PDA

View Full Version : The Spread of culture - By trade or population movement



mcg11
08-24-2014, 03:01 PM
There appears to be a strong feeling on many of these threads that culture (pottery, burial technique, new weapons) spread by population movement? An equally valid approach may be that Trade between cultures caused the spread of technology, rather than population displacement? I'm thinking of the period of time in Western Europe between 4K BC and 1K BC particularly. The climate was benign during this period and either could have spread cultural advantages to the West.

Generalissimo
08-24-2014, 03:21 PM
There appears to be a strong feeling on many of these threads that culture (pottery, burial technique, new weapons) spread by population movement? An equally valid approach may be that Trade between cultures caused the spread of technology, rather than population displacement? I'm thinking of the period of time in Western Europe between 4K BC and 1K BC particularly. The climate was benign during this period and either could have spread cultural advantages to the West.

There wasn't a complete population turnover in Western Europe during the period from 4K to 1K BC. But there was a massive movement there from the east, which shows up in all modern analyses especially those with ancient DNA from just before Copper Age.

For instance, when and where did the French get 44% Eastern European admixture from?

http://imageshack.com/a/img746/3434/yyQlpx.png

Source (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105090)

And why can many Western Europeans be modeled as a mixture of a TRB farmer from late Neolithic Sweden and Karitiana Indians from the Amazon?

Link (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/the-gokhem2-factor.html)

That's not to say Amazon Indians invaded Western Europe after the Neolithic. But someone did with the genetic component that they carry.


Interestingly, the Mal’ta boy belonged to haplogroup R* and we tentatively suggest that some haplogroup R bearers may be responsible for the wider dissemination of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry into Europe, as their haplogroup Q relatives may have plausibly done into the Americas.


A geographically parsimonious hypothesis would be that a major component of present-day European ancestry was formed in eastern Europe or western Siberia where western and eastern hunter-gatherer groups could plausibly have intermixed. Motala12 has an estimated WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio of 81% (S12.7), higher than that estimated for the population contributing to modern Europeans (Fig. S12.14). Motala and Mal’ta are separated by 5,000km in space and about 17 thousand years in time, leaving ample room for a genetically intermediate population. The lack of WHG ancestry in the Near East (Extended Data Fig. 6, Fig. 1B) together with the presence of ANE ancestry there (Table S12.12) suggests that the population who contributed ANE ancestry there may have lacked substantial amounts of WHG ancestry, and thus have a much lower (or even zero) WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio.

Source (http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6639v2)

AJL
08-24-2014, 03:58 PM
There wasn't a complete population turnover in Western Europe during the period from 4K to 1K BC. But there was a massive movement there from the east, which shows up in all modern analyses especially those with ancient DNA from just before Copper Age.

For instance, when and where did the French get 44% Eastern European admixture from?

Since Ethiopians are presumably close to Out of Africa and Armenians and Turks close to the farmer populations that so enormously influenced Europe, I think you are reading the chart the wrong way, and you should instead be asking how it is that Poles got to be 44% French.

parasar
08-24-2014, 04:39 PM
Since Ethiopians are presumably close to Out of Africa and Armenians and Turks close to the farmer populations that so enormously influenced Europe, I think you are reading the chart the wrong way, and you should instead be asking how it is that Poles got to be 44% French.

Do you mean 30%?

soulblighter
08-24-2014, 04:54 PM
I feel these migration edge maps are fairly confusing, in that they do not directly indicate migration, but rather affinity of allele frequencies based on statistics.
One cannot guess migration patterns without considering paleogeology, climatology, archaeology and history.
For example, the 44% migration edge from E.Europeans to French could also indicate that the E.Europeans preserve more of the early hunter-gatherer allele frequencies (possibly because of drift or because they were not directly exposed to farming directly from Asia, but instead through other admixed far west European populations with high hunter-gather affinity). Also, I have always noticed that the scatter on world PCA plots for Europeans is of incredibly low variance, indicating they are all very close to each other (leave out the Finns and Russians because they have Siberian affinity), compared to populations elsewhere, so this makes things even more complicated (http://www.harappadna.org/2011/05/more-reference-3-pca-3d-plots/).

mcg11
08-24-2014, 04:55 PM
There wasn't a complete population turnover in Western Europe during the period from 4K to 1K BC. But there was a massive movement there from the east, which shows up in all modern analyses especially those with ancient DNA from just before Copper Age.

arxiv.org/abs/1312.6639v2"]Source[/URL]

this is part of a comment I made on an FtDNA forum: The climatology supports the idea of a wonderful climate in the North Sea/Baltic area from ? to about 6K BC or so; then the W/E (Trade) winds moved south, the North Sea/Baltic cooled; Southern Europe became more hospitable and Northern Africa returned to Desert again. I would argue that these climate changes had a lot to do with increase in WE population, especially from 4K BC on. Note than the world population stayed essentially the same from 10K BC through 5K BC(at about 5Million), and then began doubling from 4K to 1K(50M)!

its not at all clear to me that a "massive population movement from East to West occurred"? To go from 5 Million to 50 Million in 3000 years does not necessarily require a big input, in Western Europe, since it is only a part of the total growth. Also, there doesn't appear to have been a massive genocide involved (this is before Rome).

Agamemnon
08-24-2014, 05:06 PM
Since Ethiopians are presumably close to Out of Africa and Armenians and Turks close to the farmer populations that so enormously influenced Europe, I think you are reading the chart the wrong way, and you should instead be asking how it is that Poles got to be 44% French.

Polako thinks this might have to do with the Proto-Celts... I somehow doubt that.
I also seriously doubt that modern-day Armenians/Anatolians are close to the Neolithic farmers.
I could say the same about Ethiopians.

This study fails in that we cannot assume that contemporary populations are useful proxies if we are to uncover past demographic events.

mcg11
08-24-2014, 05:21 PM
There appears to be a strong feeling on many of these threads that culture (pottery, burial technique, new weapons) spread by population movement? An equally valid approach may be that Trade between cultures caused the spread of technology, rather than population displacement? I'm thinking of the period of time in Western Europe between 4K BC and 1K BC particularly. The climate was benign during this period and either could have spread cultural advantages to the West.

Heres an example of possible trade from a new thread:" But this is not the only reason the awl is significant. The chemical examination of the metal shows it may have come from the Caucasus, some 1,000 kilometers from Tel Tsaf. According to Dr. Rosenberg, while the long-distance commercial ties maintained by village communities in our region were already known from even earlier periods, the import of a new technology combined with the processing of a new raw material coming from such a distant location is unique to Tel Tsaf and provides additional evidence of the importance of this site in the ancient."

My question is: Is this an example of population movement or Trade? I would argue Trade?

soulblighter
08-24-2014, 05:41 PM
this is part of a comment I made on an FtDNA forum: The climatology supports the idea of a wonderful climate in the North Sea/Baltic area from ? to about 6K BC or so; then the W/E (Trade) winds moved south, the North Sea/Baltic cooled; Southern Europe became more hospitable and Northern Africa returned to Desert again. I would argue that these climate changes had a lot to do with increase in WE population, especially from 4K BC on. Note than the world population stayed essentially the same from 10K BC through 5K BC(at about 5Million), and then began doubling from 4K to 1K(50M)!

its not at all clear to me that a "massive population movement from East to West occurred"? To go from 5 Million to 50 Million in 3000 years does not necessarily require a big input, in Western Europe, since it is only a part of the total growth. Also, there doesn't appear to have been a massive genocide involved (this is before Rome).

I think there are many factors that need to be considered instead of a "one size fits all" position.

1) In areas that were already scarcely populated, "Genocide" implies eliminating a few males/families. So this may be a possibility in remote/harsh conditions with few resources or sizable earlier settlements.
2) Some technologies may necessitate settling and colonization by a sizable population (relative to the times), that then thrives in the newly colonized area... e.g farming, while others only require trade and/or settling of a very small skilled elite group (e.g pottery, artifacts).

