West asians vs Mediterranean neolithic farmers

[Knovas]

i do not know how you can state that Iberia has none or nearly none of south-west asian, when Q, L, K and T are present there, especially in the north

¿What are you talking about? Haplogroups tell nothing, and by the way, what you say it's plain false. Q it's only 0.5% in the Basque country according to Eupedia, and T it's only 2.5% for the whole Spain, and specially low in the North LOL (Catalonia 0%, Basque country 0%, and even Galicia 0.5%...only Aragon shows 4%, which it's not incredibly high).

Also, I said SOME Iberians, I didn't say more, but I was refering to Northeast Iberians who sometimes deviate towards Basques and, hence, they show very low West Asian and Southwest Asian depending on the level of resolution. I think what you say it's valid for Northwest Iberians (Galicians and Northern Portuguese), since they don't have such evident lack of this components compared to people from the Northeast.

[Malsori]

The Southern component is an admixed cluster even if possibly the most West Eurasian, as well as the Atlantic_Baltic is. The fact it's more widespread it could just mean it's older and had more time to move, we don't know it. Note that both Basques and Sardinians are almost fully Atlantic_Baltic + Med at k10a, and at K7b they are Atlantic_Baltic + Southern (worth to mention that Sardinians are very high in Med and Southern). And as Dienekes' points pretty well, both represent the peak in the West Eurasian cline when running genetic plots. Then, Southern could have originated in Southern Europe according to this results, although of course I am not saying it's 100% true.

Actually the Southern doesn't peak among Sardinians but Bedouins/Yemeni_Jews if i am not wrong.Also Moroccans have a lot of it.

[Knovas]

It doesn't mean anything, Sardinians are close to 50% Southern, which is very high. The difference is not incredibly significant compared to Middle Easterns who, by the way, have other components which lack among Sardinians.

When increasing the resolution at K10a, Mediterranean peaks in Sardinians (largely), and they have almost no West Asian or other components.

[JFWR]

Haplogroup I is indeed one of the earliest in Europe but maybe not the first. You can at least say that haplogroup I was in Europe at the end of the Gravettian culture (31 000 BP - 24 000 BP) but you can't say that it was already there during the Aurignacien (37 000 BP-30 000 BP) since haplogroup I is 25 000 years old.
The first modern humans in Europe might have been just IJ*.

Is there any indication that IJ spread to Europe previous to I? I thought IJ remained stationary in the ME.

Hmm, besides I, J, and IJ, what potential haplogroups might be associated with Aurignacian?

[spongetaro]

[QUOTE=JFWR;397245]Is there any indication that IJ spread to Europe previous to I? [QUOTE]

Not so far. That is just a guess.

I thought IJ remained stationary in the ME.

Maybe since the only IJ* people have been found in Iran.

Hmm, besides I, J, and IJ, what potential haplogroups might be associated with Aurignacian?

Very difficult to say. I hope it is posssible for researchers to test SNP on 30 000, 40 000 yo individuals. My guess is that U5 and U4 people came with IJ Y haplogroups. IJK seems a bit too old for the Aurignacian.

[zanipolo]

¿What are you talking about? Haplogroups tell nothing, and by the way, what you say it's plain false. Q it's only 0.5% in the Basque country according to Eupedia, and T it's only 2.5% for the whole Spain, and specially low in the North LOL (Catalonia 0%, Basque country 0%, and even Galicia 0.5%...only Aragon shows 4%, which it's not incredibly high).

Also, I said SOME Iberians, I didn't say more, but I was refering to Northeast Iberians who sometimes deviate towards Basques and, hence, they show very low West Asian and Southwest Asian depending on the level of resolution. I think what you say it's valid for Northwest Iberians (Galicians and Northern Portuguese), since they don't have such evident lack of this components compared to people from the Northeast.

oops I forgot to include J in southwest asian .............there is J in iberia , correct?

Haplogroup J is believed to have arisen roughly 30,000 years ago in Southwest Asia

BTW, G and I are also Southwest Asian

Lets state the truth, basically all europe is either from africa or Asia ....mostly through the middle East.

If the admixture reclassify many types which are southwest asian to something else, then we have a different scenario

[JFWR]

[QUOTE=spongetaro;397252][QUOTE=JFWR;397245]Is there any indication that IJ spread to Europe previous to I?

