PDA

View Full Version : West asians vs Mediterranean neolithic farmers



spongetaro
08-07-12, 19:27
We can split the Neolithic of South East Europe in two stages.

The first starts in 6850 BC with the Seklo culture in Greece and lead to the foundation of Starcevo (former yougoslavia) and Körös culture (Hungary) . Those very first farmers may have carry the Mediterranean/ Southern admixture as well as haplogroups I2a and G2a.



The second one saw the foundation around 5500 BC of Vinca and Dimini culture with clear links with the Anatolian area and Syria (the Halaf culture ) together forming the Dark Burnished Ware complex.
M. Özdögan and N. Baseglen talk about a "common developping zone" between north west Anatolia and North East Balkans. Vinca style houses can be found in the Marmara sea area BEFORE the Black sea deluge ( Ilipinar, 6000 BC).
The ofshoots of the Vinca culture (Karanovo etc) overtook the former local neolithic cultures and forced the local folks to flee in the peripheral regions (Moldavia, Illyria, etc) where we found high levels of I2a today.
In the same time, the LBK culture also starts out of the old Starcevo körös neolithic stock that's why we've found G2a and I2a in LBK, and also Printed Cardium ancient dna.

In the map below, the first culture that have their roots in the Seklo culture are shown in blue. They probably brought the Southern admixture to southwestern Europe.
http://www.hist-europe.fr/assets/asianique-5000.jpg

The second Neolithic wave is shown in orange. The LBK (rubanné in French) is red.
http://www.hist-europe.fr/assets/asianique-4000.jpg

The second neolithic wave in South eastern Europe may have been caused by the Black sea deluge with populations living in the southern Black sea shores probably carrying J2 (and maybe R1b L23 already) fleeing to Greece, and the Northern Balkan region via the Bosphorus. Hence the replacement of the old I2a and G2a by the J2 newcomers.
Accordng to wikipedia:


The "invasion theory" states that the Sesklo culture lasted more than one full millennium up until 5000 BC when it was violently conquered by people of the Dimini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimini) culture. The Dimini culture in this theory is considered different from that found at Sesklo




In the two pictures below, we see the stricking resemblance between Vinca and the obeid (Mesopotamia) mother godess which ponts to a clear West asian link.

http://www.yuheritage.com/images/vinca.jpgmother godess from Vinca

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/ubaid-SumerQn.jpg

An other evidence of the Link between Vinca and West asian culture is the use of Swastika.
Accordng to wikipedia:

Among the earliest cultures utilizing swastika is the neolithic Vinča culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture) of South-East Europe .

Interestingly, you also find swastika in the Hassuna-Samarra culture( -56000 - 5000 BC, Irak)

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5687&d=1341760154

The West asians farmers living in Anatolia and Caucasus may have been pushed westward to Europe and southward to the middle east, spreading their refined culture to the south (Halaf, Samarra, Obeid and ultimately Sumer) and the west (Vinca, Dimini).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Mesopotamia_Per%C3%ADodo_6.PNG/350px-Mesopotamia_Per%C3%ADodo_6.PNG
That second wave of Neolithic didn't reach Western, Northern and Southwestern Europe (except Sicily and southern Italy which are high in J2) that is why western and northern european have more Mediterranean than west Aian admixture.


5688



What is tricky with the West asian distribution map is that it doesn't make the difference between mostly J2 and mostly R1b populations. The high levels of west Asian in south east europeans and Southern Italians is probably due to that later neolithic wave coming from Anatolia and carrying J2.

ElHorsto
19-07-12, 18:22
The first starts in 6850 BC with the Seklo culture in Greece and lead to the foundation of Starcevo (former yougoslavia) and Körös culture (Hungary) . Those very first farmers may have carry the Mediterranean/ Southern admixture as well as haplogroups I2a and G2a.



That second wave of Neolithic didn't reach Western, Northern and Southwestern Europe (except Sicily and southern Italy which are high in J2) that is why western and northern european have more Mediterranean than west Aian admixture.


Right now in another thread a new paper about iranian Y-lineages is being discussed, where Y-IJ has been found. It seems to support my theory that near-eastern immigrants were not only neolithic farmers, but some were still hunter-gatherers.