The impact of elite dominance on genetics seems to always be much smaller/negligible, than impact on culture (where the local masses, especially in the highest and lowest strata, adopt the new culture of the elites to benefit monetarily).

vettor
08-24-2014, 06:34 PM
Polako thinks this might have to do with the Proto-Celts... I somehow doubt that.
I also seriously doubt that modern-day Armenians/Anatolians are close to the Neolithic farmers.
I could say the same about Ethiopians.

This study fails in that we cannot assume that contemporary populations are useful proxies if we are to uncover past demographic events.

Are these new Italian_abruzzo Group the ancient Samnites ,?...........who have always been connected with Armenians


The Kosovars have always been stated as the ancient Dardani group ..............why else would kosovars be represented here?

vettor
08-24-2014, 06:39 PM
I feel these migration edge maps are fairly confusing, in that they do not directly indicate migration, but rather affinity of allele frequencies based on statistics.
One cannot guess migration patterns without considering paleogeology, climatology, archaeology and history.
For example, the 44% migration edge from E.Europeans to French could also indicate that the E.Europeans preserve more of the early hunter-gatherer allele frequencies (possibly because of drift or because they were not directly exposed to farming directly from Asia, but instead through other admixed far west European populations with high hunter-gather affinity). Also, I have always noticed that the scatter on world PCA plots for Europeans is of incredibly low variance, indicating they are all very close to each other (leave out the Finns and Russians because they have Siberian affinity), compared to populations elsewhere, so this makes things even more complicated (http://www.harappadna.org/2011/05/more-reference-3-pca-3d-plots/).

Isn't the origin of Basque always french_basque! ....and not the "spanish" Basque known as Pas_Vasco ( vasco is short for Vasconic and that was always french)

mcg11
08-24-2014, 06:50 PM
the issue I am trying to discuss is Trade vs Pop. Movement. It is not "one size fits all". I repeat that I see very little discussion of the impact of trade on cultural exchange. It may be that there is no data?

There is no doubt about how trade was an important part of the cultures of North America. Although its not the period of interest here, from 600 - 800 AD, the Picts enjoyed extensive trade with the Mediterranean culture. Academia has emphasized Population Movement, to the possible neglect of Trade effects on adaptation of new technologies. Was the Bell Beaker spread entirely by population? I doubt it.

edit: I just noticed a new thread re: trade routes of ancient Eurasia by DMXX. There is a good reference cited: Andrew Sherratt (2004), 'Trade Routes: the Growth of Global Trade', ArchAtlas, Version 4.1, http://www.archatlas.org/Trade/Trade.php, Accessed: 24 August 2014. Which briefly touches on trade in Western Europe as enabled by Rome. There is recognition of the value of Amber from the Baltic. I might also mention that walrus tusks have been found on the "Silk route".

ArmandoR1b
08-24-2014, 07:14 PM
Isn't the origin of Basque always french_basque! ....and not the "spanish" Basque known as Pas_Vasco ( vasco is short for Vasconic and that was always french)

País Vasco. País is Spanish for country.

vettor
08-24-2014, 07:19 PM
País Vasco. País is Spanish for country.

my spanish friend says it means community .............similar to the italian word Paese

DMXX
08-24-2014, 07:58 PM
Do you mean 30%?

The way I interpret it:

French-Italian ---(30%)---> Hungarian
Pan-Slavic ---(44%)---> French

I'm not well-versed with Hungarian history, so can't account for why there's a 30% affinity from the basal French-Italian node with them here.

Generalissimo
08-24-2014, 09:33 PM
Since Ethiopians are presumably close to Out of Africa and Armenians and Turks close to the farmer populations that so enormously influenced Europe, I think you are reading the chart the wrong way, and you should instead be asking how it is that Poles got to be 44% French.

The French receive 44% admixture from a source at the base of the Eastern European branch.

The Hungarians receive 30% admixture from the base of the North Italian/French branch.

Agamemnon
08-24-2014, 09:53 PM
The way I interpret it:

French-Italian ---(30%)---> Hungarian
Pan-Slavic ---(44%)---> French

I'm not well-versed with Hungarian history, so can't account for why there's a 30% affinity from the basal French-Italian node with them here.

Well some scholars suspect that "Proto-Italo-Celtic" was spoken in modern-day Hungary, but I think that's an equally dubious explanation.
One could try to explain this by referring to Roman settlements in Pannonia but that's just as dubious by my standards.

Generalissimo
08-24-2014, 10:11 PM
For example, the 44% migration edge from E.Europeans to French could also indicate that the E.Europeans preserve more of the early hunter-gatherer allele frequencies (possibly because of drift or because they were not directly exposed to farming directly from Asia, but instead through other admixed far west European populations with high hunter-gather affinity).

The result basically shows a migration, or a series of migrations, from the east into France presumably after the Neolithic, but before the formation of ethnic groups like Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and Russians. That's why most French have higher levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry than groups like Basques and North Italians, who incidentally can be modeled as 0% ANE, while the French can't.

Also, the result correlates with the structure of mtDNA H among the French, which falls into the same cluster as that of present-day Volga-Ural groups, rather than into the Atlantic cluster where Basque mtDNA H is located.

http://imageshack.com/a/img673/8576/Q2C6UD.png

Source (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html)

Shaikorth
08-24-2014, 10:37 PM
I feel these migration edge maps are fairly confusing, in that they do not directly indicate migration, but rather affinity of allele frequencies based on statistics.
One cannot guess migration patterns without considering paleogeology, climatology, archaeology and history.
For example, the 44% migration edge from E.Europeans to French could also indicate that the E.Europeans preserve more of the early hunter-gatherer allele frequencies (possibly because of drift or because they were not directly exposed to farming directly from Asia, but instead through other admixed far west European populations with high hunter-gather affinity). Also, I have always noticed that the scatter on world PCA plots for Europeans is of incredibly low variance, indicating they are all very close to each other (leave out the Finns and Russians because they have Siberian affinity), compared to populations elsewhere, so this makes things even more complicated (http://www.harappadna.org/2011/05/more-reference-3-pca-3d-plots/).

In those PCA's Europeans tend to form big group between Sardinians and far northeast europeans + Mordovians. This is probably not a coincidence because the Sardinians are closest to the neolithic farmers. The highest f3 admixture stat caused by two contemporary European populations for French is not caused by, say, Basque and German/Dutch but Sardinian and Chuvash from Volga-Ural region, and that is followed by Sardinians paired with populations like Finns, Lithuanians, Erzya and Northern Russians. http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-gokhem2-factor.html

That would sit pretty well with French getting admix from something that is a shared "root" for Eastern Europeans from Hungarians to North Russians.

Generalissimo
08-24-2014, 10:47 PM
The French definitely have admixture from far to the east that came to what is now France after the Neolithic. We've seen two major papers on this now, with the same French sample being used as in this study.

The only questions here are who was migrating and what were their paternal lineages?

It'll be pretty awesome if it turns out we're talking about the ancestors of these guys buried with their horses, but only their genomes can verify that.


Near a Celtic stronghold in France, a burial dating to about A.D. 100 held the remains of eight men and eight horses. Archaeologist David Anthony thinks that in the Indo-European tradition, eight warriors may have been the ideal complement of youthful war bands.

Source (http://www.academia.edu/5121799/Archaeologists_digging_a_Bronze_Age_site_on_the_Ru ssian_steppes_are_using_evidence_from_language_and _mythology_to_understand_a_remarkable_discovery)

soulblighter
08-24-2014, 11:37 PM
The result basically shows a migration, or a series of migrations, from the east into France presumably after the Neolithic, but before the formation of ethnic groups like Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and Russians. That's why most French have higher levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry than groups like Basques and North Italians, who incidentally can be modeled as 0% ANE, while the French can't.