Not so far. That is just a guess.

Maybe since the only IJ* people have been found in Iran.

Yeah, the almost total absence of that in Europe would be odd.

Very difficult to say. I hope it is posssible for researchers to test SNP on 30 000, 40 000 yo individuals. My guess is that U5 and U4 people came with IJ Y haplogroups. IJK seems a bit too old for the Aurignacian.

Hmm.

I am trying to look up cultural continuities of the Gravettian and Aurignacian. Depending on the date of I/J's earliest estimates, Aurignacian could still be I/J. The problem with J, though, is that it is centered in Arabia and East Africa.

[MOESAN]

when looking at metric anthropology of ancient times populations we find a pretty good mess of subtypes where someones appears as very new and others as ancient and "parent" one to another - so I am yet trying to see the importance of different or common traits -
but yet it appears that there have been movements in Western and South Europe during the Mesolithic that seams forgotten very often by the most of the people, all that before the Neolithic time - we see a modification from cromagnon typesin the direction of more "gracile" (a very imprecise and dangerous word) bodies and more "mediterranean" looks (in a very broad definition) and too one or more intrusions of a very different type that seams have evolved too on the "gracile" way (yet so imprecise), BUT keeping some definite features maintenning the differences with the more "cromagnon looking" previous people
not completely lost some cromagnon features by them -(I have not to explain you that appeared too crossings between these types after a moment) and as to complicate things for the pleasure, some of the newcomers (from central Europe fore sure concerning some of them, at least when speaking about their last knwn stage) show some physical links (phenotypical) with some Natufians of Palestine and eurafrican type: as some skeletal autosomals can remain a long time when Y-HGs and other autosomals (maybe pigmentation and genes responsible of environmental adaptation as stature) can change, and as some types could have been arrived by two or more ways we shall have some doors open about theories but without too much certitude for the moment, waiting knowing more) -
some modifications about the successors of cromagnons in S-W Europe (Iberia/France) concerning the faces (less broad) was found more on wives and children: someones saw immediatly a sex mediated evolution ("almost immediate evolution is in the wind", but we can imagine too a bigger mobility for wives and the mixtures that could have followed (the mtDNA of Mediterranea is or WAS supposed being more level and unified than the Y-DNA there - at the Bronze/Iron ages in Brittany the alpinlike phenotypes (apparently a kind of cromagnoid little brachycephal) had reached the Atlantic shores mostly by the wives at a first time, before becoming a very heavy element in Brittany among the two genres at the La Tène and Gallo-Roman period...
and the same studies show too movements (demic) during Neolithic and Bronze and Iron ages, spite the people fallen in love for the "no moving theory... 20 to 40% of new human beings in a region is an immigration or a colonization for me, not only acculturation... it was possible at ancient times in the span of a few generations: nowaday, so dense we are, it would no more be possible -

I think we 'll have to break down the so called N-W element or atlantic-mediterranean or atlanto-baltic element in the future to go further in details - what is sure is that the naming "mediterranean" even when speaking only of phenotypes is covering two different population, small enough, brunet for the most and dolichocephalic, but with very big differences in other body proportions and other autosomals conditionned traits, finally with different ancient far origin -
just my thought

[MOESAN]

I add I red somewhere sometimeS that the Megaliths expansion got along every Neolithic movements: it seams false to me: the first megalithic expansion semas beginning only about 4000 BC in W Europe, primarily on the coastal regions, well after first Cardial people imported agriculture (or better: breeding) in W-Mediterranea and well after the Danubian neolithic too... and the skeletons attached to these first Megalithics was different as a whole from the other ones associated to other newcomers with agriculture - in some way as for Bell Beakers, the human reliques found at the end of Megalithic culture (when it was generalized) where more mixed, more common or unanalysable - it seams to me (by my poor readings) that the stone constructions and a kind of cheftain system was very often attached to this first period of maritime megaliths, distinct from the timber constructions of other "neolithic" people - MORE THAN A WAVE IN MORE THAN A PLACE IN MORE THAN A WAY TO DO/ OPEN SI THE DOOR for autosomals and HGs!