"F-M89* and IJ-M429* were observed in the Iranian plateau: the first represents the ancestral state of the main Euro-Asiatic haplogroups [36] (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252#pone.0 041252-Underhill2) while the second probably moved toward southeast Europe sometime before the Last Glacial Maximum where it differentiated into the “western Eurasian” haplogroup I"

Further, J2a-M92 variance distribution seems surprisingly stronger in the Balkans and Italy than the near-east, according to the maps. So maybe even J2 could have been already in Europe during the palaeolithic?

To me it still looks more like the bulk of Atlantic/Mediterranean admixture comes from near-eastern hunter-gatherers, subsequently enriched by neolithic farmers.

sparkey
19-07-12, 18:34
Right now in another thread a new paper about iranian Y-lineages is being discussed, where Y-IJ has been found. It seems to support my theory that near-eastern immigrants were not only neolithic farmers, but some were still hunter-gatherers.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You're saying that hunter-gatherers immigrated alongside farmers during the Neolithic? If so, I don't understand how finding IJ* supports that. Finding IJ* is also consistent with one branch of IJ (the one that became I) splitting from the others in West Asia and then bottlenecking in Europe during the Paleolithic, and then J not coming until the Neolithic. That said, I'm still leaving multiple possibilities open for European Haplogroup J in particular.

ElHorsto
19-07-12, 19:46
I'm not sure I understand you here. You're saying that hunter-gatherers immigrated alongside farmers during the Neolithic?


Not alongside, but before (Late Glacial, 12–19 kya). If I understand correctly the section "Evidence of Late Glacial expansions from a Near Eastern Y-chromosome reservoir", the authors suggest a connection to mtDNA T and J:

"Although the Y-chromosome molecular clock is far from reaching the mtDNA level of accuracy, evidences of Late Glacial dispersals from the Middle East are provided by the large number of deep rooting lineages (rare elsewhere), from which diverged different branches that underwent Neolithic expansions."

zanipolo
20-07-12, 03:38
Right now in another thread a new paper about iranian Y-lineages is being discussed, where Y-IJ has been found. It seems to support my theory that near-eastern immigrants were not only neolithic farmers, but some were still hunter-gatherers.

"F-M89* and IJ-M429* were observed in the Iranian plateau: the first represents the ancestral state of the main Euro-Asiatic haplogroups [36] (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252#pone.0 041252-Underhill2) while the second probably moved toward southeast Europe sometime before the Last Glacial Maximum where it differentiated into the “western Eurasian” haplogroup I"

Further, J2a-M92 variance distribution seems surprisingly stronger in the Balkans and Italy than the near-east, according to the maps. So maybe even J2 could have been already in Europe during the palaeolithic?

To me it still looks more like the bulk of Atlantic/Mediterranean admixture comes from near-eastern hunter-gatherers, subsequently enriched by neolithic farmers.

so west-asian is the caucasus in the majority.

some say, J1 was inland and J2 coast people .........If J2 came out of J* then they are more hunters than farmers as compared to J1 ........IMO

Yetos
20-07-12, 05:35
Well in agriculture and junters-gotherers we must notice few things

Sheppards belong where? in agriculture or in gatherers?

and early farmers
knew about pasterizing?

knew about irrigation?

cause its another thing to farm millet or wheat
and another to farm the above with irrigation

ElHorsto
20-07-12, 10:31
Well in agriculture and junters-gotherers we must notice few things

Sheppards belong where? in agriculture or in gatherers?


For instance in the Levant, there existed the Natufian culture of hunter-gatherers still 13000-10000 years ago.
It belongs to the Epipaleolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipaleolithic) which technologically merged with the european Mesolithic.
Though the authors are refering to an earlier period of 12000-19000 years ago.



and early farmers
knew about pasterizing?

knew about irrigation?

cause its another thing to farm millet or wheat
and another to farm the above with irrigation

I think these are all neolithic, not hunter-gatherer techniques.

ElHorsto
20-07-12, 10:52
so west-asian is the caucasus in the majority.

some say, J1 was inland and J2 coast people .........If J2 came out of J* then they are more hunters than farmers as compared to J1 ........IMO

Maybe. J2a-M92 variance has a maximum in Anatolia, but not in the Levant. On the other hand, Göbekli Tepe is in Anatolia, which was right in a transition to the neolithic, thus it is still not clear whether J2a-M92 is really related to paleolithic migrations.