Of course, I agree with an eastern migration into France, after all once the ice receded, it opened the doorway for entry from the east and the south. Unfortunately, I cannot read the paper(behind a pay wall). How do they decidedly claim that the signatures we see in populations today was from a migration after the neolithic? Is it based on mtDNA H?
I never thought about tying ANE to the neolithic. Wouldn't the variation in EEF between NW and NE Europe be a better indicator?


In those PCA's Europeans tend to form big group between Sardinians and far northeast europeans + Mordovians. This is probably not a coincidence because the Sardinians are closest to the neolithic farmers. The highest f3 admixture stat caused by two contemporary European populations for French is not caused by, say, Basque and German/Dutch but Sardinian and Chuvash from Volga-Ural region, and that is followed by Sardinians paired with populations like Finns, Lithuanians, Erzya and Northern Russians. http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-gokhem2-factor.html

That would sit pretty well with French getting admix from something that is a shared "root" for Eastern Europeans from Hungarians to North Russians.

Yes I agree that the shared root is ANE like frequencies for sure. But I am missing the reason why this is tied to after the neolithic (I am not saying it happened before, but wondering how they are conclusive about that).

Generalissimo
08-24-2014, 11:45 PM
Of course, I agree with an eastern migration into France, after all once the ice receded, it opened the doorway for entry from the east and the south. Unfortunately, I cannot read the paper(behind a pay wall). How do they decidedly claim that the signatures we see in populations today was from a migration was after the neolithic? Is it based solely on mtDNA H?
I never thought about tying ANE to the neolithic. Wouldn't the variation in EEF between NW and NE Europe be a better indicator?

ANE didn't come to France during the Neolithic, because Western European Neolithic farmers like Stuttgart, Gokhem2 and Oetzi lacked ANE. It got there after the Neolithic, and this is why French Basques have less of it, because they've been an isolate from mainstream Europe since then.

But it's unlikely that a purely ANE population migrated to France. It was probably of mixed origin, and carrying mtDNA H lineages more typical of Eastern European Neolithic farmers than those from the Atlantic.

Jean M
08-25-2014, 08:49 AM
Unfortunately, I cannot read the paper(behind a pay wall).

The data from Brotherton et al 2013 is in my tables http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml

The abstract:


Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (> 40%), yet was less common (c. 19%) among Early Neolithic farmers c. 5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this ‘real-time’ genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (c. 5450 BC) and Bronze Age (c. 2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (c. 4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (c. 2800 BC).

In fact what has really changed the minds of geneticists from a simple view of two migrations (Palaeolithic and Neolithic) shaping the genetic pool of Europe to recognition of at least one further migration in the post Neolithic is the fact that Y-DNA R has not yet turned up in ancient DNA in Europe until the Copper/Bronze Age (plus the Lazarides full-genome equivalent). But obviously, people who have been doing a massive study of ancient mtDNA in one region of Germany want to make the most of the data from that.

Hando
08-25-2014, 07:45 PM
The result basically shows a migration, or a series of migrations, from the east into France presumably after the Neolithic, but before the formation of ethnic groups like Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and Russians. That's why most French have higher levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry than groups like Basques and North Italians, who incidentally can be modeled as 0% ANE, while the French can't.

Are you saying the hunter gatherer ancestry of the French was WHG or ANE? I assumed hunter gatherers were WHG, but that it was ANE that migrated to France from East Europe, not WHG. It appears like you are saying the French have a high level of ANE carrying hunter gatherer ancestry.

Jean M
08-26-2014, 09:52 AM
I assumed hunter gatherers were WHG, but that it was ANE that migrated to France from East Europe, not WHG. It appears like you are saying the French have a high level of ANE carrying hunter gatherer ancestry.

If you look at Ancestral Journeys, pp. 104-5, you will see what is meant here. I phrase it in terms of mtDNA. The Copper/Bronze Age migration was from a region where hunter-gatherers had adopted farming. So these people carried some hunter-gatherer mtDNA U. They reintroduced it into some areas that had been solidly farmer mtDNA. Razib Khan calls my theory 'the revenge of the hunter-gatherers.' :)

PIE speakers were not 100% ANE. Generalissimo made that point some time ago. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1832-So-are-the-ANEs-the-root-of-PIE&p=25894&viewfull=1#post25894

Hando
08-26-2014, 07:15 PM
If you look at Ancestral Journeys, pp. 104-5, you will see what is meant here. I phrase it in terms of mtDNA. The Copper/Bronze Age migration was from a region where hunter-gatherers had adopted farming. So these people carried some hunter-gatherer mtDNA U. They reintroduced it into some areas that had been solidly farmer mtDNA. Razib Khan calls my theory 'the revenge of the hunter-gatherers.' :)

PIE speakers were not 100% ANE. Generalissimo made that point some time ago. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1832-So-are-the-ANEs-the-root-of-PIE&p=25894&viewfull=1#post25894

The revenge of the hunter gatherers. I like that. It says it all really. Although I realise these hunter gatherers who did adopt farming and then spread it to France, were not 100% WHG, but an admixture of WHG+EEF+ANE. I suppose they must've been significantly WHG though, if their descendants in France had it in such a high number. And of course they had ANE which is lacking in Basques an North Italians.

vettor
08-26-2014, 07:19 PM
The revenge of the hunter gatherers. I like that. It says it all really. Although I realise these hunter gatherers who did adopt farming and then spread it to France, were not 100% WHG, but an admixture of WHG+EEF+ANE. I suppose they must've been significantly WHG though, if their descendants in France had it in such a high number. And of course they had ANE which is lacking in Basques an North Italians.

north-italians has 10 points of ANE which is similar to south-french ....................is this number is irrelevant then so be it

ArmandoR1b
08-28-2014, 12:59 PM
my spanish friend says it means community .............similar to the italian word Paese

I am a Spanish speaker. You should ask your friend how he says country in Spanish. You should also look up the definition of país in the dictionary of the official keeper of Spanish called Real Academia Española (RAE) or Royal Spanish Academy. The first word in the definition of país is nación or nation. So it does mean country. If we say countries of the world we say "los países del mundo" Notice that the DRAE (diccionario de la Real Academia Española) does not list comunidad as one of it's definitions -

país.

(Del fr. pays).

1. m. Nación, región, provincia o territorio.

http://lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?val=pa%EDs&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

País Vasco is an autonomous community in Spain so when we say País Vasco or Basque Country we aren't being literal that it is a country separate from Spain. It has to abide by the constitution of Spain, just like all of the other autonomous communities do such as Aragón, Cataluña, Asturias, Galicia, and so. However, we don't use the word país for those other autonomous communities. They are called what they are - comunidades autónomas.

Alanson
08-28-2014, 05:21 PM
I think trade does help spread the seeds of the culture. The prefect example is how Indonesia and the Malay world for example adopted Islam with the Arabo-Persian traders, who came from Yemen, Iraq, and Persia. Well Southern Syria had total change in culture due to population movement, mostly due to the Mongol and Timurid rule which devastated the area, and a movement of Arabian Bedouin tribes came to the region. Hence the former culture was completely changed by population movement. Also another population movement was the change of the culture of Anatolia and Azerbaijan with the incoming Oghuz tribes who intermixed with the locals and hence both Oghuz and the native cultures intermingled as this can be observed.

vettor
08-28-2014, 06:31 PM
I am a Spanish speaker. You should ask your friend how he says country in Spanish. You should also look up the definition of país in the dictionary of the official keeper of Spanish called Real Academia Española (RAE) or Royal Spanish Academy. The first word in the definition of país is nación or nation. So it does mean country. If we say countries of the world we say "los países del mundo" Notice that the DRAE (diccionario de la Real Academia Española) does not list comunidad as one of it's definitions -

país.

(Del fr. pays).