[spongetaro]

http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html

Accorting to George Panagiaris 1993 study based on 767 cranial data, the Mediterranean/West Asian shift in Greece, signaled by the coming of Brachycephalic types, only occured during the Bronze age. He links it with the spread of metallurgy from west Asia.

the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population

[MOESAN]

http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html

Accorting to George Panagiaris 1993 study based on 767 cranial data, the Mediterranean/West Asian shift in Greece, signaled by the coming of Brachycephalic types, only occured during the Bronze age. He links it with the spread of metallurgy from west Asia.

Salute! yec'hed! Spongetaro: it is very funny, I just red this "advertising" of DIENEKE this morning!
I would be glad if I had the complete (traduced) texte of this survey, whatsoever the conclusions of the scholar (I fear his interpretations as very often for ohers ones!) -
I see not contradiction (for now) to my believings: he speaks about Greece and Steppes, not western Europe, not even of central and south-eastern Europe as a whole - I ever linked SOME brachycephalic types to metallurgy, close or indirect links) - the old survey by CHARLES I red spoke about a Balkan origin of Dorians and other people, and even at the chalcolithic of N-E Italy...
Thanks nevertheless and let us wait more details...

[MOESAN]

add: some 'dinaroid' bracycephalic people appears during the Helladic period in western Mediterranea too - I say period because the bulk of them did not seam linked too tightly to helladic people: maybe neighbors? other culture? uneasy to say for me...

[julia90]

Studies on my etnici tuscan say we cluster between northern italians and southern italians iter populations near are the iberians greeks albanians romenians and bulgarians.. I consider ourselves the true genetic centre of southern europe, in between al southern europeans.

[Alan]

Haplogroup I is indeed one of the earliest in Europe but maybe not the first. You can at least say that haplogroup I was in Europe at the end of the Gravettian culture (31 000 BP - 24 000 BP) but you can't say that it was already there during the Aurignacien (37 000 BP-30 000 BP) since haplogroup I is 25 000 years old.
The first modern humans in Europe might have been just IJ*.

Or maybe E1b*?

here is new Dienekes Calculator. Its the newest together with K12b

K10a
The 'K10a' calculator represents an intermediate stage between the K7 and K12 analyses released so far from the Project. The following components have been inferred:
Palaeoafrican
South_Asian
West_Asian
Southeast_Asian
Sub_Saharan
Atlantic_Baltic
Red_Sea
East_Asian
Mediterranean
Siberian
Attachment 5695


Atlantic_Baltic
Lithuanians 83.2%
Finnish_D 79%
Swedish_D 71.9%
Norwegian_D 71.1%
Irish_D 66.8%
French 55.8%




West Asian
Georgians 61.9%
Abhkasians_Y 60.1%
Brahui 59.1%
Baloch 58.3%
Kurds_Y 53.1%
North_Ossetians_Y 50.7%
Turks 42.5%
Cypriots 36.7%
Greek_D 24.2%
Romanians 18.6%
O_Italian_D 18.1%





Mediterranean
Sardinian 70%
Mozabite 53.3%
Samaritans 46.8%
Spanish_D 45.9%
Algerian_D 46%
Druze 42.4%
O_Italian_D 42%
Lebanese 38.7%
Saudis 37.5%
Bulgarians_Y 34%




Red Sea
Somali_D 52.9%
Ethiopians 47.7%
Saudis 34.6%
Egyptians 24%
Yemenese 22.8%
Mozabite 22.2%
Palestinians 17.7%
Syrians 15%



South Asian
Pulliyar_M 83.2%
Malayan 81.2%
North_Kannadi 79.5%
Uttar_Pradesh_Scheduled_Caste_M 68.6%
Balochi 24.4%
Brahui 24.1%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0VVZPR0E#gid=0

the Mediterranean component is linking Europeans with West Asians, Southwest Asians and North Africans while West Asian is linking Europeans with West Asians, Southwest Asians and South- Central Asians.

[oriental]

I am new here so I cannot post a website. Go to s_c_o_t_e_s_e as it has a very good map of the Ice Age which stretched a very long period. It shows the inland seas the Black and Caspian Seas as non-existing. The ocean was 300 feet or so lower and the Caspian Sea is very shallow so it wouldn't exist during the Ice Age. The Black Sea could be non-existing or a small inland lake. This means the steppe highway joined Asia to Europe. Also, the Persian Gulf was lowland. Central Asia was surrounded by ice so in summer with the 24-hour sun over the Arctic the summer ice melt would have transformed the tundra to a wonderland for grazing animals. One must imagine this landscape to appreciate the Ice Age and the migration of humans. It was not altogether not like the Antartic.