Malsori
20-07-12, 12:24
I don't think I2a males were early Neolithic Mediterranean farmers that came from Middle East.They were local people that joined the early farmers.Moreover all of I2a in Balkans is of I2a2-Dinaric cluster which is supposed to come with Slavic migrations.

Dienekes made a good comparison linking the Middle Eastern/Southern component with G2a and Atlantic_Baltic with I2a.It fits well.

JFWR
20-07-12, 17:09
I don't think I2a males were early Neolithic Mediterranean farmers that came from Middle East.They were local people that joined the early farmers.Moreover all of I2a in Balkans is of I2a2-Dinaric cluster which is supposed to come with Slavic migrations.

Dienekes made a good comparison linking the Middle Eastern/Southern component with G2a and Atlantic_Baltic with I2a.It fits well.

Yeah, all of Haplogroup I1 and 2 are native, paleolithic haplogroups from Europe. These were not late farming folk. These were the Europeans who hunted mammoth, lived in Doggerland, and otherwise chillaxin' jackson'd in Ice Age Europe.

spongetaro
20-07-12, 19:58
Paleolithic or not, I2a and even I1 might have carried the Southern/Mediterranean admixture. Folks of the Megalithic, Cucuteni Tripolje and even the Scandinavian TRB cultures are all described as Mediterraneans, gracile Mediterraneans.
Mediterranean doesn't mean "foreign" or "Middle East" at all. It is a human type that appeared BEFORE the neolithic in some part of Europe.

Malsori
20-07-12, 20:46
Paleolithic or not, I2a and even I1 might have carried the Southern/Mediterranean admixture. Folks of the Megalithic, Cucuteni Tripolje and even the Scandinavian TRB cultures are all described as Mediterraneans, gracile Mediterraneans.
Mediterranean doesn't mean "foreign" or "Middle East" at all. It is a human type that appeared BEFORE the neolithic in some part of Europe.

We don't know the genetic composition of Cucuteni folks yet.There is no evidence for what are you saying.Early Neolithic farmers(Mediterraneans) are supposed to come with Cardium Pottery Culture who were predominantly carrying G2a uniparental marker with maybe small amount of EV13.I2a could have well been already found in Europe.

spongetaro
20-07-12, 21:56
We don't know the genetic composition of Cucuteni folks yet.There is no evidence for what are you saying.Early Neolithic farmers(Mediterraneans) are supposed to come with Cardium Pottery Culture who were predominantly carrying G2a uniparental marker with maybe small amount of EV13.I2a could have well been already found in Europe.

In many archeological books Cucuteni folks and Danubian neolithic farmers are described as Mediterraneans.
There isn't evidences either that the Mediterraneans came with the early farmers. In North Western France (Téviec and Hoëdic), you find Mediterraneans as early as the Mesolithic so why would Mesolithic Greeks not be Mediterraneans too? Do you believe that before the begining of the Neolithic, the Greeks carried the Northern Europe admixture?
Also, you might have noticed that Sardinians are I2a rather than G2a and Nevertheless the most Mediterranean population in Europe.

Yetos
20-07-12, 22:41
Well I am still uncertain

cause

1) case of G2a send us to Otzi meaning IE was an early farming (shepperds, millet grain farmers, probably no irrigation ) before 6 000 BC
So how old is I Hg?
what do you say Sparkey? what extracts from Nortverd

2) case of R1b and R1a which I used in other posts, lacks in some no IE populations that are carriers
Tumuli case about 4500 BC

3) case of J2 is strange
if we connect it with irrigation colonisation and merchant and late R1b M-23 (hettites) is giving us max 3 000 BC
but if we don't?
But I wonder chronologically can we connect early forms of IJ with G2 or not?