1. m. Nación, región, provincia o territorio.

http://lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?val=pa%EDs&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

País Vasco is an autonomous community in Spain so when we say País Vasco or Basque Country we aren't being literal that it is a country separate from Spain. It has to abide by the constitution of Spain, just like all of the other autonomous communities do such as Aragón, Cataluña, Asturias, Galicia, and so. However, we don't use the word país for those other autonomous communities. They are called what they are - comunidades autónomas.

thanks

he still says community and sent me

País Vasco [paˈiz ˈβasko]; French: Pays Basque) is an autonomous community of northern Spain. It includes the Basque provinces of Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa, also called Historical Territories.

it says community.............it is what it is

mcg11
08-28-2014, 09:20 PM
Thanks for your observations. They are very pertinent to this thread. Why I brought up trade as important is because in western Europe in the time frame I mentioned, much of the travel would have been by water (Danube, Mediterranean). Ships were small and travel limited due to supplies (food and water). It takes generations to build up population centers and create centers of power.

However trade is a much more needed event. It brings new ideas, and goods and services. The trader may instigate new travel by romanticizing the "lands of honey and gold" he visited. But in general, he doesn't create massive displacement of people unless the living conditions become so bad, that people can no longer exist in an area.

I see trade as a more dominant force, than wholesale displacement, of peoples during the time period of 4K BC to 1K BC. Possibly, one of the reasons for lack of some Hgs in early Western Europe, may have more to do with religious practices, e.g. cremation, than lack of that Hg in the area? It would seem very odd to me that the indigenous peoples of western Europe didn't propagate and grow during this time period?

Jean M
08-30-2014, 10:04 PM
Possibly, one of the reasons for lack of some Hgs in early Western Europe, may have more to do with religious practices, e.g. cremation, than lack of that Hg in the area?

Cremation may distort the aDNA record in certain circumstances. If cremation is the dominant form of body disposal (as for example in the Urnfield Culture) then (at the moment anyway) aDNA can only be extracted from a few atypical burials within that culture, who could be "foreigners". So we need to treat the results with care. They may not reflect the dominant haplogroups within that culture.

However this does not make any difference to the discoveries outlined above, which are not confined to a single culture, but relate to entire periods in European prehistory.

The difficulty of getting Y-DNA from remains going back to the Mesolithic or earlier has been a technical one that has only recently been overcome. It wasn't caused by a total lack of inhumations, though early remains are relatively rare. The results were as long expected by members of this forum and predicted by me in AJ as regards haplogroup I. The C1a2 was a surprise specifically, but as an example of a haplogroup existing in Mesolithic Europe, but extremely rare today, it fits the expected pattern. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

Y-DNA G2a has now been found in sufficient European Neolithic sites to look a strong contender for a major component in the Neolithic spread, and we have the expected I2a2 and E1b1b1a1b in the Neolithic too. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

Of course we need much, much more ancient Y-DNA to get the full picture, but cremation is not the big problem standing in our way. It's more a question of cash.

See http://www.spoilheap.co.uk/burial.htm

mcg11
09-01-2014, 03:12 PM
I am wary of broad theories like the "wave of advance". The major problem in North and South America was disease! Disease killed more indigineous peoples than anything else that I am aware of?

We seem to have all the major MtDNA haplotypes. It may be a cash issue now, it was possibly technical before. If R was in Siberia 24K years ago, given the East-West corridor that existed 10K to 7K across northern Europe, its hard for me to imagine that R!b wasn't in Western Europe before the Neolithic?

Jean M
09-01-2014, 03:41 PM
its hard for me to imagine that R!b wasn't in Western Europe before the Neolithic?
Take comfort. You are not alone. Lots of geneticists totally lacked the imagination to foresee this outcome. They were taken by surprise. They were amazed. They just couldn't think when R1b and R1a could have spread across Europe if it wasn't in the Mesolithic or Neolithic. It was a huge mystery to them.

Of course some people on this forum had been surmising for years that it happened in the Copper Age with the spread of Indo-European languages, but I only went into print with this last year, round about the time that two or three review papers by geneticists were finally coming to roughly the same conclusion. The full story from ancient DNA will take anything up to 10 more years to come out, I'd guess. So there are still plenty of people around who just can't believe it.

In fact there are still archaeologists who can't believe that farming was spread into Europe by real live farmers from the Near East, despite the recent outpouring of genetic evidence. Some of them will probably go to their graves unable to take in such an upset to their convictions.

Jean M
09-01-2014, 05:12 PM
two or three review papers by geneticists were finally coming to roughly the same conclusion.

One of these has just moved from preprint to print: Joseph K. Pickrell and David Reich, Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA, Trends in Genetics, September 2014, Vol. 30, No. 9.

http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525%2814%2900120-6.pdf

Kwheaton
09-03-2014, 02:29 AM
Jean,
Just reading the Pickrell Reich paper. AWESOME!

parasar
09-03-2014, 01:46 PM
...

In fact there are still archaeologists who can't believe that farming was spread into Europe by real live farmers from the Near East, despite the recent outpouring of genetic evidence. Some of them will probably go to their graves unable to take in such an upset to their convictions.
What genetic evidence?
The non WHG part of EEF is likely the oldest component in Europe.

Agamemnon
09-03-2014, 02:05 PM
The non WHG part of EEF is likely the oldest component in Europe.

Really? I'm curious as to what compels you to produce such a claim.

Jean M
09-03-2014, 02:09 PM
What genetic evidence? The non WHG part of EEF is likely the oldest component in Europe.

What a strange idea Parasar! You are at odds with all the geneticists who have been involved with the study of these components. So it might help to avoid confusion for other readers if you made it clear that your opinion is entirely your own totally unsupported view. The non-WHG part of EEF has not been found in Mesolithic human samples in Europe. You may want to go on believing something different until we have aDNA from every corner of Europe, but "wishing to be" is not the same as "likely to be."

However the evidence to which I refer is actually ancient mtDNA. It's on my website. It's in my book. If you don't want to believe it, that's your prerogative. As I said above, you are are not alone. There are plenty of people currently fighting the tide of evidence. That is entirely predictable. Paradigm change is never easy.

R.Rocca
09-03-2014, 02:59 PM
What genetic evidence?
The non WHG part of EEF is likely the oldest component in Europe.

The non-WHG portion of EEF is Lazaridis' BE (Basal Eurasian). The Loschbour WHG had no BE. If BE was in Europe in any large quantities when the ice sheets retreated, Loschbour would have BE, which is doesn't. BE is likely a snap-shot of the first farmers that entered Europe before they mixed with European hunter-gatherers.

ADW_1981
09-03-2014, 03:03 PM
The non-WHG portion of EEF is Lazaridis' BE (Basal Eurasian). The Loschbour WHG had no BE. If BE was in Europe in any large quantities when the ice sheets retreated, Loschbour would have BE, which is doesn't. BE is likely a snap-shot of the first farmers that entered Europe before they mixed with European hunter-gatherers.

What if the Basal portion represents hunter gatherers who never left southern Europe? I can't imagine that there would be a mass exodus into northern Europe once the ice age receded, though migration must have happened. There's a good 6,000 years + of differentiation before farmers began arriving into Europe.

R.Rocca
09-03-2014, 03:14 PM
What if the Basal portion represents hunter gatherers who never left southern Europe? I can't imagine that there would be a mass exodus into northern Europe once the ice age receded, though migration must have happened. There's a good 6,000 years + of differentiation before farmers began arriving into Europe.

The Iberian Western Hunter Gatherer (La Braña) is closest to the Loschbour WHG in all PCRs I've seen, and they are 7000 and 8000 years old respectively. So, that scenario is highly unlikely.

EDIT: For clarity - the La Braña and Loschbour WHGs are closest to each other on all PCRs and 7000-8000 is just before the start of the Neolithic in Europe. So there is almost no time gap between these two geographically dispersed but genetically close WHGs and the first European farmers.

nuadha
09-03-2014, 03:52 PM
What a strange idea Parasar! You are at odds with all the geneticists who have been involved with the study of these components. So it might help to avoid confusion for other readers if you made it clear that your opinion is entirely your own totally unsupported view. The non-WHG part of EEF has not been found in Mesolithic human samples in Europe. You may want to go on believing something different until we have aDNA from every corner of Europe, but "wishing to be" is not the same as "likely to be."

