PDA

View Full Version : Post-Neolithic impact lesser as we move south in Europe- fair comment?



alan
01-16-2015, 05:05 PM
My impression is that the post-Neolithic autosomal changes dating to the Copper and Bronze Ages was significantly greater as we head north. It does seem if a significant chunk of WHG was a post-Neolithic reintroduction from the east and ANE was a new introduction in the same timeframe then the impact gets stronger as one heads north. This of course assumes, as seems to be the case, that Neolithic farmers and even very early copper age people were Sardinian like across Europe. If so then it seems to show the weight of change moved from north and east to south and west and petered out somewhat in the latter two areas. I assume this means a greater survival of Neolithic period populations in the south of Europe. This is something we need to bear in mind when trying to understand the beaker period genetic changes. It looks very much the opposite of a change that spread from SW Europe.

parasar
01-16-2015, 07:41 PM
My impression is that the post-Neolithic autosomal changes dating to the Copper and Bronze Ages was significantly greater as we head north. It does seem if a significant chunk of WHG was a post-Neolithic reintroduction from the east and ANE was a new introduction in the same timeframe then the impact gets stronger as one heads north. This of course assumes, as seems to be the case, that Neolithic farmers and even very early copper age people were Sardinian like across Europe. If so then it seems to show the weight of change moved from north and east to south and west and petered out somewhat in the latter two areas. I assume this means a greater survival of Neolithic period populations in the south of Europe. This is something we need to bear in mind when trying to understand the beaker period genetic changes. It looks very much the opposite of a change that spread from SW Europe.

Lesser as we move south-west in Europe, I think.

Krefter
01-16-2015, 10:19 PM
IMO, Yamna didn't have alot of WHG when they moved into east Europe. I think most WHG in east Europe is from Sardinian(with 10-20% more WHG)-like and Motala12-like people. By the time IEs got to west Europe I think they were pretty much northeast Europeans, and brought both high WHG and ANE.

We have to also consider post-Neolithic ancestry from the near east. It's hard to distinguish from Neolithic ancestry, but obviously does exist in Europe.

Anglecynn
01-17-2015, 12:11 AM
It does look indeed like south and south-west Europe in particular were less affected. A user on another forum put together some handy coloured maps of the averages for many groups in the West Eurasia K8. Notice how WHG doesn't decrease by a great deal in south-west Europe compared to say northwest Europe, but ANE does significantly (and of course EEF is greater):

ANE:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/ANEK8.png
WHG:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/WHGK8.png
Near Eastern:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NearEastK8.png
-------

Sub-Saharan African:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SSAK8.png
South-east Asian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SEAK8.png
East Eurasian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EEAK8.png

alan
01-17-2015, 02:43 PM
It does look indeed like south and south-west Europe in particular were less affected. A user on another forum put together some handy coloured maps of the averages for many groups in the West Eurasia K8. Notice how WHG doesn't decrease by a great deal in south-west Europe compared to say northwest Europe, but ANE does significantly (and of course EEF is greater):

ANE:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/ANEK8.png
WHG:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/WHGK8.png
Near Eastern:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NearEastK8.png
-------

Sub-Saharan African:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SSAK8.png
South-east Asian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SEAK8.png
East Eurasian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EEAK8.png


Very interesting and very hand to see it in maps. Amazing how low WHG is in all but the western part of the north Pontic-Caspian area. However, that area has had a checkered history since the copper age so cannot infer much IMO.

alan
01-17-2015, 03:02 PM
It still appears that ANE is probably the most easily identifiable signal of R1 peoples copper age spreading from east to west albeit that ANE is probably far more ancient on a line from the Elbe to the Dniester. Certainly west of that line it seems a very good proxy for copper age movements west. I very much doubt we are talking about anything like a pure ANE population but it just happens to be the only new element west of the Elbe-Dniester line that can be easily detected. The problem with ENF and WHG is they were probably already present to some degree across Europe in pre-copper age times and we would need more date to understand how the east to west copper age movements changed the proportions although the general suspicion is that it increased WHG and lowered ENF.

alan
01-17-2015, 03:17 PM
kind of looks to me like both R1 and N were involved in ANE. Q of course in the Americas etc is almost certainly linked to ANE and persumably P too. Makes me wonder about this. I dont think there is any evidence or likelihood all K2 derivatives are ANE related. If N and P were linked to ANE then at what point did this come about. Obviously somewhere between Ustishm and Mal'ta and probably in Siberia. Cultural units such as we see in the Siberian upper paleolithic culture did probably relate to contact and breeding networks. My feeling is that ANE probably emerged among a culture who were mainly P and N people. Mal'ta lived early in the LGM at the tail end of a culture confined to south-central Siberia. That culture had first emerged by local development c. 30000BC from earlier Ust-Ishm type cultures in a period of improved climate that commenced around that date and terminated with Mal'ta in terrible climate conditions. It seems some K2 derivatives were not linked with ANE and probably had gone a different way and were no longer part of the same breeding network as P and N.