Malsori
20-07-12, 22:58
In many archeological books Cucuteni folks and Danubian neolithic farmers are described as Mediterraneans.
There isn't evidences either that the Mediterraneans came with the early farmers. In North Western France (Téviec and Hoëdic), you find Mediterraneans as early as the Mesolithic so why would Mesolithic Greeks not be Mediterraneans too? Do you believe that before the begining of the Neolithic, the Greeks carried the Northern Europe admixture?
Also, you might have noticed that Sardinians are I2a rather than G2a and Nevertheless the most Mediterranean population in Europe.

There is.Southern component is a very important component in Middle East.Remember,SouthWestAsian is mostly Proto-Med with some East-African alleles.So they must have come with Early Neolithic farmers.

Also,haplogroup percentages means nothing since they can drastically change throughout the age.Sardinians still have presence of G2a mostly concentrated in Northern Sardinia and Southern Corsica.

Despite the Med Sardinians have a lot of Atlantic_Baltic component which can be explained with the presence of I2a haplogroup.

zanipolo
20-07-12, 23:02
There is.Southern component is a very important component in Middle East.Remember,SouthWestAsian is mostly Proto-Med with some East-African alleles.So they must have come with Early Neolithic farmers.

Also,haplogroup percentages means nothing since they can drastically change throughout the age.Sardinians still have presence of G2a mostly concentrated in Northern Sardinia and Southern Corsica.

Despite the Med Sardinians have a lot of Atlantic_Baltic component which can be explained with the presence of I2a haplogroup.

Does old persia and assyria mean south-west asians?

ElHorsto
20-07-12, 23:38
Despite the Med Sardinians have a lot of Atlantic_Baltic component which can be explained with the presence of I2a haplogroup.

Actually it is a good point, which hints towards an interesting difference between K12b and K10a:

According to K10a you are right, there is ca. 27% Atlantic_Baltic in Sardinians. But according to K12b they have exactly 0% North_euro. That's strange, since Atlantic_baltic and North_euro distributions are very similar elsewhere.

That means that:

1. these 27% of Atlantic_Baltic got suddenly added to the Atlantic_med component instead of North_euro by K12b. Let's call it the unknown admixture X.

2. At the same time, another part of Atlantic_med seemingly became Caucasus in K12b for Sardinians.

3. Does it mean that admixture X is exclusively mesolithic/paleolithic west european? I don't think so, since also the Greeks for instance have at least as much Atlantic_Baltic (28.9%) as Sardinians.

The only logical conclusion is that there must have beem a rather old mediterranean component which got added to Atlantic_Baltic in K10a.

(Contrary to some others, I don't consider K12b as invalid, because it just shows a different point of view, hiding and showing different features)

Knovas
20-07-12, 23:50
There is.Southern component is a very important component in Middle East.Remember,SouthWestAsian is mostly Proto-Med with some East-African alleles.So they must have come with Early Neolithic farmers.

Also,haplogroup percentages means nothing since they can drastically change throughout the age.Sardinians still have presence of G2a mostly concentrated in Northern Sardinia and Southern Corsica.

Despite the Med Sardinians have a lot of Atlantic_Baltic component which can be explained with the presence of I2a haplogroup.
Malsori, you are mixing apples with oranges. First, because Southwest Asian and Southern are not the same, and you assume that its huge presence in the Middle East makes both things equivalent. Wrong.

If you check the Fst distances, you'll see that the Southern component is a lot more removed from Black African clusters than the Southwest Asian is. Sardinians and Basques (as well as some Iberians), show very little West Asian and Southwest Asian, which are no way absent among Middle Eastern populations. If the resolution is very high, those populations show very high percents of Southwest Asian, and if the K's are lower, they get substantial West Asian despite being modal in Southern. So it's not clear at all that Southern must have come with Neolithic farmers, it could have been in Europe even long before considering its non despreciable presence in Southern Europe.

Another explanation is that Neolithic Farmers were not as Middle Eastern as some people thinks, exactly the same valid IMO. Simply because, as I said in other threads, what is identified nowadays as Middle Eastern, is a composite of West Asian and hints of African superposed to the Mediterranean substratum. Hence, quite different considering what Southern in its "pure" form is: very distant from inner African groups, and not specially close to the West Asian cluster according to K7b.

What I say it's more evident in the K10a run, check what Dienekes' said about Mediterranean (Modal in Sardinians, and quite high in both Basques and Iberians):

As for the African/Sub-Saharan components, they tend to be closer to the Southwest Asian/Red Sea components, not the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med one.