Wow, you might want to take it down a notch. We still do not know where EEF came from and we have not tested enough of Mesolithic Europe to exclude that as a possibility. We know Mesolithic Europe was host to some pretty divergent ancestries which contributed to the genetic diversity of Mesolithic Europe; ie the ANE vs WHG. Despite the common suggestion, by researchers, that EEF is largely derived from neolithic migrants of the middle east during the Neolithic, I would not be surprised if EEF was prominent in Southeast Europe during the Mesolithic.

as for the disclaimer you want him to include, I don't see you putting a disclaimer next to your numberous posts which propose that r1b/pre italo-celtic moved from Southeast Europe to Spain by way of sea and supplanted the earliest bell beakers in Iberia who would eventually change the genetic landscape of large areas.

nuadha
09-03-2014, 04:02 PM
The Iberian Western Hunter Gatherer (La Braña) is closest to the Loschbour WHG in all PCRs I've seen, and they are 7000 and 8000 years old respectively. So, that scenario is highly unlikely.

EDIT: For clarity - the La Braña and Loschbour WHGs are closest to each other on all PCRs and 7000-8000 is just before the start of the Neolithic in Europe. So there is almost no time gap between these two geographically dispersed but genetically close WHGs and the first European farmers.

technically, la brana, loschbour, and the Scandinavian hgs could all derive their whg ancestry from the Iberian refuge. on the other hand, southeastern Europe could have been diversifying away from the former from before the ice age along with genetic exchanges to and fro Asia minor for instance.

do we know about the expansions of southeast Europeans during the Mesolithic? did they move northward in mass?

Jean M
09-03-2014, 04:03 PM
I don't see you putting a disclaimer next to your numerous posts which propose that r1b/pre italo-celtic moved from Southeast Europe to Spain by way of sea and supplanted the earliest bell beakers in Iberia who would eventually change the genetic landscape of large areas.

You seem somewhat confused. :biggrin1: I've never said that. But not to worry. It is a complex topic, easy to get confused about. As for disclaimers, I'd say I'm noted for them. I'm forever pointing out when I am just speculating, and we await evidence. :biggrin1:

R.Rocca
09-03-2014, 04:36 PM
technically, la brana, loschbour, and the Scandinavian hgs could all derive their whg ancestry from the Iberian refuge. on the other hand, southeastern Europe could have been diversifying away from the former from before the ice age along with genetic exchanges to and fro Asia minor for instance.

do we know about the expansions of southeast Europeans during the Mesolithic? did they move northward in mass?

Anything is possible, but haplogroup I2a "Dinaric" runs south-north in the Balkans and eastern Europe, so I doubt there was much diversification between the Iberian and Balkan refuge area expansions. Regarding south-east Europe, the statement I responded to was a generalization of southern WHG versus northern WHG, so La Braña was very relevant. Just like the Swedish WHG had some ANE and the Stuttgart EEF had some WHG, of course south-east Europe could have had some Basal European prior to the Neolithic, but the data we have to date tells us it was likely very minimal. Davidski has simulated the removal of WHG from EEF and the closest current population in his projections for his version of Basal Eurasian is modern day Bedouins of Saudi Arabia, which is quite a distance from Anatolia, so let's not assume Anatolians were 100% Basal European Farmers either.

nuadha
09-03-2014, 04:36 PM
You seem somewhat confused. :biggrin1: I've never said that. But not to worry. It is a complex topic, easy to get confused about. As for disclaimers, I'd say I'm noted for them. I'm forever pointing out when I am just speculating, and we await evidence. :biggrin1:

what part am I confusing or misattributing to you? as far as i know you have made the chain of claims that: a group of yamnaya moved westward to the danube and carried with them both r1b and pre italo-celtic. some of them splintered off from the main group, and moved westward via a trade network along the northern mediterranean, which was marked by their tumuli. it was this splinter group that brought r1b and pre italo-celtic to iberia and supplanted the early maritime bell beakers, which were in fact a part of that trade network mentioned above. to finish the story, you think that the bell beakers from iberia spread to central europe where they met their r1b cousins, from southeast europe, who had all the while been moving up the danube in large numbers. the two groups mingled, the largest component being the group that moved up the danube, and moved west.

ADW_1981
09-03-2014, 04:38 PM
The Iberian Western Hunter Gatherer (La Braña) is closest to the Loschbour WHG in all PCRs I've seen, and they are 7000 and 8000 years old respectively. So, that scenario is highly unlikely.

EDIT: For clarity - the La Braña and Loschbour WHGs are closest to each other on all PCRs and 7000-8000 is just before the start of the Neolithic in Europe. So there is almost no time gap between these two geographically dispersed but genetically close WHGs and the first European farmers.

Would you anticipate a hunter-gatherer from Franchthi cave be very similar to a Loschbour or a La Brana? Recently, a Greek man turned up C1a2 on the Eupedia forums, but I'd still like to see a more similarly ancient easterly sample to confirm this.

R.Rocca
09-03-2014, 04:47 PM
Would you anticipate a hunter-gatherer from Franchthi cave be very similar to a Loschbour or a La Brana? Recently, a Greek man turned up C1a2 on the Eupedia forums, but I'd still like to see a more similarly ancient easterly sample to confirm this.

La Braña also belonged to haplogroup C, so I don't think it would matter much, but as I wrote in my last post, I would not be shocked if some south-eastern pre-farming hunter-gatherers had some minor amounts of Basal Eurasian.

Jean M
09-03-2014, 04:52 PM
... supplanted the early maritime bell beakers ...

That's where you went wrong. The Maritime Bell Beakers (earliest c. 2800-2900 BC) are later than the early Copper Age arrivals (c. 3100 BC) that we can link to anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia, and spring from them, as shown by Harrison and Heyd. But as I said, not to worry. It's all very complex, and I've changed my mind on some points since AJ. My nearly latest thinking is on another thread somewhere, if anybody's interested, but it is still in the process of being reshaped.

nuadha
09-03-2014, 05:00 PM
Anything is possible, but haplogroup I2a "Dinaric" runs south-north in the Balkans and eastern Europe, so I doubt there was much diversification between the Iberian and Balkan refuge area expansions. Regarding south-east Europe, the statement I responded to was a generalization of southern WHG versus northern WHG, so La Braña was very relevant. Just like the Swedish WHG had some ANE and the Stuttgart EEF had some WHG, of course south-east Europe could have had some Basal European prior to the Neolithic, but the data we have to date tells us it was likely very minimal. Davidski has simulated the removal of WHG from EEF and the closest current population in his projections for his version of Basal Eurasian is modern day Bedouins of Saudi Arabia, which is quite a distance from Anatolia, so let's not assume Anatolians were 100% Basal European Farmers either.

wait, is the I2 in loschbour and the hg swedes a strong indicator that they had heritage from ice age southeast europe? i thought the I2 could have been in multiple ice age refugium.

as for the work eurogenes did i have a few questions. One is wether or not it is even correct to try and separate basal eurasian from the whg-like ancestry in EEF. maybe they were NOT separated during the mesolithic or ever... Another thing is that if we assume there was such a pure basel eurasian during the neolithic, we definitely wouldnt see modern turks or greeks as a good approximation since they both have become to admixed. could it be that there was enough genetic similarity between greece and the levant during the mesolithic that when highly divergent ANE and WHG ancestry entered greece and turkey, it pushed the both of them further from the basal eurasian EEF than the beduins?

i think its likely that the basal eurasian in EEF came from the levant but im still not convinced...

Jean M
09-03-2014, 05:12 PM
Would you anticipate a hunter-gatherer from Franchthi cave be very similar to a Loschbour or a La Brana?