R.Rocca
01-17-2015, 03:23 PM
My impression is that the post-Neolithic autosomal changes dating to the Copper and Bronze Ages was significantly greater as we head north. It does seem if a significant chunk of WHG was a post-Neolithic reintroduction from the east and ANE was a new introduction in the same timeframe then the impact gets stronger as one heads north. This of course assumes, as seems to be the case, that Neolithic farmers and even very early copper age people were Sardinian like across Europe. If so then it seems to show the weight of change moved from north and east to south and west and petered out somewhat in the latter two areas. I assume this means a greater survival of Neolithic period populations in the south of Europe. This is something we need to bear in mind when trying to understand the beaker period genetic changes. It looks very much the opposite of a change that spread from SW Europe.

Alan, you are failing to see another possibility... it is entirely possible that all of Europe (minus Sardinia) was impacted in a big way by ANE people during the Copper Age and then SE Europe (and to a lesser extent SW Europe) received further geneflow from places like Anatolia and the Levant in the form of haplogroup J2, etc. Let's not foget that while Neolithic haplogroup G2a is more common today in SE Europe, its numbers are not overwhelming.

alan
01-17-2015, 04:27 PM
Alan, you are failing to see another possibility... it is entirely possible that all of Europe (minus Sardinia) was impacted in a big way by ANE people during the Copper Age and then SE Europe (and to a lesser extent SW Europe) received further geneflow from places like Anatolia and the Levant in the form of haplogroup J2, etc. Let's not foget that while Neolithic haplogroup G2a is more common today in SE Europe, its numbers are not overwhelming.

True. We need a lot more datapoints of ancient DNA. Nevertheless It seems to me that movements along the Med. from Anatolia, Greece etc would actually significantly raise ANE but lower WHG really substantially. However the deficit in say Iberia between it and northern Europe is proportionately far greater in terms of ANE than it is for WHG. That seems to be the reverse of what would be expected if the west Med. was heavily overlaid by groups from the Aegean and Anatolia for instance.

North Iberia is an interesting example of a SW European area that is nevertheless somewhat removed from the big Med. population flows. Here we again see the phenomenon that this area is only about a tenth less in terms of WHG compared to northern Europe but has less than half the ANE of north Europeans.

If you look at a southern area that is relatively remote from the Med. like north Iberia, it is interesting to note that they are only about a tenth less than the isles in WHG but have less than half of the ANE.

R.Rocca
01-17-2015, 07:07 PM
True. We need a lot more datapoints of ancient DNA. Nevertheless It seems to me that movements along the Med. from Anatolia, Greece etc would actually significantly raise ANE but lower WHG really substantially. However the deficit in say Iberia between it and northern Europe is proportionately far greater in terms of ANE than it is for WHG. That seems to be the reverse of what would be expected if the west Med. was heavily overlaid by groups from the Aegean and Anatolia for instance.

North Iberia is an interesting example of a SW European area that is nevertheless somewhat removed from the big Med. population flows. Here we again see the phenomenon that this area is only about a tenth less in terms of WHG compared to northern Europe but has less than half the ANE of north Europeans.

If you look at a southern area that is relatively remote from the Med. like north Iberia, it is interesting to note that they are only about a tenth less than the isles in WHG but have less than half of the ANE.

...and ANE is double what it is in Eastern Europe in the Amazon Basin of all places. There are a lot of things to consider, including females, when looking at these ancient components, and so the modern distribution should be looked upon with caution. Now, I think your premise for all of this is that Bell Beaker and therefore R1b did not originate and then migrate out of Iberia, which is fine, but the modern distribution of these autosomal DNA components cannot rule out for example that P312 did not originate and migrate out of Iberia...only ancient DNA can.

alan
01-18-2015, 02:35 PM
...and ANE is double what it is in Eastern Europe in the Amazon Basin of all places. There are a lot of things to consider, including females, when looking at these ancient components, and so the modern distribution should be looked upon with caution. Now, I think your premise for all of this is that Bell Beaker and therefore R1b did not originate and then migrate out of Iberia, which is fine, but the modern distribution of these autosomal DNA components cannot rule out for example that P312 did not originate and migrate out of Iberia...only ancient DNA can.

I have an open mind on P312 although it seems most likely to me the have originated in west-central Europe. I cannot say it didnt arise in Iberia but I doubt it. I personally now think it likely P312 arose in immediate pre-beaker times in west-central Europe and entered into Iberia either in P312* or early DF27 form c. 2750BC just before the beaker culture and the individualised burial phenomenon arose in Iberia and that c. 2600BC there was then some counter movement from Iberia back along the southern French coast, the south-west Alps and to some extent up the Biscay area.