Turkey was connected to Greece as the Mediterranean sea was also lower. The British Isles to the Netherlands and France. There is topic of doggerland

[oriental]

One can see from the first map that there was impenetrable forests after the Ice Age melted. Humans could migrate to open grasslands where the animals they hunted were plentiful. Those coming out of Africa first would be people Hg E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, would flourish in the Middle East and many like Hg I, E and G would venture into the forests of Europe. Hg H and L would inhabit Elam in Iran at the top northeastern edge of the Persian Gulf and the Harrapa civilization in the Indus River. This civilization stretched from Iran to the Indian subcontinent. It was the largest civilization at the time.

The Agriculturalists would have a hard time establishing in Europe as those hunter-gathers would attack the agriculturalists. These agriculturalists were not warriors nor desperate. Imagine trying to cut down a forest with stone or bronze axes, uprooting roots, removing stones and then plowing the cleared land all the while the hunter-gathers attacking to defend their territories? very difficult or impossible.

The Aryans who appeared 20,000 years later were warriors unlike the agriculturalists. You need to be a warrior to conquer Europe. The Aryans, R1a and R1b, had horses and bronze swords and overcame the hunter-gathers of Europe who were mostly of Hg I, G, E. The conquest of Europe would be the Bronze Age "Wild West" with horsemen weilding their swords vanquishing the hunter gathers for the metal-mining sites and grasslands. Once the hunter gathers were vanquished from those coveted lands the metal workers began mining and metal working. It needs a lot of charcoal to get metal out of the ores so gradually the forests be cleared around the mining sites. The Aryans were not only herdsmen but also agriculturalists as the woman mummy found in Sinkiang, China had a basket of wheat with her.

Agriculture would take place with the cleared forests.

[oriental]

The discovery of Otsi's corpse showed us how violent it was 5,000 years ago or 3,000 B.C. in the Bronze Age. Otsi being Hg G2 was trying to escape to the hills but he was shot by probably people of R1b who would dominate central and western Europe.

[LeBrok]

One can see from the first map that there was impenetrable forests after the Ice Age melted.

Did you ever see a forest people couldn't penetrate? Closed forest doesn't mean impenetrable, right?

LGM was 18k ago, Holocene Optimum (map shows) was 8k ago. You have 10k years of Ice Sheets melting period. It's a long time in between for many things to happen.
For my liking your are jumping to conclusions much too fast, without any consideration for many important details.
But watch out, this is were the devil is. :))

[LeBrok]

The discovery of Otsi's corpse showed us how violent it was 5,000 years ago or 3,000 B.C. in teh Bronze Age. Otsi being Hg G2 was trying to escape to the hills but he was shot by probably people of R1b who would dominate central and western Europe.

It was always violent in human history, don't forget WWII which happened only 60 years ago.

[oriental]

Did you ever see a forest people couldn't penetrate? Closed forest doesn't mean impenetrable, right?

LGM was 18k ago, Holocene Optimum (map shows) was 8k ago. You have 10k years of Ice Sheets melting period. It's a long time in between for many things to happen.
For my liking your are jumping to conclusions much too fast, without any consideration for many important details.
But watch out, this is were the devil is. :))

I was wrong to use "impenetrable". The first map above shows and labels "closed forest". It was approachable but setting up an agricultural community would be difficult. Though the forest dwellers were not many they could ambush intruders. Look at Vietnam. Even with all the advanced weapons the Americans could not defeat the Vietnamese in the forests who were just invisible and not easy to conquer. Look at the Roman legion ambushed and lost in the German forest. Fighting people of the forest is very difficult. The agriculturalists were not warriors unlike the Indo-Europeans who had to survive an increasingly drier steppe and competition for survival. It is the case of the junk yard dog being mean to survive. I saw the movie "the secret history" or something about Genghis Khan. He had supposedly green eyes and red hair. The genes were really mixed up in that area. It shows tribes constantly fighting against each other and scheming to form alliances. They stole each other wives. Genghis Khan was the only one to manage to group all of them together and conquer the world unfortunately even China through his grandson Kublai Khan. These steppe people were rough and tough guys.