Hard to say. The real problem with the idea that the early farmers in Europe could be descended from Mesolithic people of Greece is that there is a distinct chronological break between the (few) Mesolithic sites in Greece and those of the first farmers, who turned up with the complete Neolithic package from the Near East. We can trace the progress of the latter, island-hopping from the Near East via Cyprus and Crete, bringing with them crops and animals which were mainly not native to Europe. Europe did have native boars and aurochs, but the domesticated pigs and cattle brought by the early farmers were not descended from the European varieties, but those of the Near East.

nuadha
09-03-2014, 05:24 PM
That's where you went wrong. The Maritime Bell Beakers (earliest c. 2800-2900 BC) are later than the early Copper Age arrivals (c. 3100 BC) that we can link to anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia, and spring from them, as shown by Harrison and Heyd.

ok


But as I said, not to worry. It's all very complex, and I've changed my mind on some points since AJ. My nearly latest thinking is on another thread somewhere, if anybody's interested, but it is still in the process of being reshaped.

I agree with the mass movement of yamnaya to and up the danube, and that their descendants were incorporated into the eastern bell beakers who then migrated west. I also agree that this explains explains the bulk of r1b in western europe along with the presence of italo-celtic languages. however, a cannot see stelae related movements as having any serious impact on ancient iberians in terms of language or ydna. As such, I cannot begin to speculate what ydna they had and what language they spoke because their impact is so small so we arent going to see the remnants of their existence in terms of the broad presence of r1b in western europe or the overall linguistics of western europe. do you think the stelae had a major impact on the presence of r1b in iberia and or the language in iberia? if no, then how would we be able to speculate on their dna and their language?

nuadha
09-03-2014, 05:38 PM
Hard to say. The real problem with the idea that the early farmers in Europe could be descended from Mesolithic people of Greece is that there is a distinct chronological break between the (few) Mesolithic sites in Greece and those of the first farmers, who turned up with the complete Neolithic package from the Near East. We can trace the progress of the latter, island-hopping from the Near East via Cyprus and Crete, bringing with them crops and animals which were mainly not native to Europe. Europe did have native boars and aurochs, but the domesticated pigs and cattle brought by the early farmers were not descended from the European varieties, but those of the Near East.

point taken. wasnt there a mtdna study on mesolithic greece a few years ago which showed the mesolithic greece had pretty much the same mtdna as neolithic greece and neolithic europe. there is no implication here, but it could mean that there actually was genetic continuity in greece/balkans. of course, based on archaeology, you say no to continuity in greece.

would you say that the neolithic package went from levant to cypress to crete then to greece? what role do you think asia minor had in the european neolithic?

Jean M
09-03-2014, 05:46 PM
point taken. wasnt there a mtdna study on mesolithic greece a few years ago which showed the mesolithic greece had pretty much the same mtdna as neolithic greece and neolithic europe.

You could be thinking of a lecture which certainly seemed to be showing Mesolithic Greece that way. Seemed very odd. Nothing has been published as far as I know. So there could have been contamination issues, or wrongly dated bone. I just don't know. We can only await more aDNA.

Same applies to your speculation re R1b in your previous post. That idea seems quite popular, by the way. I think Alan favours it. In fact I thought he came up with it.

parasar
09-03-2014, 07:29 PM
What a strange idea Parasar! You are at odds with all the geneticists who have been involved with the study of these components. So it might help to avoid confusion for other readers if you made it clear that your opinion is entirely your own totally unsupported view. The non-WHG part of EEF has not been found in Mesolithic human samples in Europe. You may want to go on believing something different until we have aDNA from every corner of Europe, but "wishing to be" is not the same as "likely to be."
....




Really? I'm curious as to what compels you to produce such a claim.



The non-WHG portion of EEF is Lazaridis' BE (Basal Eurasian). The Loschbour WHG had no BE. If BE was in Europe in any large quantities when the ice sheets retreated, Loschbour would have BE, which is doesn't. BE is likely a snap-shot of the first farmers that entered Europe before they mixed with European hunter-gatherers.


1. WHG and ANE are both on the ENA side of the OoA split.
2. 'Basal west eurasian' has the least affinity to Native Americans. On the other hand, WHG types continue to show Native American affinity even after a South Asian component forms pulling away MA1 with it.
3. On the mtDNA side Paglicci 25 type is present in Italy and makes it entirely possible that two separate populations lived in Europe with minimal overlap since the Upper Paleolithic. Of the two, the Mediterranean one is a little older.

Essentially in my scenario, the Paglicci 25 type would represent 'Basal west eurasian' and a precursor to the neolithic farmers. It is in this population that one would expect the least (except for Sub Saharan Africans) Neanderthal admixture.

parasar
09-03-2014, 08:17 PM
You could be thinking of a lecture which certainly seemed to be showing Mesolithic Greece that way ...

Probably this one: http://www.livemedia.gr/video/33052
"She mentions a complete absence of haplogroup U in all her samples so far (either Mesolithic or Neolithic)"
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/talk-by-christina-papageorgopoulou-on.html

Jean M
09-03-2014, 08:30 PM
3. On the mtDNA side Paglicci 25 type is present in Italy and makes it entirely possible that two separate populations lived in Europe with minimal overlap since the Upper Paleolithic. Of the two, the Mediterranean one is a little older.


The Paglicci 25 sample is not the oldest mtDNA in Europe. There are several older mtDNA U samples. But that is really beside the point. We know when homo sapiens entered Europe. It was around 46,000 years ago. That is too early for mtDNA R0 or HV, which the Paglicci 25 sample seems to be. So if the R0 or HV designation is correct for this sample, then this would be a later arrival from the Near East, maybe 30-35 k ago. That is not unlikely. People would still be moving around pretty freely until the climate started to turn much colder. However once the LGM clamped down, the population of Europe dropped dramatically. If you want to picture the descendants of Paglicci 25 legging rapidly into Anatolia and points south, I couldn't contradict you. I think it quite possible that some people did head south out of Europe. It would make sense. But it is at least equally likely that no descendants of Paglicci 25 survived.

What is absolutely clear is that the Neolithic revolution did not start in Italy or Greece and move to the Near East. So the fact that the mtDNA haplogroups that we find in the Near Eastern Neolithic have descendants in the European Neolithic all fits very neatly. We do not have a completely different set of descendants of R0 in Europe from the set in the Near Eastern Neolithic.

R.Rocca
09-03-2014, 08:31 PM
1. WHG and ANE are both on the ENA side of the OoA split.
2. 'Basal west eurasian' has the least affinity to Native Americans. On the other hand, WHG types continue to show Native American affinity even after a South Asian component forms pulling away MA1 with it.
3. On the mtDNA side Paglicci 25 type is present in Italy and makes it entirely possible that two separate populations lived in Europe with minimal overlap since the Upper Paleolithic. Of the two, the Mediterranean one is a little older.

Essentially in my scenario, the Paglicci 25 type would represent 'Basal west eurasian' and a precursor to the neolithic farmers. It is in this population that one would expect the least (except for Sub Saharan Africans) Neanderthal admixture.

1. You are grouping an 8,000 year old atDNA admixture construct, a 21,000 year old construct and a 100,000+ year old migration (OoA), so I'm not sure how you came up with that. Either way, my point is still valid and was the model the Lazaridis simulations found most likely.
2. WHG has some ANE affinity and Native Americans have ANE affinity, not that WGH has Native American affinity...two groups deriving some of their ancestry from a common source. Either way, I'm not sure what your point is.
3. Paglicci hasn't been sequenced so we don't know anything about its atDNA component. It may look like WGH for all we know. Either way it is 10,000 years younger than the oldest sequence we have data for, so it is impossible to make any assumptions one way or another.

parasar
09-03-2014, 09:23 PM
The Paglicci 25 sample is not the oldest mtDNA in Europe. There are several older mtDNA U samples. But that is really beside the point. We know when homo sapiens entered Europe. It was around 46,000 years ago. That is too early for mtDNA R0 or HV, which the Paglicci 25 sample seems to be. So if the R0 or HV designation is correct for this sample, then this would be a later arrival from the Near East, maybe 30-35 k ago. That is not unlikely. People would still be moving around pretty freely until the climate started to turn much colder. However once the LGM clamped down, the population of Europe dropped dramatically. If you want to picture the descendants of Paglicci 25 legging rapidly into Anatolia and points south, I couldn't contradict you. I think it quite possible that some people did head south out of Europe. It would make sense. But it is at least equally likely that no descendants of Paglicci 25 survived.