I think it is a fair observation that ANE and WHG do not vary in any obviously consistent proportional way across Europe and Asia so they are not closely connected or if there is any connection it is not a consistent one by any means. I just raised the issue that if later movements had diminished a one pan-European copper/early Bronze Age patterns in the south-west of Europe then they would appear to have had a much bigger impact on ANE than WHG. That is a curious thing. Iberia has a lot of WHG making it more like north and central Europe than the central of east Med but in contrast it has a relatively low amount of ANE which seems to have an east to west and north to south kind of cline. I wouldnt make these observations based on one country but there does seems a cline. IMO the most obvious and simple way of explaining it is that ANE in the west of Europe is the remnant of a post-Neolithic east to west and south-west movement that was diluted from source to furthest destination.

My feeling is that in terms of gene flow it makes most sense if the main gene flow of the beaker era was P312 with an ANE element and that this spilled out of west-central Europe in several directions. I think what is potentially been confusing us is that this movement in terms of Iberia could have been immediately pre-beaker with beaker culture itself being an Iberian creation based on this pre-beaker central European input. I have now read two different authors state in the last year that they think Iberian individual and individualised beaker burials was a localised spin of Corded Ware practices and that the re-use of megaliths had kind of obscured what was actually a radical change in Iberia towards central European burial practices at the very start of beaker. So if early beaker in Iberia was essentially the same lineages as in west-central Europe and there was further back and forth its easy to see what this has been so confusing. The crucial thing is that its suddenly becoming popular to point out that the start of beaker in Iberia coincides with influences of non-beaker central Europe and that there was then a counter-movement out of Iberia along southern France, the Rhone and western Alps where it could influence its stay-home cousins. That sort of interpretation brings it all together and makes genetics and archaeological interpretation fit nicely together.

alan
01-18-2015, 04:13 PM
Would it be fair comment that ANE seems to rise where long term occupation by IE or Uralic groups is known. I think it has to be extended out to at least the hypothetical indo-uralic node if we want to link it to languages. It seems to me that ANE is also linked to N and perhaps N rather than R was the yline associated with the first thrust of ANE into NE Europe at the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic interface and found in Motala.

Mellow
04-22-2015, 09:16 AM
How is it possible for Southern Italy to score higher Neolithic than Iran? Is it because of Indo-European ancestry in Iranians? The levels in SI seem almost identical to Near Easterners...surely something's not right?
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NearEastK8.png

Generalissimo
04-22-2015, 09:41 AM
How is it possible for Southern Italy to score higher Neolithic than Iran? Is it because of Indo-European ancestry in Iranians? The levels in SI seem almost identical to Near Easterners...surely something's not right?

Both Italians and Iranians are largely of Near Eastern origin. They have different admixtures apart from that, but yes, they're both very similar.

In northern Europe the last great population turnover was caused by the Indo-European expansion, which came from Eastern Europe. But southern Europe was affected by lots of population movements after this time, like during the Roman and Islamic periods. We can see this in the high levels of Near Eastern IBD present today in Mediterranean Europe.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GCpu3AhqJpI/VTdr-6mgxkI/AAAAAAAACOk/BujZPXWHPlk/w1044-h374-no/SSA_NA_NE_IBD_maps_Fig2.png

LR Botigué*, BM Henn*, S Gravel, BK Maples, CR Gignoux, E Corona, G Atzmon, E Burns, H Ostrer, C Flores, J Bertranpetit, D Comas, CD Bustamante, Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in Southern Europe (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1306223110.abstract), PNAS, published online before print June 3, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306223110

Krefter
04-22-2015, 10:04 AM
Both Italians and Iranians are largely of Near Eastern origin. They have different admixtures apart from that, but yes, they're both very similar.

In northern Europe the last great population turnover was caused by the Indo-European expansion, which came from Eastern Europe. But southern Europe was affected by lots of population movements after this time, like during the Roman and Islamic periods. We can see this in the high levels of Near Eastern IBD present today in Mediterranean Europe.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GCpu3AhqJpI/VTdr-6mgxkI/AAAAAAAACOk/BujZPXWHPlk/w1044-h374-no/SSA_NA_NE_IBD_maps_Fig2.png

LR Botigué*, BM Henn*, S Gravel, BK Maples, CR Gignoux, E Corona, G Atzmon, E Burns, H Ostrer, C Flores, J Bertranpetit, D Comas, CD Bustamante, Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in Southern Europe (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1306223110.abstract), PNAS, published online before print June 3, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1306223110

Looking at European genomes from ~5,000YBP, so Middle Neolithic Central-West Euros(Spain, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Sweden), PWC hunter gatherers(Gotaland, Sweden), and Samara Yamna(Eastern Russia), we should be able to get an idea who the recent(could have been in Europe 5,000YBP, just not sampled) Middle Eastern ancestors of South and Central Europeans were.

I don't think anyone is certain when those Middle Easterns came. We don't have genomes from key locations in Europe, so they may have been there 5,000YBP. The ancient genomes coming from Greece might help us learn when and who. The Roman and Islamic periods sound too recent to me. What was happening in Italy between the Early Neolithic and the Iron age?

Longbowman
09-16-2015, 12:08 AM
'Another user on another forum' :P

next time watermarks.