The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/African triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes.

zanipolo
21-07-12, 01:44
Malsori, you are mixing apples with oranges. First, because Southwest Asian and Southern are not the same, and you assume that its huge presence in the Middle East makes both things equivalent. Wrong.

If you check the Fst distances, you'll see that the Southern component is a lot more removed from Black African clusters than the Southwest Asian is. Sardinians and Basques (as well as some Iberians), show very little West Asian and Southwest Asian, which are no way absent among Middle Eastern populations. If the resolution is very high, those populations show very high percents of Southwest Asian, and if the K's are lower, they get substantial West Asian despite being modal in Southern. So it's not clear at all that Southern must have come with Neolithic farmers, it could have been in Europe even long before considering its non despreciable presence in Southern Europe.

Another explanation is that Neolithic Farmers were not as Middle Eastern as some people thinks, exactly the same valid IMO. Simply because, as I said in other threads, what is identified nowadays as Middle Eastern, is a composite of West Asian and hints of African superposed to the Mediterranean substratum. Hence, quite different considering what Southern in its "pure" form is: very distant from inner African groups, and not specially close to the West Asian cluster according to K7b.

What I say it's more evident in the K10a run, check what Dienekes' said about Mediterranean (Modal in Sardinians, and quite high in both Basques and Iberians):

As for the African/Sub-Saharan components, they tend to be closer to the Southwest Asian/Red Sea components, not the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med one.

The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/African triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes.

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

ElHorsto
21-07-12, 02:39
Actually it is a good point, which hints towards an interesting difference between K12b and K10a:

According to K10a you are right, there is ca. 27% Atlantic_Baltic in Sardinians. But according to K12b they have exactly 0% North_euro. That's strange, since Atlantic_baltic and North_euro distributions are very similar elsewhere.

That means that:

1. these 27% of Atlantic_Baltic got suddenly added to the Atlantic_med component instead of North_euro by K12b. Let's call it the unknown admixture X.

2. At the same time, another part of Atlantic_med seemingly became Caucasus in K12b for Sardinians.

3. Does it mean that admixture X is exclusively mesolithic/paleolithic west european? I don't think so, since also the Greeks for instance have at least as much Atlantic_Baltic (28.9%) as Sardinians.

The only logical conclusion is that there must have beem a rather old mediterranean component which got added to Atlantic_Baltic in K10a.

(Contrary to some others, I don't consider K12b as invalid, because it just shows a different point of view, hiding and showing different features)

Additional remark: The K12b North_euro comonent for Moroccans is also exactly 0%, but K12a Atlantic_Baltic still varies between 5% and 13%. That's similar to Sardinia, but it's already in Africa.

JFWR
21-07-12, 04:18
Paleolithic or not, I2a and even I1 might have carried the Southern/Mediterranean admixture. Folks of the Megalithic, Cucuteni Tripolje and even the Scandinavian TRB cultures are all described as Mediterraneans, gracile Mediterraneans.
Mediterranean doesn't mean "foreign" or "Middle East" at all. It is a human type that appeared BEFORE the neolithic in some part of Europe.

Those who carried the haplogroup might have other relations to Mediterraneans, but the actual haplogroup is the earliest in Europe from Homo sapiens and the only Homo sapiens for 20,000 years (unless N came into NE Europe during the Ice Age). If we assume Mediterranean types emerged in the Middle East, then this type must have evolved well before 30,000 BC in order to associate it with I, as I migrated into Europe at around 30,000 BC.

spongetaro
21-07-12, 09:34
Those who carried the haplogroup might have other relations to Mediterraneans, but the actual haplogroup is the earliest in Europe from Homo sapiens and the only Homo sapiens for 20,000 years (unless N came into NE Europe during the Ice Age). If we assume Mediterranean types emerged in the Middle East, then this type must have evolved well before 30,000 BC in order to associate it with I, as I migrated into Europe at around 30,000 BC.

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*.

Malsori
21-07-12, 10:14
SouthWestAsian is pulled toward Africa because they have some East-African alleles while most of it is Paleo-Med.Read well before you reply.Eitherway the Southern component is widespread and ancient in MENA to not have originated there.