What is absolutely clear is that the Neolithic revolution did not start in Italy or Greece and move to the Near East. So the fact that the mtDNA haplogroups that we find in the Near Eastern Neolithic have descendants in the European Neolithic all fits very neatly. We do not have a completely different set of descendants of R0 in Europe from the set in the Near Eastern Neolithic.

I limited myself to the genetics. And from that a population movement is not indicated. While as you suggest there is always a possibility of two or more movements, there is no reason to dismiss continuity either.

While Paglicci 25 is not the oldest sample from Europe overall, it is from a region which has not been covered in the Lazaridis study.

As far as ages of R0 or HV, counting mutations down from R, they are in the same ballpark as U.

R T12705C T16223C
http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_R0.htm
http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_U.htm

parasar
09-04-2014, 12:36 AM
1. You are grouping an 8,000 year old atDNA admixture construct, a 21,000 year old construct and a 100,000+ year old migration (OoA), so I'm not sure how you came up with that. Either way, my point is still valid and was the model the Lazaridis simulations found most likely.

Lazardis put together their scenario from ~8000ybp Mesolithic Europeans, a 24000ybp Baikal resident from eastern Asia, and modern Europeans and Amerindians to discern a OoA Basal European.



2. WHG has some ANE affinity and Native Americans have ANE affinity, not that WGH has Native American affinity...two groups deriving some of their ancestry from a common source. Either way, I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is exactly that - that WHG indeed has Native American affinity which may not require an ANE-MA-1 intermediary that also has South Asian/SE Asian affinity.

K=5 breaks the ENA component down into one maximized in the Karitiana from the Americas ... This analysis further suggests that the ENA affinity of Hunter-Gatherers is related to the Karitiana component.
K=6 reveals a south Eurasian component maximized in Papuans, which is also represented in South Asians. MA1 shows some affinity to this component, in contrast to more recent Eurasian hunter-gatherers who continue to mainly show ties to Native Americans




3. Paglicci hasn't been sequenced so we don't know anything about its atDNA component. It may look like WGH for all we know. Either way it is 10,000 years younger than the oldest sequence we have data for, so it is impossible to make any assumptions one way or another


I agree on the autosomal DNA.
On the other hand, its different mtDNA, not found elsewhere in its timeframe or earlier, and the one whose direct or collateral descending lines are being pointed to as being Near Eastern, while not conclusive, definitely cannot be discounted.

GailT
09-04-2014, 03:02 AM
As far as ages of R0 or HV, counting mutations down from R, they are in the same ballpark as U.

Counting mutations down from R is not a reliable method to estimate the age of haplgroups. We've had this discussion before, and I know you like this approach, but age estimates become more or less meaningless if you use this approach. The accumulation of mutations is higly variable and one lineage can accumulate zero mutations in the same time that another lineage accumulates 10 mutations, even though they both share the same common ancestor. Your approach would suggest that one is nearly 30,000 years older than the other.

Behar estimates haplogroup ages based on the average number of mutations for all of the members of each haplogroup:

U 46 kya
R0 40 kya
HV 22 kya

parasar
09-04-2014, 04:48 AM
Counting mutations down from R is not a reliable method to estimate the age of haplgroups. We've had this discussion before, and I know you like this approach, but age estimates become more or less meaningless if you use this approach. The accumulation of mutations is higly variable and one lineage can accumulate zero mutations in the same time that another lineage accumulates 10 mutations, even though they both share the same common ancestor. Your approach would suggest that one is nearly 30,000 years older than the other.

Behar estimates haplogroup ages based on the average number of mutations for all of the members of each haplogroup:

U 46 kya
R0 40 kya
HV 22 kya

No not necessarily, because my approach also involves calibrating with ancient DNA when available.
If the number of mutations between two nodes were to be completely off (say 10 vs 0 or 30000years), that would affect the averages for all downstream members anyway.

nuadha
09-04-2014, 07:48 AM
You could be thinking of a lecture which certainly seemed to be showing Mesolithic Greece that way. Seemed very odd. Nothing has been published as far as I know. So there could have been contamination issues, or wrongly dated bone. I just don't know. We can only await more aDNA.

Same applies to your speculation re R1b in your previous post. That idea seems quite popular, by the way. I think Alan favours it. In fact I thought he came up with it.

here is the page where all 3 of us discuss r1b, r1a, and the steppe hypothesis... more or less. you might find it to be an interesting read. I definitely found it fun too remember what a struggle it is coming up with a new way of thinking about the data. http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10990.msg140201#msg140201

to summarize, alan thought that r1b had an early presence in the steppes, prior to CT related introgression, and around the time of the DD. the reasoning he gave was that the (relevant) branches of r1b fit the pattern of a low key hunter gatherer type of culture until the bronze age when said lineages exploded.

but he was not the only one to talk about an early presence of r1b in the steppe. Others have claimed an introduction of r1b to the steppes via the CT, mayokop, or just didnt specify and simply took r1b's presence in the early steppe as a given. The idea I came up with is that corded ware and r1a were more central european neolithic derived and r1b was more steppe related and that the two haplogroups sort of criss crossed as r1a moved east and r1b moved west. Originally i tied r1a expansion towards the steppes primarily to CW but now i lean towards the CT culture playing a big role.

this was my hypothesis a while back http://distantconnections.wordpress.com/25-2/ if anything, ive only seen more favorable evidence over time

Jean M
09-04-2014, 08:49 AM
As luck would have it, the aDNA results from the Carpathian Basin looking at the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition there are now available. No sign of Rider Haggard.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664


We generated 9 Y chromosomal and 84 mitochondrial DNA profiles from Mesolithic and Neolithic specimens from western Hungary and Croatia, attributed to the hunter-gatherers, Starčevo and LBK cultures (7th/6th millennium BC). We observe genetic discontinuity between Mesolithic foragers and early farmers, and genetic continuity between farming populations of the 6th-4th millennium BC across a vast territory of southeastern and Central Europe. Nine novel Y chromosome DNA profiles offer first insights into the Y chromosome diversity of the earliest European farmers, and further support the migration (demic diffusion) from the Near East into Central Europe along the Continental route of Neolithisation.

rms2
09-04-2014, 11:37 AM
As luck would have it, the aDNA results from the Carpathian Basin looking at the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition there are now available. No sign of Rider Haggard.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664

Thanks! More y-dna G2a and I, but no R1b.

This report has me wondering if scientists in the Isles have something against trying to get y-dna from ancient remains. I keep waiting for at least one ancient y-dna result from the Isles - a Beaker burial would be nice - but no such luck.

Shaikorth
09-04-2014, 12:16 PM
These are the samples to which they could do their full Y-SNP tests:

Starčevo
3x F* (M89), 2x G2a2b (S126), 1x G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2)

Transdanubian Linear Pottery
1x G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253)

The samples with incomplete tests are also some kind of G2a, I and F.

http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/2214/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/008664-2.xlsx
Tested SNP:s are under S5

parasar
09-04-2014, 12:40 PM
Thanks! More y-dna G2a and I, but no R1b.

This report has me wondering if scientists in the Isles have something against trying to get y-dna from ancient remains. I keep waiting for at least one ancient y-dna result from the Isles - a Beaker burial would be nice - but no such luck.