The unrecorded histories are probably even more interesting as they could solve many historical mysteries. Hopefully genetics could help some but not everything as so much evidence is lost. Archaeological discoveries could not identify the people only their creations in terms of pots, weapons, dwellings, burials, etc. As more research is done there could could be even more surprises for sure. :)

[LeBrok]

The agriculturalists were not warriors unlike the Indo-Europeans who had to survive an increasingly drier steppe and competition for survival.

The biggest empires of written history were agriculturalist in nature, from Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English (even before industrial revolution). Hunter-gatherers were pretty much gone in Europe by 3000 BC. That's about the time IE settled in Europe and embraced agriculture.

Look at the Roman legion ambushed and lost in the German forest.

Even though Germans lived in forest area they were in big part farmers. The same goes to Slavs, they expended from forest covered area but they were farmers in essence.
The difference is that Roman Empire was better organized. They made money/taxes of mostly farmers, and for this money they kept professional army, at least the main legions.
Germans and Slavs where farmers-warriors. When the chef called for a war, they dropped plows, grabbed weapons and went to the battle. That's why when Rome collapsed they quickly conquered whole Europe in big numbers.
In steppes where farming was hard, there were pastoralists-warriors. Excellent horsemen, trained since kids with bow and arrow. This light cavalry of well trained marksmen was almost unstoppable, Huns, Tatars, Mongols. Most likely they learned these ways from Scythians.

[hope]

It was always violent in human history, don't forget WWII which happened only 60 years ago.

Or even in more recent times, for example the genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu 1994. Ethnic and political differences can even yet make man act violently.

[oriental]

Or even in more recent times, for example the genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu 1994. Ethnic and political differences can even yet make man act violently.

In the Bronze Age the people were African in mentality so there was warfare. Tribal warfare has always been with us. Look at the Middle East now it is still here.

Of course, don't forget it was dangerous outside as there were plenty of wolves, lions, bears around.

[oriental]

The biggest empires of written history were agriculturalist in nature, from Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English (even before industrial revolution). Hunter-gatherers were pretty much gone in Europe by 3000 BC. That's about the time IE settled in Europe and embraced agriculture.

Even though Germans lived in forest area they were in big part farmers. The same goes to Slavs, they expended from forest covered area but they were farmers in essence.
The difference is that Roman Empire was better organized. They made money/taxes of mostly farmers, and for this money they kept professional army, at least the main legions.
Germans and Slavs where farmers-warriors. When the chef called for a war, they dropped plows, grabbed weapons and went to the battle. That's why when Rome collapsed they quickly conquered whole Europe in big numbers.
In steppes where farming was hard, there were pastoralists-warriors. Excellent horsemen, trained since kids with bow and arrow. This light cavalry of well trained marksmen was almost unstoppable, Huns, Tatars, Mongols. Most likely they learned these ways from Scythians.

Haplogroups NOP are all related. They are one old family. They split up over the year as they went in different direction. They were all Scythians at heart. Hg P split into R and R intro R1a and R1b. Hg O split from NOP and and headed east through the Pamir Mountains into Tibet and South China. Hg Q is a sister group. They were all Scythian if you will. They looked different over the years on account of diet, climate environment, etc. You can see in their old cultural costumes they are all very similar with pants line trousers and shirt like tops.

Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English are all after 3000 BC. Abraham was around 2500 BC. All those empires mentioned all occur in the Bible which is good literature. :))

I had a Polish and Hungarian friend so I checked up on Slav history. I believe the Hg I2 in the Balkans were in close contact with the Aryan group so the invasion of Europe could have been a combined operation with R1b and I2. The I2 group probably went off to Central Germany while the R1b from the Alps split toward France and Italy. With the collapse of the Roman Empire the Slav group Veneti went to gain land around Venice thus the Venetians are probably Slav in origin.

[oriental]

Przewalski.jpg

He looks like Georgian Josef Stalin but in reality he is Russian Nicolai Przewalski. People thought they maybe related. DNA shows Przewalski is of Hg R1a, a Pole and Stalin is Hg G2. Here is an example that looks can deceiving. Carl Linnaeus was a priest so his theories of Genetics would be Creationist. Phenotypes are just external appearances not the internals that define the true structure.