Malsori, you are mixing apples with oranges. First, because Southwest Asian and Southern are not the same, and you assume that its huge presence in the Middle East makes both things equivalent. Wrong.

If you check the Fst distances, you'll see that the Southern component is a lot more removed from Black African clusters than the Southwest Asian is. Sardinians and Basques (as well as some Iberians), show very little West Asian and Southwest Asian, which are no way absent among Middle Eastern populations. If the resolution is very high, those populations show very high percents of Southwest Asian, and if the K's are lower, they get substantial West Asian despite being modal in Southern. So it's not clear at all that Southern must have come with Neolithic farmers, it could have been in Europe even long before considering its non despreciable presence in Southern Europe.

Another explanation is that Neolithic Farmers were not as Middle Eastern as some people thinks, exactly the same valid IMO. Simply because, as I said in other threads, what is identified nowadays as Middle Eastern, is a composite of West Asian and hints of African superposed to the Mediterranean substratum. Hence, quite different considering what Southern in its "pure" form is: very distant from inner African groups, and not specially close to the West Asian cluster according to K7b.

What I say it's more evident in the K10a run, check what Dienekes' said about Mediterranean (Modal in Sardinians, and quite high in both Basques and Iberians):

As for the African/Sub-Saharan components, they tend to be closer to the Southwest Asian/Red Sea components, not the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med one.

The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/African triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes.

zanipolo
21-07-12, 10:59
SouthWestAsian is pulled toward Africa because they have some East-African alleles while most of it is Paleo-Med.Read well before you reply.Eitherway the Southern component is widespread and ancient in MENA to not have originated there.

would this help

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947100/?tool=pmcentrez

Knovas
21-07-12, 14:13
SouthWestAsian is pulled toward Africa because they have some East-African alleles while most of it is Paleo-Med.Read well before you reply.Eitherway the Southern component is widespread and ancient in MENA to not have originated there.
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.

Knovas
21-07-12, 14:52
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
21-07-12, 16:18
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
21-07-12, 16:41
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
21-07-12, 17:38
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
21-07-12, 18:28
Is there any indication that IJ spread to Europe previous to I? [QUOTE]

Not so far. That is just a guess.

[QUOTE] 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
21-07-12, 21:05
¿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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
22-07-12, 05:27
[QUOTE=JFWR;397245]Is there any indication that IJ spread to Europe previous to I? [QUOTE]

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
22-07-12, 22:49
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
22-07-12, 22:58
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
23-07-12, 18:55
http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helladic_period) period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population

MOESAN
24-07-12, 17:40
http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html (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
24-07-12, 17:46
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
25-07-12, 00:37
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
28-07-12, 05:13
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
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/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadC1kRjhxcHNfSGhPYlUxbEI0VVZPR 0E#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
15-08-12, 00:45
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
17-08-12, 00:20
http://geoecho.snu.ac.kr/earlyho.gif

http://www.scotese.com/images/LGM.jpg

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
17-08-12, 23:54
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
18-08-12, 00:56
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
18-08-12, 00:58
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
18-08-12, 01:22
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
18-08-12, 06:20
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
18-08-12, 16:34
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
18-08-12, 21:09
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
18-08-12, 21:17
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
20-08-12, 23:26
5708

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.

Kardu
21-08-12, 12:02
Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct :):) And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

MOESAN
21-08-12, 18:15
Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct :):) And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