And once again an absence of Y-J the most common modern near eastern lineage.

Agamemnon
09-04-2014, 01:07 PM
And once again an absence of Y-J the most common modern near eastern lineage.

Yes, this is the biggest mystery as of now, especially considering all the neolithic models used to explain its distribution.

ADW_1981
09-04-2014, 01:15 PM
And once again an absence of Y-J the most common modern near eastern lineage.

LBK wasn't Sumerian was it? ;)
That explains it.

Is this F3? aka H-P96? This is still a small cluster of European men who tend to be from Germanic speaking countries.

Humanist
09-04-2014, 02:20 PM
And once again an absence of Y-J the most common modern near eastern lineage.

I am more surprised by the lack of Y-DNA T. Not Y-DNA J. Y-DNA J (in particular J1) is strongly associated with Arabo-Muslim expansions. Although not all J in the Near East came with the Muslim expansions, certainly a decent chunk of it did.

parasar
09-04-2014, 03:23 PM
I am more surprised by the lack of Y-DNA T. Not Y-DNA J. Y-DNA J (in particular J1) is strongly associated with Arabo-Muslim expansions. Although not all J in the Near East came with the Muslim expansions, certainly a decent chunk of it did.

You may be right, though I associate Y-TL with an early SE Asian movement through South Asia.
And as L and T are both not that common in Europe even today, perhaps they never were, and limited samples would therefore miss them.

Now we just need Near-Eastern Y to be sure as to what was present/absent there in the Neolithic.

Artmar
09-04-2014, 04:38 PM
I am more surprised by the lack of Y-DNA T. Not Y-DNA J. Y-DNA J (in particular J1) is strongly associated with Arabo-Muslim expansions. Although not all J in the Near East came with the Muslim expansions, certainly a decent chunk of it did.
I think that most of southern european y-dna J is associated with bronze-age and later expansions of such folks as a "Sea People",Pelasgians, Minoans,Etruscans, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians etc.

vettor
09-04-2014, 07:25 PM
You may be right, though I associate Y-TL with an early SE Asian movement through South Asia.
And as L and T are both not that common in Europe even today, perhaps they never were, and limited samples would therefore miss them.

Now we just need Near-Eastern Y to be sure as to what was present/absent there in the Neolithic.

Maybe someone needs to investigate why T and L appear in the Tyrol region at ~8% ( alps)
papers like
Genetic Structure in Contemporary South Tyrolean Isolated Populations Revealed by Analysis of Y-Chromosome, mtDNA, and Alu Polymorphisms
No Access

Irene Pichler,1 Jakob C. Mueller

and

The genetic study of three population microisolates in South Tyrol (MICROS): study design and epidemiological perspectives

Cristian Pattaro1*, Fabio Marroni

are 2 that come to mind. There are a few more in the last 5 years

But South Tyrol rarely test their genetics because its done for free and kept in the lab by these scientists.............IMO people care little to test because they have already been tested

These T and L sit in same region/area with otzi G-L91 ( which is only 4% of the alpine areas)........otzi marker IIRC came via the caucasus

The term Brickwall in genetics is these scientists for me ..........I keep getting stopped by these already tested markers that are kept in the lab

dp
09-04-2014, 07:36 PM
deleted by author

dp
09-04-2014, 07:38 PM
Vettor,
Have you looked at any Hutterite DNA studies.
dp :-)

Maybe someone needs to investigate why T and L appear in the Tyrol region at ~8% ( alps)
papers like
Genetic Structure in Contemporary South Tyrolean Isolated Populations Revealed by Analysis of Y-Chromosome, mtDNA, and Alu Polymorphisms
No Access

Irene Pichler,1 Jakob C. Mueller

and

The genetic study of three population microisolates in South Tyrol (MICROS): study design and epidemiological perspectives

Cristian Pattaro1*, Fabio Marroni

are 2 that come to mind. There are a few more in the last 5 years

But South Tyrol rarely test their genetics because its done for free and kept in the lab by these scientists.............IMO people care little to test because they have already been tested

These T and L sit in same region/area with otzi G-L91 ( which is only 4% of the alpine areas)........otzi marker IIRC came via the caucasus

The term Brickwall in genetics is these scientists for me ..........I keep getting stopped by these already tested markers that are kept in the lab

vettor
09-05-2014, 06:13 AM
Vettor,
Have you looked at any Hutterite DNA studies.
dp :-)

this is the last I saw

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/full/ejhg2009172a.html

Jean M
09-08-2014, 10:16 PM
A related topic is the boom and bust pattern in the European Neolithic. The fall in population after the Neolithic at various times in various places would have left space for new arrivals in the Copper Age or later.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3128-Neolithic-boom-and-bust-in-Europe-%28Timpson-et-al-2014%29

Jean M
09-21-2014, 01:13 PM
I've only just noticed that the July issue of World Archaeology was dedicated to mobility andd migration. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rwar20/current

The lead article is open access: Peter van Dommelen, Moving On: Archaeological Perspectives on Mobility and Migration
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2014.933359

He sums up the current paradigm change well:


Even if archaeological explanations and theoretical interests have shied away from migration with the advent of the New, Processual and Post-Processual archaeologies, the reality remains that migration was in all likelihood as common, recurrent and widespread a phenomenon in the ancient and distant past as it is today and has been recorded historically in recent periods. By way of introduction to this thematic issue on Mobility & Migration, this paper offers a brief survey of intellectual developments and signals recent trends.

mcg11
09-22-2014, 06:45 PM
I've only just noticed that the July issue of World Archaeology was dedicated to mobility andd migration. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rwar20/current

The lead article is open access: Peter van Dommelen, Moving On: Archaeological Perspectives on Mobility and Migration
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2014.933359

He sums up the current paradigm change well:

I don't doubt migrations have occurred, when there have been Forces which made living unsuitable. My point was that 5k BC to 1KBC was relatively benign as far as climate goes in Western Europe. Look at North America, There was very little migration before the white man came in many parts of the Southwest?

Jean M
09-22-2014, 07:18 PM
My point was that 5k BC to 1KBC was relatively benign as far as climate goes in Western Europe.

If you mean that glaciers did not force everyone in Europe to holiday in Nigeria for a couple of thousand years during that period, you are absolutely right. However a cold period afflicted Europe from 4200 to 3800 BC, that seems to have triggered a lot of movement. The advanced Neolithic cultures of the Balkans collapsed. There is evidence to suggest that some of their denizens fled up the Danube and others possibly to Sardinia. It might seem odd, but the change in climate made the north more temperate, which is probably the reason that farmers who had previously steered clear of Scandinavia and the British Isles entered those regions around 4000 BC. That upheaval was followed by the drying of the European steppe from around 3200 BC, which presumbly encouraged the exodus of the Yamnaya. In the forest-steppe belt the forest was reduced and the steppe expanded. The region was at its most arid between 2700 and 2000 BC.

You can read all about it in my book.

Atimeres
09-22-2014, 07:49 PM
And did you, Jean, know that our guru prof. Czebreszuk is anti-migracjonist? It reduces migration to a minimum!
Just as its competitor, prof. Kadrow.

Jean M
09-22-2014, 08:05 PM
And did you, Jean, know that our guru prof. Czebreszuk is anti-migracjonist? It reduces migration to a minimum! Just as its competitor, prof. Kadrow.

That's the standard position that has held sway in Anglophone archaeology for decades. The thinking in other European countries seems to vary. But yes I did get the impression that Prof. Czebreszuk was anti-migrationist. He may of course be shifting position now. As I say, we are in paradigm change. Usually it is younger scholars who are fastest to embrace new ideas. They don't have a massive investment in the old ideas, in terms of publication record. But individuals vary. Some of the brightest of the older scholars see the opportunity that change presents. If prehistory needs re-writing, why shouldn't they be the ones to re-write it!