. And here there is a minimum, I don't have time to explain it, but it's due to the two words, the England word and the Italian word, and the yellow regions are those in the previous slide, so here are the minimum. And it's easy to understand why one word has a steeper flow and this yields the minimum, it's simply because the distance between jumps is longer for the she word. I don't have time to explain this in detail, but the important point is that if we looked up just from the archaeology, we had that there is a region consisting of archaeology, she must be less than three, but genetics impones a much narrower region, she about 0.02, so only 2% of farmers were involved in cultural diffusion, so 98% of farmers did not play any role either in vertical or horizontal cultural diffusion, which is this conclusion has not been obtained before, but it's in agreement with genome-wide data that shows that the spread was overwhelmingly dimic. But genome-wide data cannot be used to estimate the number of farmers for reasons that they cannot explain, because they don't have time. So under cultural effect was only about 2%. So this concludes my talk. Thank you for your attention.