curious developpment of this thread!!!
I agree and disagree with a lot of persons here
1- yes, violence was/is everywhere, less or more, attached I suppose to greediness -
2- no, violence and aggressivity never send progress in Humanity - everyone has to be skilful for defense, but does not need being aggressive - the first axes was for cutting wood and timber, not for killing or only killing animals at first (and yet this last interprétation is very uncertain) - when man want he can transform every stool into an arm and every medical mixture into poison, but it is not an everduring natural condition of living beings - if one makes something and is immediatey challenged by someone else for possession, there is no progress but stagnation - progress comes when the other man tries to do the same farther, or side by side, or even tries to do better: competition is not always aggression... when man keeps too long time his skills and competences for himself in place of sharing, regression is not far, when he shares, progress comes quickly -
3- we are very far here from the topic: autosomals an their significations!
I do not see too well all these argumentations about ice age, toundra and so on... even in the hardest of the LGM tribes of men was running Europe from every direction to every direction, the only difference being that the most harder climatic regions saw less people- the so called "refugiums" at this period was not as populated the one as the other and some northernly places at the frontiers of glaciers was settled by nomadic tribes as today in every toundra - what we can suppose is that the southern regions was the heavier ones for demographic at the worst of the climate, but after that, quickly enough, other people, less numerous at first, begun to grow in number too - about all that I say i 'm a little confused by some analysis of DODECAD: someones shows something, others put only confusion, the terminologies are unstable - D-9 and D-10 seams to me more usefull and appears showing a first arrival from east into S-W Europe (in Basques for the most) a second arrival populating Sardigna and S-E Europe - I am not sure this "basque" component is pure as showed but a good bit of it could be paleo- or old mesolithic (see Finnland); and could be passed by North better than by South - the Sardinian do not appear as very autochtonous finally, even if ancient enough in their island and they show some possible links with West Asians and even with S-W Asians-
I avow i am not helped too much by the namings as 'atlant-balt' or 'atlant-med' or 'mediterranean' or 'NW european' - I wait better defined pools of autosomals

Yetos
21-08-12, 22:16
Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct :):) And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

Violence is not the God that some try to show

in Fact I do not believe that All Europe and IE DNA is after violence,

A good point is also diseases, resist in virus, and strange forms,

A good example is some anaimias, the one who has these anaimias, might not be so strong, but he will not suffer from diseases like Mallaria, West Nile virus etc.

Virus and diseases can change DNA map more easily and more Heavy than war and Battles,
consider that in ancient times, we had war and battles among Rulers major and not among Farmers-Workers-Slaves, the winner took titles and the slaves and workers of the other, But did not kill them cause they were usefull,

So I don't believe that violence change so much Genetical maps, except in some cases of Genocides (like Rwanda),
Violence change mainly the rulers class, and after the marriage of new rulers class with local women gave New Hg to the older population.

Kardu
22-08-12, 01:14
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. My remark was mainly directed to Oriental's post :)
Indeed, I wouldn't like to go off-topic, but have still to mention that the history and technological progress was made by warlike tribes and peoples. Even now the direction of scientific/technological research is controlled and guided by the military complex. Pacifists would be upset but I doubt anyone can point to a peaceful tribe, society, civilization which made a significant contribution to technological development.

Yetos
22-08-12, 02:06
My remark was mainly directed to Oriental's post :)
Indeed, I wouldn't like to go off-topic, but have still to mention that the history and technological progress was made by warlike tribes and peoples. Even now the direction of scientific/technological research is controlled and guided by the military complex. Pacifists would be upset but I doubt anyone can point to a peaceful tribe, society, civilization which made a significant contribution to technological development.

well it depends the kind of technology,

I don't believe that Cancer cure is after military actions, neither Golden gate was done for military reason, neither Aristotle when started the Taxonomy which is considered starting of clear thought science had his mind in wars and battles, neither electricity was searched for military reasons.

Allthough I have to agree that huge amount of founds are being spend to make 'perfect weapons'
Internet starts from RPnet which was a military 'weapon'
I agree that in war times we had perfection of some knowledge and rapid developement due to the presure of winning.
a good example is nitroglygerine which was found to help miners and become a massive weapon like dynamite at its time,

on the other hand sometimes wars stop progress of searching field and technology,
a good example is the Antikythera mechanism. the first mechanical computer made in Syracuses,
if Romans care about navigation and astronomy more than searching military sciences, then Antikythera mechanism technology might be known 2000 years before, and could help us calculate more complex phenomena,

oriental
22-08-12, 21:35
curious developpment of this thread!!!

History helps in understanding how genetic patterns occurred. As Maciamo pointed out in various threads that there were great discontinuities in the European populations as shown by the genes found in the ancient corpses. Hunter-gatherers were the healthiest people around as they were few and they moved around thus they were not disease carriers. It is the agriculturalists living in static and dense areas that carried diseases. The Nomads wouldn't be disease carriers either as they moved around. Disease killing the hunter-gathers doesn't quite match.